Stop Killing Games
Video game preservation consumer movement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stop Killing Games (SKG) is a consumer movement that seeks to preserve video games after they are taken offline. It was started in 2024 by Ross Scott in response to the shutdown of Ubisoft's The Crew, a racing game that required a constant internet connection despite being mainly single-player. It uses various legal avenues to push for requiring video game publishers to keep games playable and in a reasonably functioning state even after their discontinuation, challenging the industry trend of selling games as a revocable license or service that can at any moment be rendered obsolete by the publisher.
.png){kind=logo}
The movement's logo, a broken gamepad symbolizing the destruction of video games | |
| Abbreviation | SKG |
|---|---|
| Nickname | Stop Destroying Games |
| Formation | April 2, 2024 |
| Founder | Ross Scott |
| Type | Consumer movement |
| Purpose | Video game preservation after online shutdowns |
Region served | |
| Methods |
|
Official language | 32 languages |
| Website | https://www.stopkillinggames.com |
Stop Killing Games quickly garnered popularity, being covered by various YouTubers and news outlets. It was praised by various celebrities, politicians and game developers for tackling a long-lasting problem in the video game industry, though some were sceptical, citing issues with licensed and proprietary content as well as increased development costs due to preservation efforts.
Stop Killing Games has launched multiple government petitions, of which the most prominent is a European Citizens' Initiative named Stop Destroying Videogames, which received around 1.3 million valid signatures. Additionally, a UK Parliament petition managed to amass enough votes for an official debate, though it was ultimately decided that no amendments to existing law would be made.
Background
The Crew was a 2014 racing game developed by Ubisoft Ivory Tower and Ubisoft Reflections and published by Ubisoft. Due to its always-on DRM, the game required a constant internet connection to play, including in single-player mode.[1] By December 14, 2023, Ubisoft delisted the game and its expansions from digital platforms, suspended sales of microtransactions, and announced that the game's servers would be shut down on March 31, 2024, citing "upcoming server infrastructure and licensing constraints".[2] Ubisoft offered refunds to people who "recently" purchased The Crew, though the time window for an eligible refund was not specified. The servers were shut down as planned on the announced date.[3] Days after the shutdown in early April 2024, Ubisoft began revoking licenses from players who had bought The Crew.[4][5][6]
Ross Scott is a YouTuber primarily known for his machinima series Freeman's Mind[7] and the owner of YouTube channel Accursed Farms.[8] He has been critical of the shutdown of online-only games, describing the practice as an "assault on both consumer rights and preservation of media"[9] and comparing it to movie studios during the silent film era "burning their own films after they were done showing them to recover the silver content", while also pointing out that "most films of that era are gone forever."[10] In 2019, Scott criticized games as a service, calling it fraud.[11]
Overview
The main goal of Stop Killing Games is to prevent video game publishers from unilaterally rendering purchased games unplayable, mainly by shutting down servers for online-only games.[10] The majority of online-only games become inaccessible after discontinuation, with fewer titles receiving official offline patches despite public outcry.[12] Fan-made patches to keep games playable after their shutdown require a dedicated community and run the risk of receiving a takedown notice from the publishers due to alleged copyright or trademark infringement.[13] A problem since the 2000s, it has been exacerbated overtime by the increasing prevalence of digital rights management systems and the decline of private server options.[14]
A central concern of Stop Killing Games involves online-only games and downloadable content being listed on storefronts prominently as a purchase instead of as a rent or lease, despite the possibility of access being remotely denied to the purchaser (without an expiration date at the time of purchase) by the publisher for any or no reason. This practice is widespread across the gaming industry and untested in courts.[1][9] Historically, video games have frequently been dismissed as children's toys and associated with geek culture from their inception until approximately the mid-2000s. Consequently, politicians have largely overlooked issues related to video game preservation and have marginalized video games as a legitimate art form. Stop Killing Games seeks to inform lawmakers about the artistic value of video games and their importance as a product, emphasizing the necessity of preservation efforts and addressing concerns regarding the apparent lack of user ownership and potential consumer law violations by publishers.[15]
