Consumer Protection In Gaming: European Initiative Targets Video Game Publishers

A petition to stop video game publishers operating in the European Union from remotely disabling their games and rendering them unplayable after official support ends is gaining momentum.

Launched at the end of July as a European Citizens’ Initiative, it must gather one million signatures from at least seven EU countries in one year in order to be considered by the European Commission as the basis for new legislation.

In just one month, the Stop Destroying Videogames petition has collected more than 327,000 signatures, therefore it appears well on track to achieve its goal.

What’s the fuss all about? In the past few years, the video game industry has been moving away from selling games on physical discs or cartridges. Instead, they are now focusing on a digital model where you buy games online and play them through the internet, using servers run by the publisher.

This is certainly very convenient and potentially allows reaching a much wider audience, but this dependency also means that when publishers decide to shut down servers, consumers are essentially cut off despite having paid for the game.

This has recently happened, for instance, to owners of old Call of Duty editions, and to Battlefield and Spellbreak players, to name just a few cases.

Although most publishers stress that they are not selling a good, but a license which can be revoked, activists believe that the situation is not clearly covered under existing laws, and that consumer protections should supersede any end-user license agreements.

The above-mentioned closures caused outrage among gamers, but the real turning point came when Ubisoft decided to shut down the servers for The Crew, a popular racing game that had amassed a player base of over 12 million, mentioning "server infrastructure and licensing constraints" as the primary reasons for decommissioning the game.

This led Ross Scott, a YouTuber and a well-known figure in the gaming community for his Freeman’s Mind series, to start the Stop Killing Games campaign, which includes the EU petition.

Other campaign efforts involve collecting signatures to launch a class action lawsuit in France, where Ubisoft is based, collecting signatures for a petition in Canada, and submitting a petition to the British Parliament to require video game publishers to keep games they sell in working order when support ends.

We'll see how the first two initiatives perform, while the U.K.'s Department for Culture, Media and Sport has already responded to the third.

The answer is a mixed bag: while the ministry recognized "concerns raised by video games users regarding the long-term operability of purchased products", it also made clear that consumers "should be aware that there is no requirement in U.K. law compelling software companies and providers to support older versions of their operating systems, software or connected products".

It all seems to hinge on providing the right information. If publishers make clear from the start that their games won’t be available anymore when online support ends, there’s little buyers can do.

However, if consumers are misled into believing that a game will remain playable indefinitely, they can use the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations Act to require that the game remain playable offline or on self-hosted servers.

Ultimately, video game enthusiasts may have to pin their best hopes on the EU petition. While there's no obligation for the Commission to turn their demands into law, grassroots initiatives have been known to spark new legislation in the past.

For instance, following the success of the Right2Water initiative, the Commission adopted a proposal to revise the Drinking Water Directive in February 2018, which included obligations for member states to improve water access and ensure it for marginalized groups. The revision was later approved by the European Parliament.

The implications of the Stop Killing Games campaign extend beyond the gaming industry. If successful, it could set a precedent for how digital products are treated under the law. It could also lead to broader discussions about the rights of consumers in the digital age, particularly as more aspects of our lives become dependent on online services and digital products.