A Quiet Crisis: When Games Disappear After Being Bought

Many video games today run only if their servers are online. That means when a company shuts down those servers, people who bought the game lose access sometimes forever.

For gamers, this is deeply upsetting. You paid, but now you can't play. This isn’t just about nostalgia it's about fairness, ownership, and preserving the digital history of games people care about.

How the Stop Killing Games Campaign Started

The Stop Killing Games movement was founded by Ross Scott, a YouTuber behind the "Accursed Farms" channel.

The spark came when Ubisoft shut down the servers for The Crew, a ten-year-old game, making it completely unplayable even for people who owned it.

Scott and other gamers argued that this is a form of planned obsolescence: companies are essentially killing the games people bought without warning.

A petition was launched to force governments to recognize this issue, calling for rules that would require publishers to create “end-of-life plans” ways for games to keep working even if their servers go offline.

What Does Stop Killing Games Actually Ask For?

The campaign asks for two main things:

1. Legal requirements so that when online-only games are shut down, players can still play them for example via offline modes, or by letting players run their own servers.

2. Clear information at the time of purchase companies should clearly tell buyers if the game depends on always-online servers and whether it may become unplayable in the future.

In short: it's not asking companies to run servers forever, but to plan ahead for game shutdown in a way that respects customers.

How the Campaign Gained Traction

The petition gained massive support. In the UK, it has crossed 100,000 signatures, triggering a required consideration for debate in Parliament.

At the same time, there was also a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) pushing for similar rights at the EU level. That campaign has also gained a lot of momentum, eventually surpassing 1 million signatures in July 2025.

The UK Government Says “No”: But Why?

In February 2025, the UK’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) responded formally. Their reply was firm: no changes to consumer law.

Their core arguments:

• Online games are “dynamic, interactive services” keeping servers running costs a lot, sometimes for years or decades.

• There is already law that requires games to be described clearly to consumers; misleading or hidden terms may violate existing consumer protections.

• They worry that forcing companies to support games indefinitely could have “unintended consequences”: higher costs, less innovation, or companies choosing not to make certain kinds of games.

In the Parliament on 3 November 2025, MPs debated the issue, but the government did not budge at all.

What Do Gamers Think: And What’s at Stake?

Many gamers and campaign supporters feel strongly that digital ownership matters. If you pay full price for a game, you should have the right to play it even if the company later shuts off the servers.

Some use the example of Anthem, a game that will be shut down by BioWare and EA, leaving players with nothing but memories.

Others point out that the UK response is legally weak: while there is some protection under consumer laws, it's limited and often depends on how clearly the game was marketed.

There’s also a cultural argument: video games are more than products they are part of our digital heritage. Losing access to them means losing a piece of history.

Challenges, Criticism, and Controversies

The campaign isn’t without its critics or complications:

There have been accusations that Ross Scott (the campaign's figurehead) did not fully report financial contributions, because he spent huge amounts of time voluntarily promoting the campaign efforts that some argue should count financially.

On the EU petition side, there were concerns about fake or spoofed signatures.

Some in the gaming industry warn that mandatory offline modes or server handoffs could raise security and cost issues, or force companies to change how they make games.

So What Now? What Could Happen Next

The UK debate has already happened, but laws did not change as of now, no new legal protection.

The European push continues: the ECI reached its first signature milestone, but needs to maintain validity.

On the consumer side, this conversation has shifted: more people are aware that buying the game doesn’t always mean permanent access and they’re demanding clarity.

The campaign has sparked industry-wide reflection: how should game companies handle “end of life” for their games? What obligations do they owe players?

Why the Effort Matters

At its heart, Stop Killing Games is not just a petition it's a consumer rights movement. It asks a simple but powerful question: if I buy a game, shouldn’t I be able to enjoy it, even when the servers shut down?

It is also about the preservation of digital things. Games are a huge part of our modern culture, and losing them means losing a piece of our collective memory.

By pushing for end-of-life plans, campaigners want to make sure that the games do not just vanish when companies decide to move on.

Finally, it is like a wake-up call to both the players as well as the companies that the business of games is changing, and so must the rules about ownership, transparency, and preservation.

Final Thoughts

The UK’s rejection of the Stop Killing Games campaign doesn’t mean the conversation is over. If anything, this campaign has made its point that people care deeply about having control over what they buy, even in this evolving digital world.

While the government has resisted new laws for now, the debate has fueled awareness, pushed companies to think, and given gamers a clearer voice.