Stop Killing Games does not demand for games to be supported and updated forever, rather suggesting that they be left in a reasonably functional state after discontinuation, such as by introducing an offline mode or the ability to host private servers.[10] Scott also clarified that it does not focus on delisted games that are still playable after discontinuation or any financial censorship issues.[16]
Stop Killing Games uses government initiatives and other legal avenues in order to pursue regulation in favor of game preservation.[1] Countries with strong consumer protection laws, such as France and Germany, are prioritized within the movement's reach. Other countries are less available, such as Brazil, due to lack of The Crew's sales data, or the United States, which Scott wrote off as a fruitful legal or political arena for any initiative as a result of the precedent set by the court ruling ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg.[16][17]
Members
Activities
2024
| External videos | |
|---|---|
 The largest campaign ever to stop publishers destroying games |
In April 2024, after the shutdown of The Crew, Scott released a video titled "The largest campaign ever to stop publishers destroying games" on his YouTube channel introducing Stop Killing Games and launched a website for the campaign.[11] He also encouraged multiple petitions for Stop Killing Games, such as the UK Parliament petition and the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) in the European Union,[10][20][21] the latter of which gained over 350,000 signatures in the first two months.[22]
At the same time, public complaints about The Crew's shutdown to consumer agencies were also encouraged, such as the Directorate General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Protection in France[9][23] and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in Australia.[24] The European Citizens' Initiative was later renamed to Stop Destroying Videogames, with Scott opting not to use the word "kill" to avoid confusion with the topic of violence and video games.[25] The initiative's organizers have been reported to cooperate with members of the European Parliament, Niklas Nienaß from the Green Party and Patrick Breyer from the Pirate Party.[24]
The UK government responded to the Parliament petition, stating that "there is no requirement in UK law compelling software companies and providers to support older versions of their operating systems, software or connected products".[26][27] On May 30, 2024, the petition was cut short due to the calling of the 2024 general election in the country. A new petition was started, quickly gaining over 10,000 signatures, which was the amount needed for a guaranteed response for the government.[28][29]
2025
- Preserved by developers 16 (2.40%)
- Preserved by fans 110 (16.5%)
- At risk 313 (46.9%)
- Unplayable 229 (34.3%)
In February 2025, the UK government responded to the new petition, stating that it had "no plans to amend consumer law on digital obsolescence", but pointing out that "if consumers are led to believe that a game will remain playable indefinitely for certain systems, despite the end of physical support, the CPR may require that the game remains technically feasible [...] to play under those circumstances".[28][29] In May 2025, Scott published a spreadsheet containing various online-only video games and their playability status. Rock Paper Shotgun reported that 68% out of the 738 games were either unplayable or at risk. Only 16 games that were playable after discontinuation have been salvaged by the developers, with the other 110 being fan-preserved.[12]
While the European Citizens Initiative gained many signatures at the start, it quickly lost momentum, stagnating at around 450,000 signatures, 45% of the 1 million signatures needed for Commission representatives to act on the petition. In June 2025, Scott uploaded a video, expecting the initiative to fail and outlining that the problem with the insufficient signatures "isn't getting gamers to care about games; it's getting people to care about anything".[30][31] Support for the initiative increased greatly after the release of the video.
