Support NeoGAF

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

A public campaign to prevent publishers from pulling online support from video games in a way that makes them unplayable has prompted a response from the UK government.

The Stop Killing Games campaign organised a petition on the government's website, which passed the 10,000 signatories needed to secure a response. The statement added below the petition was attributed to the Department of Culture, Media & Sport.

In its statement, the Department said: "Consumers should be aware that there is no requirement in UK law compelling software companies and providers to support older versions of their operating systems, software or connected products. There may be occasions where companies make commercial decisions based on the high running costs of maintaining older servers for video games that have declining user bases."

But the Department emphasised that all video game companies are beholden to existing consumer laws and regulations, adding:

"If consumers are led to believe that a game will remain playable indefinitely for certain systems, despite the end of physical support, the [Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008] may require that the game remains technically feasible (for example, available offline) to play under those circumstances."

The petition will continue to run until October 16, 2024 and if it passes 100,000 signatures, it will be considered for debate in Parliament. At the time of writing, 22,890 people have signed.

The Stop Killing Games campaign began after Ubisoft announced it was shutting down online support for 2014 racing game The Crew due to constraints related to server infrastructure and licensing. The game's online connectivity means that it is now unplayable, even in single-player mode.

The campaign organisers are using this instance as an example of how publishers destroy games that have been sold to customers as goods, and are pushing to question the legality of this practice in various markets around the world.

A representative of Stop Killing Games told GamesIndustry.biz that the group will be contacting a lawyer to investigate potential legal action as a next step.

A similar petition has been started on the Australian government's website, and has passed 8,000 signatures, the Canadian petition is at over 4,600, and the group is exploring a potential class action lawsuit in Brazil.

GamesIndustry.biz managing editor Brendan Sinclair shared his thoughts on this issue, using both The Crew and Sony's Gran Turismo Sport as examples, in an edition of This Week In Business earlier this year.

"Ideally, we would see the industry design games with graceful degradation in mind to preserve whatever scraps of functionality possible when the servers go dark," he wrote.

"But failing that, I think the bare minimum publishers should do is to be upfront with consumers about how long they can expect to enjoy their "purchases" before someone else decides it's time to make them obsolete."

UK government responds to Stop Killing Games campaign

A public campaign to prevent publishers from pulling online support from video games in a way that makes them unplayabl…

www.gamesindustry.biz

 

[Dane]

They're right, and that's why the campaign may have issues, the developers are not obligated to keep the servers alive or provide an offline mode, the best case would be allowing offline executables to be created by the community with a legal immunity from lawsuits.

 

[Portugeezer]

OK, so update the laws.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

OK, so update the laws.

They can't they're too busy talking shit to each other in commons.

 

[Hudo]

The only way to keep old games from vanishing is, unfortunately, for passionate fans to write some sort of server backend/emulation themselves. That's how private servers work for MMOs.

In a utopia, there would be a non-profit organization that cares about preservation of media (including video games) that gets source code from the devs after, maybe, 15 years after the game has been shut down so they can run a backend for that game, provided the passionate players agree to pay the operating costs or so.

I dunno if devs will ever just open-source their backends since there might be security related concerns and/or just plain old proprietary code that they don't want competitors to see.

 

[feynoob]

They can't they're too busy talking shit to each other in commons.

Are they? Last time i heard, they were busy doing naughty stuff.

 

[Guilty_AI]

They're right, and that's why the campaign may have issues, the developers are not obligated to keep the servers alive or provide an offline mode, the best case would be allowing offline executables to be created by the community with a legal immunity from lawsuits.

HOWEVER, the UK also said the companies must communicate "clearly and correctly" about such end-of-service situations. The company cannot present the costumer with false information or mislead them through ommission.

The last point is important because there are many games that don't make that clear enough. A small notification on the corner saying "internet required" or some non-enforceable term in small print in the middle of a EULA doesn't cut it.

 

[Lokaum D+]

If i own nothing y should i care to buy anything ?

 

[Skifi28]

Microsoft should have pulled out of the UK when they had the chance.

 

[Dr.Morris79]

OK, so update the laws.

The best way to fight any of this is the good old wallet.

Just don't buy any of this shit.

I'm personally never buying a UBI game again. I honestly wouldn't care if it was the last gaming company on earth. That Crew bullshit was the last straw.

 

[Dr.Morris79]

If i own nothing i should i care to buy anything ?

I wouldn't even pirate UBI shit

 

[tvdaXD]

...the best case would be allowing offline executables to be created by the community with a legal immunity from lawsuits.

Oh at least! I think it would be fairer to release the software as-is required to keep it running. A source code isn't necessary, but let us run the software we paid for. Because even though it's not physical, all they're doing is creating waste.

 

[winjer]

Imagine someone saying the same thing about cinema, music, paintings, etc.
Any other form of art and entertainment would get all the attention and protection needed to be preserved.

 

[STARSBarry]

I wouldn't even pirate UBI shit

Honestly im angry at myself, because I broke a resolution I had kept for around 7 years never to pay Ubisoft any money, that means if it was a free game via PSN etc, that's fine but I wouldn't pay money.

I caved for their shitty Avatar game, never fucking again, I was an idiot. I'm just not touching their products again free or not.

Fuck Ubisoft.

 

[HL3.exe]

It's a tricky one. Eventhough I support the campaign, I did see some cracks in the arguments. Games ironically fall under goods and services, specifically services these days. The user licences a copy for them to use. That's the EULA agreement. A fixed one-time upfront cost for use. But the owner of said license is still on charge of the product so to speak.

