Explained:
5 min read
Stop Killing Games livens up the Digital Fairness Act
TLDR:
The ‘Stop Killing Games’ initiative has prompted the EU to examine potential measures for preserving online games, sparking a debate on the boundaries of consumer rights. The ongoing Digital Fairness Act consultation is now the battleground for this discussion.
'Stop Killing Games and the consumer protection discussions'
Stop Killing Games’ EU Citizens’ Initiative petition (confusingly also called ‘Stop Destroying Games’) reached enough qualifying signatures to pass the threshold needed to require a response from the European Commission (EC). It has also managed to prompt thousands of submissions to the ongoing consultation for the upcoming Digital Fairness Act – a genuinely impressive feat – opening the debate over digital ownership and consumer rights on the EU’s agenda.
If you’re interested in understanding what the implications of this discussion are for you, or you want some advice on the upcoming DFA, we’d be happy to help. Drop us a line!
What are the movement’s core demands?
The ‘Stop Killing Games’ (SKG) movement calls on video game companies to create an ‘end-of-life’ plan for games they intend to discontinue. This plan aims to allow players to continue playing after a publisher turns off the official servers (when the game stops functioning). The organisers have suggested solutions like releasing dedicated server software, providing offline versions, or open-sourcing the game’s code.
To reach this goal, with a certain degree of savviness, SKG has identified several formal channels in various countries that enable citizens to bring topics of concern to the attention of lawmakers – one of these is the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) programme.
Broadly akin to a petition, an ECI is a request for the EC to consider taking action over a particular issue. To be registered, the ECI must be submitted by a group of European citizens residing in 7 different Member States, and to be considered by the EC, it must collect at least 1 million signatures across the European Union within 12 months, including a minimum number in at least 7 Member States.
The signature-collecting phase of the ECI has recently finished, with 1.4 million signatures on record (although a proportion of these may be removed during the validation process), requiring the EC to consider the matter.
How has the industry responded?
From the video game industry’s perspective, SKG’s petition presents significant challenges, as outlined by a Video Games Europe statement. Modern online video games are complex products with evolving and innovative features that often require the support of servers. As such, maintaining them indefinitely is not a simple matter and raises serious concerns, including:
Requiring the transfer of game operation to private servers would eliminate professional moderation, creating a less safe environment for players and increasing security risks.
An obligation for indefinite support would incur significant technical and economic costs, which could ultimately discourage companies from investing in new games.
Such a mandate could undermine intellectual property rights and introduce complex legal problems, especially concerning the use of licensed third-party content.
Consumer protection regulations
Current consumer protection regulations in the EU, such as the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) and the Digital Content and Digital Services Directive (DCD), already set quality and purpose requirements for digital products. These laws also require game companies to inform users about the terms of their purchase, including potential limitations. Thus, when a game server is shutting down, consumers can invoke these protections if they believe they were misled during the purchase.
Until now, the position of the industry and authorities is that these laws don’t transfer the ownership of the game’s intellectual property to the consumer. The fact that an online video game is sold as a license, not as a physical good, is a key distinction for the business model. In the UK, for example, the government has responded to a similar petition by stating that while companies must comply with existing consumer laws, there is no legal requirement to provide indefinite support to old titles. The response also acknowledges that the high server costs and declining user bases often justify the discontinuation of a service.
Along the same lines, the California AB 2426 law, introduced this year, requires companies to explicitly disclose that consumers are purchasing a revocable license, not ownership, of digital goods such as games, books or movies. This is to ensure that consumers are aware of the potential for a game or any other type of digital content to be shut down.
In contrast to these positions, SKG argues that the obsolescence of online games is detrimental to users and proposes stronger consumer protection measures that would require publishers to maintain games in a playable state. This proposed shift, from transparency to demanding long-term access, would represent a significant challenge to the existing legal and business frameworks around consumer protection.
The Digital Fairness Act consultation
With the active phase of the ECI over, rather than twiddling their thumbs while the EC considers their response, the movement is keeping up pressure on the Commission through other means. The organisers have called for additional support through the public consultation for the upcoming Digital Fairness Act (DFA) – check our Explainer here. This call to action has had a significant effect: a wave of feedback, with over 3,300 responses, many of which specifically request a provision to prohibit video game companies from permanently disabling games after they have been sold.
This request was not an anticipated part of the DFA’s scope, but it is arguably highly relevant, and the volume of responses may force the EC to consider whether it should be covered. Given that the movement is inherently linked to online media licensing in general, it raises the question of whether other forms of license-based digital content purchasing will be affected as well – video platforms in particular should be keeping a careful eye on the situation.
In the meantime, the Commission has extended its consultation period until October 24, underscoring the weight it is giving to public opinion. The outcome of the DFA consultation will give an interesting insight into how the EC views the balance between SKG’s demands and the industry’s concerns.
How can Flux help me?
The SKG initiative has once again focused the EC's attention on the video game industry. The organisers’ demands and the successful call for additional support in the DFA consultation could have significant implications for video game companies. If you would like to discuss the implications of these developments or need advice on the ongoing DFA consultation, just get in touch.
Author: Veronica Perez, Policy Advisor