On July 2, 2025, the UK Parliament petition reached 100,000 signatures, meaning it was considered for debate in Parliament.[32][33] One day later, on July 3, 2025, the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) reached 1 million signatures, making it eligible for debate in the European Commission. However, Scott stated that more signatures are still needed to counteract invalid ones that would be removed.[34][35] The UK petition went on to close on July 14, 2025 with 189,887 signatures[36]. For the ECI, an additional target of 1.4 million signatures was set, which was achieved on July 20, 2025.[37][38] Scott also mentioned a cryptocurrency under the title of Stop Killing Games, stating that it has nothing to do with him or the campaign, calling it a "scam".[39]
On July 21, 2025, Scott uploaded a video where he revealed that a transparency complaint had been filed against the EU petition, accusing the campaign of failing to "provide clear, accurate and comprehensive information on the sources of funding for the initiative exceeding €500 per sponsor". Scott rejected the claim, noting having no financial support on the EU petition and claiming that the organizers "literally asked EU representatives if it was okay for [him] to assist them in the capacity [he] have been back in spring 2024... [and] they said what [he has] been doing is fine". He also stated that the EU petition is separate from the Stop Killing Games campaign and has its own organisers, of whom he is not a part of. While the complaint was filed anonymously, Scott suspects video game industry representatives to be behind it.[40][41]
On July 29, 2025, Scott uploaded a video encouraging viewers to send feedback to the EU's Digital Fairness Act public consultation.[42] On July 31, 2025, the Stop Destroying Videogames European Citizens Initiative closed,[43] with a final signature count of approx. 1,448,271 signatures.[44] Initial validation of the signature by the initiative estimated that 97% of the signatures were valid, making it likely the petition would require addressing by the EU.[45] On August 4, Scott uploaded a video, opining that Stop Killing Games has "changed the timeline, or is attempting to" and that "without [Stop Killing Games], The Crew would have been just another shutdown", noting the lack of response from various previously discontinued games, most notably Overwatch. He also revealed that he hasn't "had time to play a game for close to a couple months", stating that he aims to go on a "standby break" from the campaign.[18][46][47] On October 26, Stop Killing Games organizer Moritz Katzner[48] shared the progress of the European Citizens Initiative validation and the Digital Fairness Act, the latter of which was described as "record-breaking", and revealed their intention of cooperating with other game studios, clarifying that "the vast majority of studios—especially European ones, both indie and AAA—have always listened to players and strived to do right by the community" and that the issue of game preservation "is driven by a powerful few who do not represent the values of creators or players."[49][50]
2026
Shortly after the shutdown of the 2019 game Anthem on January 12, 2026, the official Twitter account for Stop Killing Games stated that the customer "should have the final say as to when [one's] done with a game, not the company", addressing the game's poor reputation with the proverb "one man's trash is another man's treasure."[51] On January 26, 2026, the SKG team revealed that the verification phase for the European Citizens' Initiative has concluded, with the final count of 1,294,188 valid signatures, 89% of the initial signature count.[52][53] Following the announcement, the European Commission stated that it has until July 27, 2026 to discuss the initiative in detail, initiate a public hearing and present an official reply, "outlining the actions it intends to take, if any."[54][55]
On February 19, Scott revealed that two official Stop Killing Games non-governmental organizations (NGO) were launched in the EU and the US, stating that it will allow for "long-term counter lobbying" as well as a website for reporting delisted games to consumer agencies. The EU efforts are leaded by Moritz Katzner, a German political operative involved with SKG since 2025.[56] Scott also opined that the video game industry spends more money on lobbyists than it would take to "fix their development process."[57]
| External videos | |
|---|---|
| SKG Press Conference (Brussels, February 2026) |
.jpg)
On February 23, a press conference between Stop Killing Games and members of the EU Parliament was held in Brussels. Markéta Gregorová, MEP for Greens–European Free Alliance, emphasized the impact of campaigning, mentioning the Chat Control proposal that was widely criticized as invasive and inefficient by various groups and individuals, despite initially receiving support in the Parliament. She continued by stating that the upcoming Digital Fairness Act was presented to the European Commission, with the Parliament now being able to make amendments to the legislation. Despite opining that the Commission had "factually no interest to bring [SKG] in," Katzner remarked that the meeting went "fine" and helped highlight bipartisanship from both left- and right-wing political parties.[58] YouTuber Josh "Strife" Hayes, who was also present during the press conference, noted the difficulty of presenting video games to lawmakers as "products [that] are being removed via a one-sided contract that gives companies permission to do so whenever."[15] The same day, the organizers of Stop Destroying Videogames presented the initiative's signatures to the Commission.[59]
