Local groups oppose publishers like Ubisoft for ending live-service titles such as The Crew.
Local groups oppose publishers like Ubisoft for ending live-service titles such as The Crew.
Ross Scott is a community participant who loves video games and values owning products. He has spent months researching ways to oppose the trend of ending online-supported games. He has initiated the biggest effort yet to prevent publishers from destroying these titles. Petitions are being sent worldwide to urge governments to examine whether destroying games violates consumer rights, and to improve laws if enough people support the cause via the resources at stopkillinggames.com.
Though some argue that expiring licenses or time limits might stop sales, this doesn’t stop owners from using their purchases. Even if online features fade, they can still enjoy the game they bought. A notable example is Polyphony Digital releasing a fix so Gran Turismo Sport could work offline before its online services ended. This happens often when games don’t disclose how long they’ll stay playable at purchase, forcing players to pay for an uncertain duration.
For more details, visit the official site: https://www.stopkillinggames.com/ and watch the explanation video on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70Xc9CStoE. The Game History Foundation discusses the issue here: https://gamehistory.org/87percent/.
I came across this post and it's great to see someone else has already shared it. Their site looks nicely organized, making it a good moment to reach out to regulators about this matter. So far, the Canadian petition hasn't been submitted yet—hopefully it will be soon!
The timeline for a game's popularity is uncertain. No one possesses such insight. The impact will likely lead companies to allow users to run the game independently once support ends. Well done to the many players who will enjoy these titles!
I recognize that developers may lack this understanding, and maintaining servers can be expensive—particularly with a large player base. Isn't that sufficient? After all, people invest time and money by purchasing and regularly enjoying the game; shouldn’t they have the right to continue playing?
Absolutely, it's surprising how some still enjoy playing games that are over two decades old.
I believe the discussion overlooks the larger context. This isn't just about maintaining online-dependent titles; it marks a real move toward truly owning digital assets you purchased. Instead of relying solely on licensing agreements and being subject to the IP owners' decisions, you retain control over whether you can play the game you bought. Although currently limited to this scope, this approach might influence future developments in software ownership.
It will be worth watching how it develops. If not getting enough attention, mainstream media might help spread the word. In the early stages, there should be various difficulty settings: 1) some titles need online access but are designed for solo play—should be straightforward. 2) games focused mainly on single-player with optional online features or updates. 3a) titles that work well in multiplayer mode but can function offline, like certain e-sports titles. 4) games where fresh content is released regularly, keeping the experience engaging (e.g., many gacha games).
Looking at examples like Genshin Impact fits mostly into points 2 and 3a. Generally, most games could be built as single-player experiences or limited co-op options (point 3a). Point 4 usually applies to titles with time-limited events that shape the narrative.
Currently, the story needs about two more content updates before it feels complete. After that, it’s unclear if it will continue or evolve. Some fans might wait, while others could move on. I truly hope developers consider rebranding it as a standalone single-player title at that stage, allowing those who dislike gacha mechanics the chance to enjoy what I think is one of the greatest games ever made.