Stop Killing Games: the planned destruction of art

One evening like any other, you decide to watch the film you bought.

You settle down, then a message appears: “This DVD belongs to so-and-so. We can take it back whenever we want.”

This scenario, unthinkable for the film industry, is nevertheless a tangible reality in the video game sector.

Is it conceivable that, as a consumer, the product you paid for and which belongs to you, at least in appearance, could one day simply be taken away from you? No, answer millions of players around the world, who are campaigning for this situation to change.

The answer recently given by the European Commission did not go the way players wanted (I), which is hardly surprising given the nature of the video game medium and the direction the industry has taken for decades (II). This change in the medium and in industry practices has not been accompanied by a sufficient improvement in consumer information (III), creating a rift between those who create and sell games and those who think they own them.

I. The European Commission puts on the brakes

The Stop Killing Games (“SKG”) initiative was born in 2024, led by the American YouTuber Ross Scott, in reaction to Ubisoft’s shutdown of The Crew on 31 March of that year.

The initiative starts from the observation that video games are subject to a form of planned obsolescence: publishers pull the plug on servers once a game is no longer profitable, so-called “single-player” games depend on an internet connection that nothing justifies, and, more broadly, any game is at risk of disappearing with no possibility of survival, despite players’ wish to keep it alive.

Players’ anger stems from a dissonance: the game is sold as a product to consumers, who in reality are merely the beneficiaries of a licence to use it, and therefore of a service.

When accessing a video game, the user enters into a contract of adhesion, whose terms are non-negotiable, called the “end-user licence agreement” or EULA. This type of contract transfers no ownership of the digital content to the player; at most, the player owns the game’s physical medium, if the game is available in that format.

The publisher merely grants the player a licence to use the game, which in no way amounts to a sale and which has many characteristics. It is:

• agreed by clicking tick boxes;
• personal: tied to the player or their account;
• non-exclusive: the same rights are granted to all players;
• non-assignable, non-transferable and non-sublicensable: it is forbidden to resell, give away, sublicense or lend the account and licence;
• revocable: the publisher can suspend or ban the player so that they no longer have access to the game, by unilaterally terminating the licence granted;
• limited in purpose (and sometimes territorially): use remains strictly personal, private and non-commercial;
• subject to unilateral amendment clauses: the publisher almost systematically reserves the right to change the terms of the licence during the relationship;
• temporary: the licence is not perpetual; it lasts as long as the video game and its associated services are operated.

The Stop Killing Games initiative’s fight is precisely to challenge the temporary nature of licences.

This fourteenth European citizens’ initiative (“ECI”) was submitted to the European Commission on 26 January 2026, after gathering 1,294,188 verified signatures. A respectable figure, reflecting an electorate mobilised on digital ownership issues.

On 16 June 2026, the European Commission considered:

• that creating an obligation requiring publishers to keep games in a playable state was not proportionate;
• that rights holders control how they intend to enforce their intellectual property;
• and that European rules already ensure consumer protection, notably through information obligations.

It considers that there is no established urgency to legislate, and emphasises the costs and cybersecurity risks that would weigh on publishers if such an obligation were introduced.

It prefers to encourage dialogue between publishers and other stakeholders in order to change industry standards, notably by drawing up codes of conduct. A response that was met with disappointment.

II. The origins of the arbitrary destruction of games

The sanctification of intellectual property rights raises questions here: the destruction of works is traditionally reserved for infringing copies¹, and may seem disproportionate towards owners acting in good faith, something French courts try to temper².

The debate on the balance to be struck between the author’s moral rights and the rights of the owners of the work is not new. Today it is distorted by the very nature of the medium, which has changed over the years.

Since the 2010s, the business model of video games has evolved and live service has taken off, reinforcing the shift from selling a finished product to a licensing model.

Several important milestones can be identified.

The beginnings: the arrival of broadband and permanent updates (patches, DLC)

The game is no longer a fixed object on release: publishers are free to keep interacting with the customer after the sale. While this model already existed with games such as World of Warcraft (monthly subscription) or Destiny (seasonal content), some commercial successes, such as Fortnite, would end up convincing the industry that a new model should be cultivated and refined.

On the platform side, the launch of Steam in 2003 introduced the logic of mandatory product activation to gain access. The game is stored in a digital library, and downloading is preferred over physical media. The game now takes the form of access to an account: the logic of dematerialising the medium is born.

