By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Stop Killing Games has reached the necessary 1M signatures for their EU initiative

Norion said:

This has potential to do good but there are genuine concerns since something like the recent Flight Simulator games are just not feasible without enough infrastructure to handle the high amount of data streaming. Flight Simulator 2020 for example has literal petabytes of data involved so unless Microsoft is expected to keep the game running for the rest of time eventually they'll stop supporting it leaving it unplayable. They could severely gimp the game and let it remain in that form but that wouldn't truly be preserving it.

In general games where aspects of them require things like external hardware could be at risk if a poorly written law gets passed so instead I'd prefer if it was required for games with an expiration date to openly disclose that and give a lifespan expectation from the get go for example over 10 years so people know what they're buying into and can request refunds if it gets shut down before then. I'm not a fan of governments regulating art but that seems like it could be a good solution that benefits consumers without overly burdening game developers. Temporary experiences happen with all sorts of things and not just video games so I don't think it's inherently a bad thing but stuff like The Crew situation is definitely shite. If not governments platforms like Steam should step in and require something like the above.

We‘re talking about a EU directive. The individual laws are up the countries within the EU once the EU releases a directive in the first place. The EU itself doesn’t really make laws. Just guidelines the countries within have to write into law, wich can look quite different from county to county.

The EU also consults with the petitioners about the possible directive too and if you actually read what the petition says, you‘ll notice that they leave several possibilities for publishers to sunset their games, from options for private servers, to single player modes. One possibility is for publishers to just slap a big fat sticker on their games stating that you’re actually acquiring a license for a service, not a product on the game box. There‘s many ways of making this happen and they’re all more honest for the consumer than the current situation.



Around the Network
SuperNova said:
Norion said:

This has potential to do good but there are genuine concerns since something like the recent Flight Simulator games are just not feasible without enough infrastructure to handle the high amount of data streaming. Flight Simulator 2020 for example has literal petabytes of data involved so unless Microsoft is expected to keep the game running for the rest of time eventually they'll stop supporting it leaving it unplayable. They could severely gimp the game and let it remain in that form but that wouldn't truly be preserving it.

In general games where aspects of them require things like external hardware could be at risk if a poorly written law gets passed so instead I'd prefer if it was required for games with an expiration date to openly disclose that and give a lifespan expectation from the get go for example over 10 years so people know what they're buying into and can request refunds if it gets shut down before then. I'm not a fan of governments regulating art but that seems like it could be a good solution that benefits consumers without overly burdening game developers. Temporary experiences happen with all sorts of things and not just video games so I don't think it's inherently a bad thing but stuff like The Crew situation is definitely shite. If not governments platforms like Steam should step in and require something like the above.

We‘re talking about a EU directive. The individual laws are up the countries within the EU once the EU releases a directive in the first place. The EU itself doesn’t really make laws. Just guidelines the countries within have to write into law, wich can look quite different from county to county.

The EU also consults with the petitioners about the possible directive too and if you actually read what the petition says, you‘ll notice that they leave several possibilities for publishers to sunset their games, from options for private servers, to single player modes. One possibility is for publishers to just slap a big fat sticker on their games stating that you’re actually acquiring a license for a service, not a product on the game box. There‘s many ways of making this happen and they’re all more honest for the consumer than the current situation.

I know, to be more clear there's the risk of countries like France passing a poorly written law in response to it. That possibility is similar to what I brought up so that specific scenario would be fine but the concern is how things would be interpreted since there's the question of how exactly wide or narrow the definition of playable would be. There's potential for harm here if things are handled poorly so I would prefer if platforms like Steam did something like my suggestion instead of dozens of governments getting involved since in my view governments regulating video games and art in general is something that should be avoided whenever possible.

Last edited by Norion - on 05 July 2025

How do I sign out of the eu?



You cannot. Only as a EU citizen.



Almost 1.2 million and 168k in the UK. I know that both of them technically passed the minimum threshold, but the more votes the better (to counterbalance any invalid votes, which I suspect could be quite a lot of).

If you haven't done so ...

For EU citizens (regardless where you reside), please sign this petition --> https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home

For the UK residents (you don't need to be UK citizen, as long as you reside in the UK), please sign this one --> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/702074/

It will literally take no more than 2 minutes of your time



Around the Network
Shadow1980 said:

Good. It really should be legally required that any online-only game must, if the developer/publisher ceases support, make it to where the game remains functional and playable indefinitely without their support. They shouldn't be allowed to just make a game vanish into oblivion with the flip of a switch.

If they don't charge you a dime, I don't see how it should be against the law. Yeah it sucks, but it was free. I think since most of us are gamers and not game developers, we tend to only think about how it affects us and forget about how it might affect the people on the other end.

Now, if it's a game you actually paid for? Then yeah, I think 100% there should be some sort of consumer protection in place where the game has to be available to purchasers in an offline capacity should the servers go down. 



I added my signature to this list.

Honestly, yes.
Just like after 50-75 years? or something, IP can become public domain.
There are now pop-eye and early Disney stuff, that's legal to watch anywhere (simply because its like 100years old or something).

I think old games, that are dead, should be allowed for people to host servers for.
So you can play some old game you bought, a long time ago, and still play it.
If its abandoned by the people that made it..... what is the harm in that?



What even is this? I have not heard of "Stop Killing Games"



Had not heard of it before this thread either, but it is all explained on the homepage stopkillinggames.com



Over 1.25M signatures are now achieved, 1.4M are needed to ensure that there will be more than 1M valid signatures overall and thus goes through to the European commission.