On March 31, 2026, with the support of Stop Killing Games, the French consumer rights group UFC-Que Choisir sued Ubisoft over the shutdown of The Crew, asserting Ubisoft misled consumers on the permanence of availability for the game.[60] In April 2026, Stop Killing Games unveiled its support for the drafting of the Californian legislation bill Protect Our Games Act.[61] In May 2026, SKG gave it's support for groups fighting against age verification laws. Scott reckoned such laws threaten video games since they "can also make private servers, modding communities, fan projects, open-source tools, and preservation work harder or even impossible to operate". Scott used the example of Urban Dead, a 20 year old browser game ran from UK servers that was forced to shutdown due to being unable to meet requirements set by the UK's Online Safety Act 2023.[62]
Reactions
Initial reception
.jpg)
Upon the release of the Stop Killing Games introduction video in 2024, it quickly gained views and was covered by multiple gaming news outlets and YouTubers.[11] Streamer Jason Hall, known online as PirateSoftware, criticized Stop Killing Games in a video on his YouTube channel; his response is thought by Scott to have stagnated the campaign's progress. On June 23, 2025, after Hall had repeatedly refused subsequent attempts at clarification from Scott, the latter publicly criticized Hall's video, stating that the former didn't understand the purpose of the campaign and that he had misconstrued the initiative.[31] Several other YouTubers, such as Cr1TiKaL, came out in defense of Scott, sharing many of the same criticisms against Hall.[63]
.jpg)
In addition, gaming content creators such as xQc, Asmongold, PewDiePie and jacksepticeye, as well as consumer rights activist Louis Rossmann, have shown support for the initiative.[64]
Political and organisational reaction
Member and vice-president of the European Parliament Nicolae Ștefănuță endorsed and signed the European Citizens' Initiative.[65] Markus Persson, the creator of Minecraft, also supported the initiative.[66] Owlcat Games, the developer studio behind Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous and Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader, responded positively to the initiative, stating that "Every player deserves lasting access to what they've paid for."[67][68][69] Alanah Pearce, a notable game journalist, interviewed 20 anonymous developers from various game studios, and although they questioned the perceived vagueness of the petition, all of them support the movement and opined that it may challenge current video game preservation efforts.[70]
Sergio Ferrera, intellectual property lawyer and writer for Gamesindustry.biz, opined that, while the petition has good intentions, it "runs the risk of doing more damage than good" and that "for real change to happen, proposals must reflect the realities of IP law, contract obligations, and server infrastructure", noting the difficulty of converting a server-dependent game to work offline as well as potential legal issues with licensed content and proprietary middleware.[71]
In an interview with TheGamer, Randy Pitchford, president and CEO of Gearbox Software, expressed his appreciation for the movement, noting to have experienced the shutdown of Battleborn and calling it an "emotional experience", while stating that he "[admires] the activism", opining that "it comes from the same heart that [he has], which is a heart that loves experiences that are worthy and just wants to make sure they're there forever."[72][73][74] Mark Darrah, former BioWare employee and producer of the discontinued Anthem, stated that while he does "believe in game preservation" and that the game could have been built with preservation in mind, mentioning Destiny 2's peer-to-peer hosting system as an example, the game likely would "have been a worse experience" because of potential additional spendings on game preservation that could be spent elsewhere, opining that with SKG "there are consequences to basically mandating that things not go away forever, but maybe those are consequences that we want to pay, that we want to accept".[75][76]
UFC-Que Choisir, a French consumers group, have stated that "regarding The Crew [...] the information provided upstream, upon purchase and use of the game, is far too vague for an average consumer to be aware that they have simply acquired the right to play", and that they are considering to take the matter to court.[77] Maciej Gołębiewski, managing director of GOG Sp. z.o.o., called game preservation a "very complicated riddle", noting the difficulties of ownership, technical aspects and commercial viability, while opining that putting "too many barriers on game creators and what the end-of-life cycle looks like" may result in fewer games being made.[78] Dino Patti, co-founder of Playdead, expressed his dislike towards online digital obsolescence, noting himself buying The Crew and never having the chance to play it, while stating that it's a step in the right direction.[79]