What was new: the emergence of the free-to-play model and of engagement and attention-retention techniques

The aim, which is not confined to the video game industry, is to keep the player engaged for as long as possible, monetising their playing time through subscription or microtransaction systems. The game’s content is spread out over time, and the player is regularly encouraged to pay. This model makes a game profitable over the long term.

For example, on release, GTA V generated nearly one billion dollars in three days from sales of copies. Its online mode and associated microtransactions alone, not counting later sales, generated a further 5 billion dollars.

The consequence: the shift to Game as a Service (GaaS)

A game’s performance is no longer measured by the number of sales, but by metrics of time spent, recurring spending and retention of players within the ecosystem designed by publishers, in the manner of major platforms such as Instagram or TikTok. The ability to exercise control after the sale becomes an asset in itself for publishers, and the product is no longer the game as such, but the player.

This development completes the transformation of the player into a co-creator of value who, in the data economy, helps generate information used to fine-tune the mechanics in place.

The popularity of streaming platforms such as Twitch or Kick attracts new players, who in turn create content and keep a community alive around the same work.

However, the legacy of the game-as-product model lives on in consumers’ minds, as they continue to believe that, at 70 euros, what they are buying is not conditional access.

III. A shift not sufficiently followed through in terms of consumer information

While the European Commission concedes that the information provided to players on the duration of the contract and on functional limitations is essential, since it shapes the decision to buy, it does not consider it insufficient as things stand.

On the players’ side, the problem seems deeper. Games being licensed is nothing new and does not date from the rise of live service: the confusion stems rather from the overuse of technical jargon and from information buried in endless terms of use.

This confusion is also said to be fuelled by marketing based on the vocabulary of purchase, which helps muddy the waters for the average consumer.

This finding led the State of California to legislate with AB 2426 to protect consumers against publishers’ deceptive commercial practices:

• a ban on the terms buy or purchase without adequate information (s. 17500.6(b)(1));
• use of the vocabulary of purchase subject to explicit consent to the terms of purchase (s. 17500.6(b)(1)(A));
• information separate from the terms of use (s. 17500.6(b)(2));
• an exception for permanent downloads, access to which cannot be revoked after download (s. 17500.6(b)(4)(C)).

The American law acknowledges an idea that European regulation has failed to grasp: consumers do not perceive in the same way a game that can be withdrawn remotely and a downloaded file that can be used offline permanently.

What is more, a new California bill, called the Protect Our Games Act, goes further:

• a publisher that stops providing the services needed for the ordinary use of a game must inform consumers at least 60 days in advance;
• if these services are discontinued, one of the following solutions must be offered: an alternative version of the game, a patch or update removing this dependency, or a refund of the game;
• players must be informed of the shutdown of services, its consequences and the solutions offered.

Whereas the European Commission emphasises transparency and consumer information, this Californian bill imposes obligations of result where an end of service makes a game unusable.

Conclusion

The answer given by the European Commission did not favour the solution consumers were hoping for; the demands made by the citizens’ initiative will live on for as long as the lack of transparency, and the resulting misunderstanding among players, persists.

Concrete solutions will come from a calm and dispassionate debate. These issues must be taken up by all stakeholders: developers, marketing teams, publishers, players and consumer protection institutions.

In short, and as always, the best compromises will emerge from a collective will.

Sources

Legislation and case law

• French Intellectual Property Code, Art. L. 335-6
• French Court of Cassation, 1st civil chamber, 24 Nov. 2021, No. 19-19.942

Online sources

• European Commission, Communication from the Commission on the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) “Stop Destroying Videogames”, 16 June 2026
• L.-É. Dubois and J. Weststar, “Games-as-a-service: Conflicted identities on the new front-line of video game development”, New Media & Society (PubMed Central), 2 March 2021
• California Legislative Information, AB-2426 Consumer protection: false advertising: digital goods, 2023-2024
• California Legislative Information, AB-1921 Digital games: ordinary use, 2025-2026

Notes

1. Art. L. 335-6 of the French Intellectual Property Code (CPI) ↩

2. French Court of Cassation, 1st civil chamber, 24 Nov. 2021, No. 19-19.942. ↩

Maxime KUBIAKBusiness lawyer, intellectual property and digital law

https://lexludica.com/en/articles/stop-killing-games-en