Ross Scott’s Stop Killing Games initiative just reached a major milestone.
The European Union verified 1,294,188 signatures out of nearly 1.5 million the initiative collected last year. That’s well over the 1 million minimum needed to force the EU Commission and Parliament to formally consider the issue. This isn’t some online petition either. This is a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), which means the EU is legally required to respond.
The next phase is to submit the signatures to the EU Commission in Brussels, which will happen sometime in February.
The Stop Killing Games Initiative is Misunderstood
Despite the movement’s growing popularity with gamers, there’s still pushback within the industry.
Developers and publishers keep responding to this initiative as if it’s demanding they keep game servers running forever. I’ve seen the arguments on news sites. “This will bankrupt studios!” “Live-service games will die!” “This is technically impossible!”
Except that’s not what the initiative says.
Not even close.
The initiative explicitly states: “Nothing in this initiative requires companies to keep servers running indefinitely.” It’s right there in the core talking points. Yet somehow, that message keeps getting lost or ignored (I’ll come back to why in a minute).
What the campaign is actually asking for is pretty straightforward. When you sell a game as a product, it shouldn’t become completely unusable just because you decide to flip a switch on your server.
What The Movement Is Asking For
The initiative supports multiple ways companies can comply. When a publisher decides to shut down a game’s servers, give the players something. Anything that lets the game they purchased remain in a playable state.
There’s plenty of options to choose from. Offline mode, peer-to-peer functionality, limited server emulation. Release server binaries to trusted institutions (not to the public; more on that later). Or, if nothing else works, offer refunds.
Notice what’s not on that list? Keeping your servers running online forever.
The campaign is asking the industry to pick the solution that makes sense for your game. Small indie studio? Nobody expects you to spend all of your resources on a game you’re walking away from. Billion-dollar publisher shutting down a game that made hundreds of millions? Yeah, you can do better than “sorry, it’s gone forever.”
What Happens Next
Now that the petition has crossed the threshold, the EU process kicks in whether anyone likes it or not.
First, the European Commission schedules a closed-door meeting with the organizers. These aren’t government employees, by the way. They’re regular people who started this campaign. The EU’s only job was verifying signatures. These volunteers will present the problem, their proposed solutions, and evidence of consumer impact directly to the Commission.
Then comes a public hearing in the European Parliament. This is where things get visible. Members of Parliament can ask questions, challenge assumptions, express support or skepticism. It’s usually livestreamed. The press covers it.
After that, the Commission must issue an official written response. They have to state whether they’ll propose new legislation, modify existing laws, or decline to act (and explain why). This is legally required as they can’t just ignore a successful petition.
Three Possible Outcomes
The best case scenario is that the EU decides this is serious enough to regulate. They could propose new legislation requiring publishers to provide offline modes, server emulation, or continued access when shutting down online games. They should make it mandatory for players to get a refund when purchased games become unplayable. Publishers must plan for end-of-life support. Games can’t simply vanish.
The odds of any of this happening are moderate. The EU has been aggressive on digital consumer rights lately with right-to-repair, the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Services Act. This aligns with their direction but it still requires political will.
Another scenario that’s more realistic is the Commission acknowledges the problem but it won’t implement everything the initiative is asking for. There will be promises to “study the issue further.” Recommendations will be made for what the industry can do to preserve their games, but it won’t be mandatory. Maybe the EU will strengthen refund rules without touching on obligations on what happens to a game’s server when it’s shut down. Some publishers will improve their processes voluntarily. There’s no universal requirement to keep games playable, but awareness increases and public expectations shift.
The EU often takes incremental steps unless the issue involves safety, competition, or privacy. Digital preservation is important, but it’s not yet a priority.
The worst case scenario is the Commission issues a polite “thanks but no thanks.” They claim the issue is outside what the EU can cover, or argue that existing laws already address the issue. There’s no legislative action while more games are shut down without any plans to preserve them for the people who bought them.