So when, let's say, it's a online only game, the end-user agreement still stands. The user does not own the product nor the server tools to run it. Friendly company lets the user run these server side things with supplied tools (especially in the 90's). But that is not mandatory by the owner/creators of the product.

It's a messy one for sure.

 

[Dr.Morris79]

Honestly im angry at myself, because I broke a resolution I had kept for around 7 years never to pay Ubisoft any money, that means if it was a free game via PSN etc, that's fine but I wouldn't pay money.

I caved for their shitty Avatar game, never fucking again, I was an idiot. I'm just not touching their products again free or not.

Fuck Ubisoft.

I hear that! The last one I stupidly bought was that Crew Motorfest. Jesus, that was just awful.

I did actually think they'd reverse the decision on the original Crew at the 11th hour, I guess they were serious after all. What makes me wonder though, after that fact, is why anyone is looking forward to any of their games going forward..

It's lunacy.

 

[Clear]

Obviously there's no law... its unenforceable!

And its not about "preservation" either, there's no reasonable expectation for indefinitely maintaining and supporting services. Especially when GDPR attaches legal responsibility to those who collect and store data not to hold onto personal information beyond when its necessary.

 

[recursive]

If i own nothing i should i care to buy anything ?

You will be happy.

 

[Gambit2483]

If i own nothing i should i care to buy anything ?

They don't want you to buy, they want you to "consume".

 

[BlackTron]

The best way to fight any of this is the good old wallet.

Just don't buy any of this shit.

I'm personally never buying a UBI game again. I honestly wouldn't care if it was the last gaming company on earth. That Crew bullshit was the last straw.

I probably still will, just at the inevitable $6-12 discount price. By the time a game costs that much it is well past any hype period, is finished/updated, and you know whether you actually want it for sure.

And at that price I won't feel very cheated if it goes poof in ten years

 

[Dr.Morris79]

And at that price I won't feel very cheated if it goes poof in ten years

I know what you mean. I just can't justify another penny to them.

I was thinking today, UBI really is one of the most rancid companies I've dealt with over the years, from awful troubles with various PC games (As far back as Silent Hunter 3, possibly before) to account troubles on PC, the whole Driver SF fiasco (Can't play your bought digital copy on the Xbox one)

Etc etc, etc! The list truly is endless with the crap I've had to deal with from UBI.

So, many, problems!

 

[LordCBH]

Hey look, the UK fucked up for the second straight year.

 

[Dr.Morris79]

Hey look, the UK fucked up for the second straight year.

Second?

It's been a bit longer than that.

 

[crackajack]

OK, so update the laws.

Much to ask from people where maybe still half of them not really grew up with games or internet. The snippets of the talks with some CEO of tech whatever and US senators are always hilarious.

At least there should be hard guidelines what is supposed to be minimum time of servers being available after a purchase, required end of sales before server closures are nearing. Fighting for the Crew seems a weird example case since it is quite old, and anyone who wanted to had a chacne to play it for a long time, but imho eg Starblood Arena being shut down within iirc 2 years, within the gen it released would have been more important.

And of course having some automatic/delayed (maybe a console gen of wait time) switch to make server stuff fully public when they don't want to maintain it themselves anymore could also be made mandatory. And or also remove always online restrictions/requirements in games that not really are online and could at least offer bot matches forever and just have no working lootbox machine attached to it anymore.

 

[Dane]

HOWEVER, the UK also said the companies must communicate "clearly and correctly" about such end-of-service situations. The company cannot present the costumer with false information or mislead them through ommission.

The last point is important because there are many games that don't make that clear enough. A small notification on the corner saying "internet required" or some non-enforceable term in small print in the middle of a EULA doesn't cut it.

They did though, they announced EoS three and half months prior and ceased selling it.

 

[Guilty_AI]

They did though, they announced EoS three and half months prior and ceased selling it.

I mean upon purchase. The payer must know the lenght of their license.

Did people who bought the game 4 months prior to EoS, half a month before sales ceased, knew the game only had 4 months left of life? Or were they sold the game under a different impression?

 

[King Dazzar]

I've just signed the partition. Hope gets to the 100k for it to be discussed in parliament. Currently just under 25k. Thanks OP for making me aware.

 

[Toons]

HOWEVER, the UK also said the companies must communicate "clearly and correctly" about such end-of-service situations. The company cannot present the costumer with false information or mislead them through ommission.

The last point is important because there are many games that don't make that clear enough. A small notification on the corner saying "internet required" or some non-enforceable term in small print in the middle of a EULA doesn't cut it.

I mean... doesnt it? Small print and small notifications have so much precedence, it's the oldest trick in the book.

Scummy yes, but well established in a legal sense.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I mean... doesnt it? Small print and small notifications have so much precedence, it's the oldest trick in the book.

Scummy yes, but well established in a legal sense.

Keep in mind this isn't just america we're talking about. There are plenty of places where this isn't acceptable.

 

[AgatonSax]

That’s fine however if the publishers close off servers it should be accepted that the games enter the public domain and become abandonware for the community.

 

[FunkMiller]

Imagine someone saying the same thing about cinema, music, paintings, etc.
Any other form of art and entertainment would get all the attention and protection needed to be preserved.

Those other industries clearly don’t have enough money to throw at government officials.

 

[Lokaum D+]

They don't want you to buy, they want you to "consume".

I ll consume, thats for sure.