The consumer initiative Stop Killing Games has recently gathered over 1 million signatures in its campaign for video game preservation, calling for publishers to keep their titles playable after official support ends. However, Video Games Europe, representing major publishers like Ubisoft, Microsoft, and Nintendo, argues that adhering to these proposals would lead to prohibitively expensive game development. The movement gained momentum after Ubisoft discontinued server support for its title, The Crew, which rendered it unplayable. Despite the petition’s milestone, doubts remain about the validity of signatures, with estimates suggesting only 600,000 to 700,000 may be authentic. The effort continues to gain attention and could impact the future landscape of video game preservation.
What is the Stop Killing Games initiative and why does it matter?Stop Killing Games is an initiative that aims for game publishers to maintain playable access to titles after support ends, addressing concerns over digital ownership and preservation following the increasing frequency of purchased games becoming unplayable.
The Crew was a multiplayer open-world racer released by Ubisoft that requires server support to operate. Its shutdown in March 2025 not only disabled multiplayer access but also blocked single-player content, highlighting the risks gamers face with titles that rely on always-online systems. The stop Killing Games movement arose from frustrations such as these, reflecting broader concerns across the gaming community regarding digital rights and preservation. The outcome of this campaign may shape future policies concerning digital game ownership and publisher responsibilities.
Casey Loh
Casey Loh is a tech-savvy writer who specializes in the intersection of gaming and technology. With a background in computer science, Casey brings a technical lens to her reviews, breaking down the nuts and bolts of game engines, graphics, and AI innovation.
Read more articles from Casey Loh
Comments
Man, it's wild that in 2024 we're still fighting for the basic right to keep playing games we paid for. Publishers acting like game preservation is some impossible feat when indie devs have been nailing it for years.
Kinda sus that publishers cry 'too expensive' about keeping games alive while charging $70 for titles packed with microtransactions. Maybe repurpose some of those FIFA Ultimate Team profits
Always-online DRM strikes again – The Crew getting Thanos-snapped proves why this movement matters. Gamers aren't just buying products anymore, we're renting disappointment.
600k verified signatures or not, this petition's got more momentum than a speedrunner's any% glitch. Wonder if publishers will finally listen or just pull an 'error 404: accountability not found'.
Ubisoft really out here making the best case for physical media in 2024. Next they'll tell us the cloud versions of games are 'more cinematic' when the servers die.
Publishers: 'Preservation is too hard' Meanwhile, the entire ROM-hacking community: *already fixed your abandoned games for free*.
The Crew getting bricked is like buying a Blu-ray that self-destructs when the studio remakes the movie. But sure, tell us more about how 'you'll own nothing and be happy'.
Game preservation shouldn't be a Kickstarter stretch goal – it should be the bare minimum. Funny how 'prohibitively expensive' only applies to consumer-friendly features.
Watching publishers argue against preservation while selling 'remastered' versions of old games is peak capitalism. Can't wait for the $70 'The Crew Legacy Edition' in 2026.
Always-online single-player games are the printer ink of gaming – designed to fail so you'll buy the next one. This movement's the equivalent of refillable cartridges.
Ubisoft really out here treating games like live service fidget spinners. 'Oops, trend's over – delete the game' Meanwhile, people still out here playing Ultima Online on private servers.
Petition might not be perfect, but a million voices (even if some are bots) sends a clearer message than any corporate PR speak about 'player-first experiences'.
Remember when games shipped finished and you could lend them to friends Pepperidge Farm remembers. This movement's trying to bring back that basic decency.
Publishers: 'Keeping servers up is impossible' Also publishers: *runs MMOs for 20+ years when there's a subscription fee involved*. We see you.
The Crew getting Thanos'd is just modern gaming's version of 'Sega Channel' – except now we're paying full price for temporary access. Progress
Game preservation shouldn't be a radical idea – it's literally just asking companies not to burn books after they stop selling them. But sure, call us unreasonable.
Watching this debate is like seeing Blockbuster argue against DVD ownership in 2004. History's gonna judge these publishers harshly.
Always-online DRM is the gaming equivalent of a landlord who changes your locks monthly. This movement's basically the digital tenants' union.
Funny how 'prohibitively expensive' never applies to executive bonuses or shareholder dividends – just to features that benefit players. Priorities
The fact that abandonware sites do better preservation than billion-dollar publishers is the most hilarious indictment of this industry. Keep fighting the good fight.
Ubisoft really out here treating games like Snapchat stories – poof, gone forever. Maybe next they'll charge us for 'game memories' NFTs.
Petitions might not change much, but watching corporations scramble to justify anti-consumer practices is its own kind of entertainment. Popcorn.gif
Remember when games had LAN play as a backup plan This movement's basically asking for the digital equivalent of that basic foresight.
