FACTRAGE – A rapidly growing, consumer-led movement is challenging the video game industry’s long-standing practice of rendering purchased games unplayable, raising fundamental questions about digital ownership and consumer rights in the modern era.

• Movement’s Catalyst – The initiative, dubbed “Stop Killing Games,” gained significant momentum after publisher Ubisoft shut down the servers for its 2014 racing game The Crew, making the “always-online” title completely inaccessible to its owners.
• The Core Demand – Advocates are not demanding that servers stay online forever, but that publishers be required to provide a patch or update that allows for continued offline or peer-to-peer play when official support ends.
• From Petitions to Policy – What began as an online petition with over 350,000 signatures has evolved into a formal advocacy effort, with organizers engaging with regulatory bodies in the United Kingdom, European Union, and Australia.

This global campaign probes a critical tension at the heart of the digital economy: what does a consumer truly own when they click “buy” on a product that can be remotely disabled at any time?

How One Game’s Shutdown Sparked a Global Movement

The catalyst for the “Stop Killing Games” movement was the April 2024 decommissioning of The Crew, a racing game developed and published by Ubisoft. Unlike many games that lose online functionality but retain their single-player modes, The Crew required a constant internet connection to function. When Ubisoft shut down the servers, the game became a useless file on players’ hard drives, and the publisher even began revoking game licenses from user libraries.

This action was the final straw for many in the gaming community. YouTuber Ross Scott, known for his work on game preservation, launched a formal initiative and website to channel the widespread frustration into organized action. The movement argues that this practice is anti-consumer, harms the preservation of video games as a cultural medium, and sets a dangerous precedent for the growing number of “live service” titles that depend on publisher-run servers to function.

The Ownership Question: Did You Buy a Game or Just a License?

At the center of this conflict is the End-User License Agreement (EULA)—the lengthy legal document players must agree to before installing most games. For decades, these agreements have stipulated that customers are not buying a game, but rather purchasing a limited, revocable license to access the software. This legal framework gives publishers the power to modify or terminate that access.

The “Stop Killing Games” movement challenges this status quo, arguing that the common understanding of a purchase should take precedence. They draw a sharp contrast with physical media. While a film studio may stop pressing a DVD, they cannot enter your home and take the disc back. Yet, in the digital marketplace, companies like Ubisoft or Electronic Arts—another company known for discontinuing services for its older titles—can effectively do just that with the flip of a switch. The question now being posed to regulators is whether current consumer protection laws are adequate for an all-digital future.

What Publishers Argue and What Could Change

Game publishers maintain that shutting down servers for older games with dwindling player bases is a financial necessity. The costs associated with server maintenance, security, and customer support for a game that is no longer generating significant revenue are substantial. From a business perspective, those resources are better allocated to developing new titles or supporting current, profitable live-service games.

However, the pressure from gamers is forcing a new conversation. The movement has outlined several potential remedies. The primary demand is for legislation or industry-wide standards that would compel publishers to release a final “end-of-life” patch. This update would remove the online-only requirement, enabling single-player modes to work offline or multiplayer to function through direct peer-to-peer connections. Consumer advocacy groups have shown interest, and the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has been cited as one body with the potential power to investigate these practices. The outcome of this clash could set a major precedent for the rights of digital consumers for years to come.