Trade associations
Video game industry trade association responses were mostly critical of the movement and its actions. In July 2025, Video Games Europe, a trade association representing game developers and publishers in the European Union, responded to the European Citizens' Initiative, stating that it would be "too expensive for developers and publishers to offer private servers or single-player modes in games that lose online multiplayer support" and that fan-supported games and servers "could present legal liabilities for companies".[80][81]
The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) strongly opposed the introduction of the Protect Our Games Act in April 2026. In a statement to ABC10, ESA argued that the Californian bill "could force developers to spend limited time and resources keeping old systems running instead of creating new games, features, and technology," and that the policy does not reflect the current state of the gaming industry, where "many games depend on evolving technology, licensed content, and online systems that change over time." This prompted a response from Katzner, who clarified that the bill is not retroactive, does not demand for perpetual support and "gives companies options: preserve ordinary use, patch the game, or refund the purchaser."[82][83] PC Gamer noted that the ESA's stance was not unprecedented, citing a similar response from Video Games Europe as well as ESA's lobbying against a DMCA exception proposed by the Video Game History Foundation that would allow libraries and museums to remotely share access to digital copies of the out-of-print games.[83]
Ubisoft
Ubisoft initially refused to comment on the situation with The Crew.[11] After severe player backlash—fueled in part by the initiative launched by Stop Killing Games, according to PC Gamer—Ubisoft promised to add an offline mode to The Crew 2 and The Crew Motorfest, though the discontinued The Crew was not mentioned.[22][84][85] In April 2025, Ubisoft released an update video on the upcoming offline mode for The Crew 2, stating that not all features will be available offline and that the mode playtesting will begin on April 30.[86][87][88] The offline mode was added to The Crew 2 in October 2025[89] and continued receiving improvements into 2026.[90] Motorfest's offline mode is still planned.[91][92][93]
In July 2025, CEO of Ubisoft Yves Guillemot responded to a shareholder's question about Stop Killing Games, stating that the company provides "information regarding the game and how long the game can be played" and that the company is "doing [their] best to make sure that things go well for all players and buyers", clarifying that "support for all games cannot last forever."[94] The response was negatively received, with various users and news sources pointing out that the goal of Stop Killing Games is to ensure game playability after discontinuation instead of a demand for perpetual support.[95][96][97]
Debates
UK Parliament
The UK Parliament petition debate took place November 3, 2025, being livestreamed on the official UK Parliament YouTube channel.[98] Various points were raised by the members of Parliament. Pam Cox, MP for Colchester, argued that the current consumer protection laws are insufficient and that video game publishers should "provide routes for players to retain or repair games" even after discontinuation. Henry Tufnell, the MP for Mid and South Pembrokeshire, opined that taking down games "erases a cultural and artistic heritage that is vital to society and to the wider industry", noting that "if every copy of a book, film, or song were destroyed, we would see it as a cultural tragedy." Mark Sewards, MP for Leeds South West and Morley, compared the discontinuation of games to a printer being remotely turned off after the end of support, stating that the publishers should provide a "reasonable" option of using the product after discontinuation via single-player modes or private servers.[99]
The debate lasted about an hour, and it was ultimately decided that no amendments to law would be made, but that the government would work to ensure that companies would provide consumers with accurate information. Stephanie Peacock, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Sport, Media, Civil Society and Youth, stated:[100]
The government is sympathetic to the concerns raised, but we do also recognise the challenges in delivering this from the video game industry perspective. First, this would have a negative technical impact on video game development. It is true that there are some games where it would be relatively simple to patch an offline mode after its initial release, but for games whose systems have been specifically designed for an online experience this wouldn't be possible without major redevelopment. Requiring an end of life plan for all games would fundamentally change how games are developed and distributed. While that may well be the desired outcome for some campaigners, it isn't right to say the solutions would either be simple or inexpensive.