Publishers: 'You wouldn't download a car.' Gamers: 'We wouldn't have to if you didn't keep crushing the ones we bought.'
The Crew getting Thanos-snapped is the gaming equivalent of your Kindle books disappearing because Barnes & Noble closed. But sure, 'you own it', guys.
Game preservation is the hill to die on – because if we don't, entire chapters of gaming history will literally disappear at corporate whim. Screenshot this tweet.
Watching publishers argue against preservation while selling 'classic editions' is like a chef saying food expiration dates are tyranny... while selling vintage canned goods.
Always-online single-player is the gaming equivalent of a 'check engine' light that bricks your car. This movement's basically asking for an offline mode – revolutionary
Funny how 'prohibitively expensive' preservation is, but somehow keeping loot box algorithms running in dead games isn't. Almost like... it's about control, not cost
The fact that we need a movement to stop publishers from killing paid products says everything about modern gaming's broken priorities. Press F for consumer rights.
Ubisoft out here treating games like Fortnite emotes – 'vaulted' forever unless there's profit in unvaulting them later. Capitalist preservation at its finest.
Petition signatures might get questioned, but nobody's doubting the sea of angry Reddit threads and refund requests. The vibes don't lie.
Remember when 'buying a game' meant actually owning it This movement's trying to restore that crazy concept before it becomes ancient history.
Publishers: 'Preservation is impossible' Meanwhile, the Internet Archive: *exists*. Almost like it's about willingness, not ability.
The Crew situation proves always-online DRM is just corporate separation anxiety – they can't stand the thought of players enjoying things without supervision.
Game preservation shouldn't be a charity case – it should be the bare minimum expectation when we're paying premium prices. Change my mind.
Watching this debate is like seeing music labels argue against MP3s in 1999. Spoiler: History sides with accessibility every time.
Always-online requirements are the gaming equivalent of a restaurant that takes back your meal after you've paid. This movement's saying 'let us finish our damn food'.
Funny how 'prohibitively expensive' never applies to Denuvo licenses or CEO yacht payments. But keeping games running Suddenly we're counting pennies.
The fact that emulation communities preserve games better than their creators tells you everything about where the real passion lies in this industry.
Ubisoft treating games like seasonal decor – 'Oops, it's March, time to yeet The Crew into the sun' – is why this movement matters.
Petitions may not force change, but they sure make great ammo for the inevitable class action lawsuits. *taps forehead*
Remember when games had physical media that couldn't be remotely disabled This movement's fighting for that level of basic consumer protection in digital spaces.
Publishers: 'You'll own nothing and be happy.' Gamers: 'How about we try owning some things and see how that feels first'
The Crew getting Thanos'd isn't an outlier – it's the inevitable result of treating games as services rather than art. Preserve the art.
Game preservation is the hill to die on because without it, we're just renting cultural artifacts at corporate whim. Screenshot this for future museum exhibits.
Watching publishers argue against preservation while selling remakes is like a painter burning originals to sell prints. The grift is transparent.
Always-online DRM is the gaming equivalent of a landlord who enters your apartment weekly to check you're using the furniture 'correctly'. Creepy and unnecessary.
Funny how 'prohibitively expensive' preservation is, but somehow keeping dead games' cash shops running isn't. Almost like... monetization drives decisions
The fact that museums care more about game preservation than publishers do should be a wake-up call. But nah, let's chase those quarterly profits instead.
Ubisoft out here treating games like limited-time McDonald's sauces. 'Oops, promotion's over – flush the remaining stock' Gamer culture in 2024, folks.
Petition might not be perfect, but it's more accountability than we usually get from an industry that treats players like ATMs with controllers.
Remember when games had offline installers that worked forever This movement's trying to bring back that level of basic software ownership.
Publishers: 'You wouldn't download a car.' Gamers who've had purchased games deleted: 'At least the downloaded one would still exist.'
The Crew situation isn't just about one game – it's the canary in the coal mine for digital ownership. Time to demand better before everything goes always-online.
Game preservation shouldn't be radical – it's literally just asking companies not to destroy products people paid for. The bar is underground at this point.
Watching this debate is like seeing DVD manufacturers argue against library lending in 2001. Short-term greed versus long-term cultural value.
Always-online requirements are the gaming equivalent of a bookstore that burns your purchased novels if they stop selling them. Absurd when you say it out loud.
Funny how 'prohibitively expensive' never applies to marketing budgets or executive retreats. But letting players keep what they bought Suddenly it's impossible.
The fact that piracy often provides better preservation than legal purchases is the most damning indictment of modern gaming's broken systems. Fix it.
Ubisoft treating games like disposable fashion is why this movement matters. Not everything needs to be a damn Fortnite