The EU rarely dismisses ECIs with over a million verified signatures outright, but it has happened when topics were too niche or difficult to regulate.
Fears Regarding The Source Code
Another misconception I keep seeing is developers worrying they’ll be forced to release proprietary source code.
The Stop Killing Games initiative explicitly states they’re not requesting that.
Why This Keeps Happening
There are three reasons developers keep “misunderstanding” this initiative:
Some genuinely don’t know how the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) works. Developers outside the EU have no idea what these initiatives can legally demand or how the process unfolds.
Some will assume “preservation” automatically means “keep servers running.” Because that’s the most obvious interpretation, even if it’s not what’s being asked.
Then there are the ones who are actively trying to demonize the movement. They want the status quo to remain in place. If you can portray the initiative as “unrealistic” or “technically impossible,” you don’t have to engage with the real argument. Which is that selling someone a product and then remotely disabling it whenever you feel like it is a consumer rights problem.
Being forced to hand out the source code is the biggest fear among developers. The code contains trade secrets and proprietary technology. Any competitor that gets their hands on it gains a huge advantage. The campaign organizers understand this, which is why they’ve specifically said it’s not part of their demands.
Yet developers keep bringing it up as if it’s a dealbreaker. Which makes me wonder if they’re actually aware of what the initiative wants or if they’re just reacting to headlines.
Why This Matters Beyond Gaming
Video games are part of Europe’s cultural heritage. When they disappear, the culture disappears.
That’s a direct quote from the campaign’s talking points, and it’s strategic. It appeals to Parliament’s cultural committees and funding bodies. It presents video games as cultural artifacts worth preserving.
The initiative also aligns with existing EU digital-goods law. The EU already requires digital goods to remain functional for a reasonable lifespan. Arguably, games that become unplayable violate that principle. So this isn’t asking for anything radical. It’s asking for consistency with laws already on the books.
And every year, more games are shut down permanently. Often within 2-5 years of release. This isn’t hypothetical. It’s happening right now, affecting millions of consumers. (The campaign is even trying to help Anthem players pursue refunds after that game’s shutdown.)
Terms of Service
There’s a legal argument buried in this initiative that doesn’t get enough attention. Consumers can’t consent to losing access to a product when the alternative is not purchasing the product at all.
Think about it. You want to play a game. The only way to play it is to agree to terms of service that say the publisher can shut it down whenever they want. That’s not consent. It’s coercion hiding behind a contract.
The current system creates perverse incentives. Companies profit from sales, then shut down the product without consequence. There’s no penalty for pulling the plug. No obligation to preserve what people paid for.
This initiative is trying to change that.
What I’m Watching For
The organizers are setting up a new website (their original one was built quickly and wasn’t designed for long-term use). They’re a small volunteer team preparing for meetings with the Commission. They’ve asked for patience as they navigate the next steps.
I’m curious about whether they can cut through the noise and get their message out there. If the Commission believes the initiative is asking for something that will burden developers and publishers, we’ll be lucky to get the realistic outcome.
It’s important for the organizers to hammer in the real message, so that gamers will get the best-case scenario.
This is about preserving access to purchased games. Nobody wants companies to keep servers online indefinitely. It’s about offline modes, server emulation, alternative access. It’s about consumer rights, not operational mandates.
The Irony Behind The Pushback
Ironically, the gaming industry has inadvertently made the campaign’s case for them.
Every time a major publisher shuts down a game, especially one that was profitable or had an active player base, it reminds everyone of why this initiative exists. Every “sorry, our servers are closing” announcement validates the frustration behind these 1.3 million signatures.
The industry had years to get ahead of this. They could have been proactive in offering offline modes for their games. They could have released server tools or establish their own preservation standards before regulators got involved.
They didn’t.
So now they’re reacting to an initiative that wouldn’t exist if they’d treated digital games with the same permanence as physical ones.
