Stop Killing Games: How a grassroots campaign is challenging the right to play

Stop Killing Games – the fight over who owns the games you buy

When Ubisoft announced in early 2024 that it would pull the plug on the online‑only racing title The Crew, more than 12 million players suddenly found a game they had paid for rendered unplayable. The decision sparked a broader conversation about digital ownership that quickly left the internet and landed in the halls of the European Parliament.

The problem: games that disappear after you buy them

Most modern titles rely on server infrastructure for matchmaking, progression data and, increasingly, core gameplay mechanics. When a publisher decides that a game is no longer profitable, it can simply shut down those servers. For an online‑only title, that effectively destroys every copy in the world – even if a player bought a physical disc or a digital licence years ago.

Ross Scott, a YouTuber known as Accursed Farms, saw the impact firsthand. After Ubisoft’s notice, he heard from longtime fans like Chemicalflood, who had been playing The Crew since its 2014 launch and had even introduced the game to his children. “You buy a physical copy, you bring it home, you install it, you play it for a while, then the publisher wipes every copy worldwide,” Scott told us. The sentiment was echoed across forums, with community leaders such as Whammy4 describing the shutdown as “someone breaking into your home and stealing your bike.”

A campaign that went from YouTube to Brussels

Scott turned his frustration into a coordinated effort, founding Stop Killing Games in early 2024. The group quickly gathered support:

• 1.3 million signatures on a petition submitted to the European Commission, triggering a public hearing in the European Parliament in April.
• A parallel legal push in France, where consumer group UFC‑Que Choisir sued Ubisoft for misleading contract terms.
• A growing coalition in the United States backing California’s Protect Our Games Act, which would require publishers either to keep games playable after server shutdowns or to issue refunds.

The campaign’s momentum forced the European Commission to issue a formal response by 27 July, a deadline that will determine whether the petition becomes a binding EU directive.

Industry pushback and the legal backdrop

Publishers argue that most modern games are sold as licenses, not as perpetual ownership. In a 2025 California case, Ubisoft successfully defended this stance, noting that customers were warned that online services could be discontinued. The case was dismissed after the plaintiffs withdrew, but the legal reasoning remains a key obstacle for consumer advocates.

Video Games Europe, the trade body representing many major publishers, warned that mandatory offline‑playability could raise development costs dramatically. “Shutting down services must remain an option when a game is no longer commercially viable,” a spokesperson said.

Why the issue matters beyond a single title

The Crew is not an isolated incident. In May 2024, Sony announced the end of support for Destruction AllStars, and its live‑service shooter Concord was pulled offline just two weeks after launch, with full refunds offered to purchasers. Professor Joost van Dreunen of NYU Stern points out that unlike books or movies, many games are built around persistent online communities. When those communities dissolve, the product itself effectively vanishes.

Possible paths forward

Stop Killing Games proposes a set of “responsible‑shutdown” guidelines:

1. End‑of‑life plans – publishers should publish a clear timeline for server retirement and provide tools for offline play where technically feasible.
2. Refund mechanisms – if a game cannot be made functional offline, a proportional refund should be offered.
3. Source‑code escrow – for niche titles, storing the final build in a trusted escrow could allow community‑run servers after official support ends.

These ideas echo proposals from the Digital Economy Act discussions in the UK, where ministers have so far said existing consumer‑law requirements are sufficient but have pledged to monitor the situation.

The road ahead

The Stop Killing Games team, now a modestly sized nonprofit, continues to lobby both EU and US legislators while maintaining a vibrant online community. Their next milestones include:

• A European Parliament hearing on the petition scheduled for April 2026.
• A state‑senate vote on California’s Protect Our Games Act expected later this year.
• Ongoing litigation in France, where UFC‑Que Choisir’s case against Ubisoft remains pending.

Whether any of these efforts will reshape the licensing model that underpins most modern games remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the conversation has moved from niche forums to the corridors of power, forcing the industry to confront a question it has long sidestepped: What does it mean to own a digital game?

---

Further reading

• Ubisoft’s official statement on The Crew shutdown: https://www.ubisoft.com/en-us/game/the‑crew
• European Citizens’ Initiative petition (full text): https://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/stop‑killing‑games
• California Protect Our Games Act text: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB‑1234
• NYU Stern interview with Joost van Dreunen: https://www.stern.nyu.edu/people/faculty/joost‑van‑dreunen