GOG’s managing director, Maciej Gołębiewski, said in an interview that forcing developers to keep games running online forever could lead to fewer new releases. He thinks game preservation could discourage studios from making certain titles.
You want to know what I think? He’s completely missing the point of what the Stop Killing Games initiative is advocating for.
It’s mind-boggling because Gołębiewski works for GOG, a company literally built around game preservation and DRM-free releases. It doesn’t make sense for him to misunderstand what Stop Killing Games (SKG) is trying to do. No one is asking for games to stay online longer than they’re profitable or demanding companies keep servers running for decades at a loss. That’s not what this is about.
What Stop Killing Games Actually Wants
The Stop Killing Games movement has one goal: give consumers the option to preserve a video game once it reaches its end of life cycle. SKG doesn’t want studios to feel like they have to keep servers running forever or maintain live service games indefinitely.
This can range from letting players host the game on private, “fan run” servers or requesting that developers make a separate offline mode. The whole point is that gamers are tired of seeing the games they love disappear after paying for them.
Elden Ring is a perfect example of a game made to be played online or offline. You can force it to start in “Play Offline” mode from the settings. It’ll offer to run offline if it can’t connect, though you’ll lose messages, bloodstains, co-op, and invasions. The core campaign, saves, and progression all work locally.
See the difference? When you build a house, you include fire exits. When you launch a game, you should have an end-of-life plan so that players will still be able to play.
The Paradox of Ownership
It’s not like game companies put an expiration date on their games that consumers agree to at the time of purchase. They don’t say “Hey, you’re buying this for $60-$70, but just so you know, in three years we’re going to flip a switch and this entire thing stops working.” That’s not what customers paid for.
Yet these same companies want players to invest large amounts of money on digital items in games they legally don’t own. You’re asking me to spend real money on cosmetics, battle passes, characters, whatever, but you reserve the right to just delete it all whenever you feel like it?
It would be nice for a company to say upfront “This is a live service game. When we end support in X years, here’s how we’ll transition it so you can still play what you bought.” That’s better than spending $70 on a game, another $200 on in-game items, then one day everything you paid for vanishes into thin air.
DRM Should End With the Game
Companies use internet connections as a form of DRM (digital rights management, basically copy protection). Fine. Piracy is a concern. When the company ends the life of a game, the DRM should end as well. The players who legally purchased the game should be able to play it.
Think about it this way. Microsoft ended the life of Windows 10. It’s not getting any more updates, yet people are still able to use it at their own risk. Microsoft didn’t remotely disable everyone’s computers just because they stopped supporting the OS. That would be absurd. So why is it acceptable for game companies to do exactly that with titles people paid for?
Diablo III at launch used an always-online DRM even for solo play. Your character data lived on Battle.net servers. Gran Turismo 7 has an offline arcade mode, but almost all progression, economy, and the core campaign needs an internet connection. Hitman 3 technically lets levels load offline. But saving progress, challenges, and unlocks (basically everything that makes it a full game) depends on being connected. All of these games could function offline if the companies designed them that way or patched them at end-of-life. But they won’t, because the DRM is the point.
Multiplayer, MMOs, and Preservation
Now, I know what some of you are thinking: “Okay, but what about games that are multiplayer-only by design? Like MMOs or live service shooters?”
For a fully online multiplayer game, SKG’s goal is to ensure there’s some way to keep playing after shutdown. This can be done via private servers, community-hosted servers, or peer-to-peer modes.
Preservation for multiplayer games could include a dedicated server binary. One that allows peer-hosted lobbies, providing documentation and tools so fans can restore functionality. Another option is giving explicit legal permission for emulation and preservation efforts.
The messy part is the current MMO gray area. Private servers for games like Star Wars Galaxies or City of Heroes exist in a legal limbo. Fan projects run using the original client plus community-made server code. The rights-holders may not force them to shut the servers down, but there’s no formal public license that makes them official.
Safety, IP, and Strawmen
Some people argue that community servers are dangerous. IP addresses get exposed, DDoS attacks, security risks, and so on. Those are real concerns, but they’re separate problems that can be mitigated with VPNs, modern dedicated-server netcode, relay servers, or third-party hosting.
Gołębiewski warns that if regulators require developers to maintain online functionality for 10 to 20 years, studios will avoid ambitious online projects. They’d have to budget not just development and marketing, but very long-term server and maintenance costs. Except that’s not what anyone is asking for.
He’s arguing against a strawman. SKG doesn’t want 20 years of maintained servers. It wants an end-of-life plan. Patch the game so it runs without publisher servers. Release the server code. Provide offline modes. Give the community the tools to take over. These aren’t ongoing costs. They’re considerations that should be part of the original design.
Fewer Games, Better Games
Gołębiewski suggests that strict preservation laws could mean fewer new games, especially experimental online titles. Honestly? If fewer games are made, fine. It would probably lead to higher quality games with better designs.
If you know you have to provide an end-of-life solution, you’re going to design more carefully. You’re going to think about long-term playability.
Best case scenario: fewer well-designed games per year that can be preserved. Worst case scenario: a flood of disposable games that all get shut down and deleted within 3 to 5 years.
What Are We Buying?
This whole debate comes down to a fundamental question: what are we buying when we buy a game? If I buy a physical book, I own that book. The publisher can’t come to my house and take it back. If I buy a movie on Blu-ray, I own that copy and the studio can’t remotely delete it.
With games, apparently, I’m buying a temporary license. The right to access something as long as the company feels like letting me. Even single-player content that has no reason to require their servers. When you buy a product, it should continue to function regardless of the company’s ongoing involvement. Just like every other product you purchase.
Why Preservation Helps Everyone
Game preservation isn’t about nostalgia or playing old games. It’s about consumer rights. You paid for something, you should be able to access it.
It’s also about protecting gaming history. Games are a form of art that’s worth preserving. Future game developers could learn a lot from studying old games, which could lead to better games.
Honestly? It’s better for companies in the long run too. You know what builds customer loyalty? Not deleting the things people paid for. Companies like GOG proved there’s a market for this. People want to own what they buy and know that it will still work in five, ten, twenty years.
Gołębiewski and others in the industry need to understand what Stop Killing Games is asking for before they argue against it. If having an end-of-life plan means we get fewer but better-designed games, that’s a trade-off worth making.
