close
close

How Stop Killing Games is upping the ante in the fight for video game preservation

Posted on by angelo
How Stop Killing Games is upping the ante in the fight for video game preservation

Last December, Ubisoft announced that it was removing its MMO racing game The Crew from all digital storefronts, but server shutdown on March 31, 2024. A few weeks after the planned shutdown of the servers, Ubisoft began informing players with a copy of The Crew that it deleted it from their Ubisoft accounts.

While Ubisoft is not the first company to shut down servers for an online-only game, the recent shutdown of The Crew’s online servers has inspired one person to push for legal and government intervention to address the issue. the ever-increasing trend in the sector. It’s a trend that even sparked debate in the industry after Microsoft announced the closure of Arkane Studios, the developer behind Redfall. This decision led to the cancellation of future updates and planned DLCs for this online game only.

While Redfall’s servers are still up and running, their long-term support remains uncertain, as it remains to be seen how long Microsoft will keep the servers up and whether or not it will offer an offline mode once it finally goes live. ending its support for Redfall.

Ubisoft's The Crew is the most recent example of a worrying trend where online-only games become unplayable after the publisher shuts down the servers. | Image credit: Ubisoft
Ubisoft’s The Crew is the most recent example of a worrying trend where online-only games become unplayable after the publisher shuts down the servers. | Image credit: Ubisoft

Aside from the obvious fact that this means players who spent money on this game feel cheated, there’s a lot at stake for the hundreds of people who devoted their creative energy to bringing it to market in the first place. Quitting and delisting a game becomes more than a superficial decision; it removes the creative work of the thousands, if not millions, of people who played or developed it.

Enter Stop Killing Games.

An initiative created by YouTuber Ross Scott, Stop Killing Games aims to hold publishers accountable by ending the common practice of creating games designed to be “completely unplayable” after support ends, particularly MMOs and other online-only games. line. The initiative itself represents a new branch of an even larger fight to preserve video games for future generations.

Scott’s strategy is simple: file public complaints. Many of them. After Ubisoft shut down The Crew’s servers, Scott encouraged those who were upset and angry to file a complaint with the Directorate General of France of Competition, Consumption and Fraud Repression (DGCCRF) since Ubisoft has its headquarters in France.

“Due to the size of the game and France’s strict consumer protection laws, this represents one of the best opportunities to hold a publisher accountable for this action,” Scott wrote. on the official Stop Killing Games website. “If we succeed in filing a lawsuit against Ubisoft, it could have a ripple effect on the video game industry and prevent publishers from destroying more games.”

In a statement sent to IGN, a Ubisoft spokesperson told IGN that it had “no further comment” regarding The Crew’s closure. The spokesperson reiterated that while the news might disappoint players, “it was necessary” for Ubisoft, citing server infrastructure and “licensing constraints.”

The painful limits of online gaming

Scott’s efforts aim to address a trend that has been going on for years now, but has only gotten more pronounced in recent years.

Michael Wagner, senior market analyst at Newzoo, explains that in the past it was common for games to lose online support after a certain period of time, usually when “player bases move on to other titles.” However, additional features would keep the game playable, such as a single-player campaign, local multiplayer, and the ability to set up private servers. However, in recent years, the idea that online games are completely unplayable has become “a relatively new phenomenon,” Wagner says.

According to Wagner, publishers are closing games due to declining player numbers and the need for more cost-effective maintenance when new entries are released in existing franchises, with examples including Battlefield and Call of Duty. Wagner discusses how older games could threaten newer games’ ability to turn a profit. “Players can continue with older iterations but cannot upgrade to the new game in-game. In theory, removing features means increased revenue from the new title.

Liam Deane, principal analyst at Omdia, shares similar sentiments, noting that “almost all online-only games have a limited lifespan.” While there are some rare exceptions, including Blizzard Entertainment’s World of Warcraft, Deane reiterates Wagner’s comments about player bases dwindling after a few years as the main reason publishers shut down their servers.

“Almost all online games have a limited lifespan.”

“Until around the mid-2000s, online games typically allowed players to host private servers,” Deane explained. “But these days, the publisher usually bears the cost of maintaining game servers. At some point, it’s a cost they’ll want to stop paying once a game’s player base drops below a certain level.

With an increase in live service games and in-game purchases becoming a significant source of revenue, the worrying trend of online-only gaming will continue for the foreseeable future. Deane explains that “across the industry,” 54% of revenue comes from microtransactions or in-game purchases, according to his research. The proportion is “obviously even higher” for live service games, where it is common to have a surplus of microtransactions or purchasable in-game items for players.

When the player base dries up, so does revenue, and with it, a game’s chances of survival.

Nonetheless, the video game industry is placing an increasing emphasis on multiplayer games, particularly live service titles, such as Fortnite, Palworld, and Helldivers 2. These projects not only build on a foundation of players returning regularly to play the game, but also on players being online to access this content. When they close their doors, they take their communities with them. Friday the 13th, whose servers will be permanently shut down on December 31, 2024, is just one of the games that suffers this fate.

Scott explains that while licensing agreements can prevent companies from selling additional companies of a game once the license expires, they “do not prevent existing buyers from continuing to use the game they have already paid for.” .

Yet ownership of certain games remains a gray area, particularly in the United States, where legal precedent has significantly disenfranchised consumers. The most important legal case impacting this topic is ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenbger, which overhauled U.S. contract law, allowing courts to defer to end-user license agreements. Essentially, the case meant that these agreements allowed publishers to be absolved of any liability and obligation to consumers who purchased a product and to assert authority over when their online-only games would become unplayable once support finished.

“If you bought a game, if you made a game, if you love a game, technology shouldn’t get in your way.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has led the fight for property rights since 1990, with the agency primarily focused on defending the digital rights of creators, technologists, and technology users. As EFF Special Advisor Cory Doctorow points out: “If you bought a game, if you made a game, if you love a game, technology should not hinder the continued existence of that game. From this, technology should preserve this game. for the players who love it today, for the people who are proud to create it, for the players who will come later, and for the game creators of the future. »

However, the challenge extends beyond the United States. In countries like Canada and the United Kingdom, there is little precedent preventing companies from revoking an aftermarket purchase. On the other hand, the EU and Australia need help to get the government to look into the issue. A common global challenge is the influence of lobby groups, particularly in the gaming industry, which can help maintain the status quo of an unequal balance of power between gaming companies and consumers.

A domino effect

Nonetheless, despite the varying degrees of legislation influencing consumer rights around the world, Scott explains that this proposed domino effect of filing a complaint with the DGCCRF would still have a global impact. For example, in 2014, when the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission sued Valve for not offering customers the option to refund games on Steam, the company had no choice but to change its policy to allow refunds on Steam in Australia and other countries like the United States. States.

Ultimately, Scott and Doctorow encourage individuals to advocate for the change they want. They encourage fans to file complaints and force governments to examine the company’s behavior and practices. In the meantime, Scott’s initiative is growing to raise awareness and encourage gamers to stand up for their rights and challenge this frustrating publisher-driven trend.

“I think by taking the customer’s money, it creates an obligation for publishers to give customers a reasonable expectation to run the game in some way,” Scott says, “even after it’s finished support.”

Taylor is a journalist at IGN. You can follow her on Twitter @TayNixster.