Though Katzner considered the verdict unsatisfactory, he stated that the UK efforts are "far from dead in the water."[61] After the debate, Morton Atkins, chairperson and coordinator of Green Party of England and Wales's branch for Aylesbury Vale in Buckinghamshire, expressed his desire to pursue the party's MPs, which were not present at the debate due to their low numbers, to support Stop Killing Games.[101]
European Parliament
As the European Citizens' Initiative was successfully summited to the European Commission in February 2026, the public hearing at the European Parliament was held on April 16, 2026.[102][103] Committee vice chair Nils Ušakovs highlighted the importance of the initiative, calling it a "concern for [...] probably hundreds of millions of European citizens." European Commission director and copyright lawyer Giuseppe Abbamonte pledged to look into copyright regulations that aren't adequately covering the video game industry and report his findings in July. Ross Scott was also invited as a speaker due to his prolific debunking of arguments against the initiative. He highlighted the lack of legal protections of customers who buy online-only games, emphasizing that unilaterally disabling products would be considered "outrageous in other industries", comparing terms of service in online-only games to an insurance policy that can be nullified by the seller at any time and for any or no reason without a money-back guarantee and calling such practices "scams":[104]
Publishers know customers expect video games to last, so they sell these in the same ways as ones that can work forever, as a one-time purchase with no expiry date and price them the same. Were publishers to inform us when they planned to disable a game, it would of course reduce sales of that game, since the longevity of a game affects how much customers are willing to pay. The industry is trying to have it both ways, trying to find ways to say they're selling you a game that they're not selling you. This creates confusion for everyone involved and it's part of the reason why it's taking customers to get exposure on this practice.
— Ross Scott
Additionally, Scott shared statistics about video game shutdowns, noting that 93.5% out of 400 discontinued games were left in an unusable state. He concluded by welcoming solutions to the online game preservation problem, clarifying that the movement focuses on consumer protection and does not demand for business model changes so long as the publishers can provide sufficient end-of-life support.[104]
Effects
United States
Despite Scott being pessimistic about the movement's effectiveness in the United States, several law amendments were proposed, particularly in the state of California. In September 2024, a new Californian law AB 2426[105] was signed that forces digital storefronts to disclose what the user is getting after making a transaction to access digital goods, making it illegal to use the terms "buy" and "purchase" while only providing a license that can be revoked at any time—a practice common among digital storefronts.[106] The law does not extend to games that can be played offline permanently.[107][108] The law came to effect on January 1, 2025.[109] Various sources attributed SKG's impact to the law's signing.[107][110] In October 2024, Steam added a disclaimer that a game purchase only grants a license, presumably to comply with the Californian law.[111][112] GOG.com, a DRM-free storefront, responded to the law by posting a concept banner that states that GOG's offline game installers "cannot be taken away".[113][114]
Protect Our Games Act
In February 2026, the Protect Our Games Act was introduced. Initially proposed by California State Assembly member Chris Ward in February of that year, the bill would require publishers to inform consumers 60 days in advance about a game ending support and to provide clear information about the game's functionality after its end-of-life. The bill would also prohibit companies from selling a game two months before their discontinuation and require them to provide either a patch for the game to function independently of the publisher's servers, a separate version of the game that operates autonomously in the same vein or a full product return.[61]
The bill would affect all games published in California released after January 1, 2027. A committee hearing was then scheduled for April 16, 2026, where Organisers of the E.C.I., together with affiliated volunteers from the SKG movement, could explain their views in more details to Members of the European Parliament, and answer their questions.[61] Another hearing was scheduled on 14 May, featuring state assembly representative Buffy Wicks,[82] during which the California State Assembly's Committee on Appropriations reviewed the bill, with 11 votes in favour of introducing the bill versus two votes against and two abstained voters, paving the way for a planned full State Assembly vote.[115]
See also
- Concord - a defunct 2024 video game notable for being discontinued 14 days after launch
- You'll own nothing and be happy
- Video game preservation
- List of delisted video games
