You may or may not have heard about the Stop Killing Games movement, which was an attempt to raise awareness and foster legislation around the games industry predilection towards, well, killing games they sold. For example, it is not uncommon these days for single-player games to authenticate or “phone home” on start-up. If the publisher decides to shut down that authentication server, whoops, your game is bricked. Other multiplayer games may feature both online and local multiplayer modes, but will still be nonfunctional even via local connections if the overall game is shut down.

Recently, the movement made it all the way to the European Commission, where it had perhaps its best hope of achieving something actionable. Unfortunately, it fell short.

The Commission considers that at this stage it cannot propose a legal obligation to keep video games playable after they stop being provided commercially. This is due, also, to existing intellectual property rights. Under EU copyright law, rights holders enjoy exclusive rights over their creations. In addition to copyright, other intellectual property rights may also be relevant as they may protect different visual and technological aspects of a video game. 

Existing EU consumer law already provides for important safeguards protecting the economic interests of consumers. Video game providers must inform consumers about the duration and the conditions for terminating the contract before the consumers signs up for the video game. The Directive on digital content and digital services provides consumers with remedies when the content or service provided does not conform with the contract and what consumers could reasonably expect. Consumers may be entitled to proportionate refund of their purchases.  

My title is a bit sensationalist, as the movement continues on along other avenues. In the US, there is the Protect Our Games Act moving forward in the California legislature. Back in the EU, I believe the focus is now on the Digital Fairness Act, where some of the goals may still be achievable.

What I really wanted to talk about with this topic though, is the frustrating counter-arguments surrounding it. Specifically, the sort of “you can’t just legislate that” or “how it is achievable needs to be expressly defined” arguments. Uh, no. As demonstrated by the apparently worldwide age verification push – and insane attacks against VPN usage – shit gets mandated by fiat all the damn time.

I understand that that is… perhaps not the sort of comparison that invites sympathy to a movement. Nevertheless, the sort of reductive, prescriptionist mindset of “you can’t do that because it doesn’t work that way” grinds my gears when, in fact, people have to put up with crazy, non-consumer-friendly changes all the time. See also: Congressional approval for wars longer than 60 days, repaying unconstitutional tariffs, rampant corruption, etc, etc, etc. Just because we have normalized “buying” revokable licenses to play the games in question doesn’t mean we have to accept it forever.

Hell, go nuclear with it: force game companies to replace the words Buy/Purchase with RENT, if it’s in fact just a revokable license. Let GOG and any other storefront that allows for offline downloads continue to use Buy/Purchase, assuming the game can still be played with the servers shut off. “But Azuriel, what constitutes ‘playable’ if it requires 100 TB servers to function?” “What if the devs ‘update’ the game to be Pong in the last patch before shutdown and claim that they made the game playable?” Simple – see ya in court! Maybe have some teeth in there so that there is an automatic refund (to include DLC and cash shop) mechanism until/unless the publishers demonstrate they were in the right.

Things don’t have to be shitty. We used to own things, no matter what the EULAs said. If you still have a functioning Playstation 2 and a PS2 game, you can go play it right now. Warner Brothers doesn’t get to remotely delete the DVDs on your shelves just because the studios merged and then shut down. Your books are (probably) not written in disappearing ink that takes proprietary lamps to display.

“But what about all the potential games this could hurt?” Fuck’em. No, seriously, if the economic viability of your entire design is predicated on smoke and mirrors and otherwise leaving town before the bill comes due, maybe don’t make that game. Maybe nothing of value will be lost.

I dunno, guys. I never played Anthem, even when it was “free” on Game Pass. But it’s gone now for everyone, including the people who bought it, forever. Even though, technically, you could spin up a private server, assuming you don’t get sued. Sure, IP owners own the IP, so if they don’t want to sell it anymore, that is their right; Disney used to “vault” their classic movies on a rotating basis, presumably as a marketing ploy or whatever. If you had bought Cinderella though, you could still watch it. If someone can prove they purchased Anthem, what’s the actual harm in letting them run a copy?

The industry just seems to keep coming back around to having pirates offer the superior version of the product, e.g. one that works. I understand why things are set up this way, but they don’t have to be. Nor do I have to figure it out for them. Maybe fewer $80 game rentals is exactly what we need.