UK government responds to Stop Killing Games campaign. There is "no requirement in UK law" preventing publishers from rendering older games unplayable

[Gamernyc78]

UK government responds to Stop Killing Games campaign

A public campaign to prevent publishers from pulling online support from video games in a way that makes them unplayabl…

www.gamesindustry.biz

A public campaign to prevent publishers from pulling online support from video games in a way that makes them unplayable has prompted a response from the UK government.

The Stop Killing Games campaign organised a petition on the government's website, which passed the 10,000 signatories needed to secure a response. The statement added below the petition was attributed to the Department of Culture, Media & Sport.

In its statement, the Department said: "Consumers should be aware 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. There may be occasions where companies make commercial decisions based on the high running costs of maintaining older servers for video games that have declining user bases."

But the Department emphasised that all video game companies are beholden to existing consumer laws and regulations, adding:

"If consumers are led to believe that a game will remain playable indefinitely for certain systems, despite the end of physical support, the [Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008] may require that the game remains technically feasible (for example, available offline) to play under those circumstances."

The petition will continue to run until October 16, 2024 and if it passes 100,000 signatures, it will be considered for debate in Parliament. At the time of writing, 22,890 people have signed.

The Stop Killing Games campaign began after Ubisoft announced it was shutting down online support for 2014 racing game The Crew due to constraints related to server infrastructure and licensing. The game's online connectivity means that it is now unplayable, even in single-player mode.

The campaign organisers are using this instance as an example of how publishers destroy games that have been sold to customers as goods, and are pushing to question the legality of this practice in various markets around the world.

A representative of Stop Killing Games told GamesIndustry.biz that the group will be contacting a lawyer to investigate potential legal action as a next step.

A similar petition has been started on the Australian government's website, and has passed 8,000 signatures, the Canadian petition is at over 4,600, and the group is exploring a potential class action lawsuit in Brazil.

GamesIndustry.biz managing editor Brendan Sinclair shared his thoughts on this issue, using both The Crew and Sony's Gran Turismo Sport as examples, in an edition of This Week In Business earlier this year.

"Ideally, we would see the industry design games with graceful degradation in mind to preserve whatever scraps of functionality possible when the servers go dark," he wrote.

"But failing that, I think the bare minimum publishers should do is to be upfront with consumers about how long they can expect to enjoy their "purchases" before someone else decides it's time to make them obsolete."

 

[Gamernyc78]

:/

 

[Zzero]

I mean, it was blatantly obvious that it was legal all along. Another generation of gamers sees the wool fall from their eyes.

 

[Orangee]

Consumers need to set things right with companies by themselves.
Asking your government to solve capitalism issues tends to end in tragedies.

 

[Nhomnhom]

They should be forced to state a minimum time that the game will be playable on the cover/storefront.

People would be less inclined to buy these games if they were told that in advance.

 

[anonpuffs]

"If consumers are led to believe that a game will remain playable indefinitely for certain systems, despite the end of physical support, the [Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008] may require that the game remains technically feasible (for example, available offline) to play under those circumstances."

Sounds a little promising at least

 

[Systemshock2023]

The crew had no business being an online only game. It had a very enjoyable single player campaign. Online gaming is bullshit.

 

[ethomaz]

The campaign is dumb to begin.

If I create something I have the power to decide if I sell it or not and when I want.

 

[Gamernyc78]

Yeah and as consumers as long as your told ahead you can't dictate what the vendor does afterwards.

 

[anonpuffs]

The campaign is dumb to begin.

If I create something I have the power to decide if I sell it or not and when I want.

once you sell it it becomes mine and you shouldn't have the power to break it after you sold it to me. online only games are a bit different but stuff like online requirements should go away on single player games if the company decides to shut it down.

 

[ethomaz]

once you sell it it becomes mine and you shouldn't have the power to break it after you sold it to me. online only games are a bit different but stuff like online requirements should go away on single player games if the company decides to shut it down.

Software (and that includes games) are not sold to you… what you buy is a license to use it.

That license to use it can be removed whatever the seller wants.
He is not supposed to give you a license that works forever.

Only the creator (or if he sold to somebody else) owns the software… consumers only buy the license to use it.

If one day you really buy a software (not the license to use) then you can choose whatever to do with that software including revoking everybody licenses to use it.

That is when you really buy it… ant it is a hell of expensive like $ millions.

When you realize that then you will understand why it is dumb a campaign that doesn’t even knows how software license works.

 

[arvfab]

Another one of those "cry when it's too late" moments, due to people not seeing future consequences. I (almost) never supported games with an expiry date, yet people always were like "aren't you always online anyway?" or "by the time it's put offline, you won't want to play it anyway".

Software (and that includes games) are not sold to you… what you buy is a license to use it.

That license to use it can be removed whatever the seller wants.
He is not supposed to give you a license that works forever.

Only the creator (or if he sold to somebody else) owns the software… consumers only buy the license to use it.

If one day you really buy a software (not the license to use) then you can choose whatever to do with that software including revoking everybody licenses to use it.

That is when you really buy it… ant it is a hell of expensive like $ millions.

When you realize that then you will understand why it is dumb a campaign that doesn’t even knows how software license works.

That's why I will game as long as physical delivery is a thing. Digital access can always be removed, while I doubt a company would come at my house to get the disc back.

 

[Gamernyc78]

Another one of those "cry when it's too late" moments, due to people not seeing future consequences. I (almost) never supported games with an expiry date, yet people always were like "aren't you always online anyway?" or "by the time it's put offline, you won't want to play it anyway".



That's why I will game as long as physical delivery is a thing. Digital access can always be removed, while I doubt a company would come at my house to get the disc back.

Yeah I agree. The thing with physical to is tht even if it's physical if a digital latch is made unavailable it can potentially make the game unplayable too.