In a previous article on intellectual property (IP) restrictions in gaming, I made one thing clear - you don't really own your games.
Live-service games are an example of this. They rely on an internet connection to access most of the games features. If Fortnite or Valorant shuts down its servers, you effectively can't play the game anymore.
These models thrive due to a variety of paid cosmetics that keep the game free-to-play, allowing it to be accessible and retain players. When a live-service game isn't free-to-play, however, shutting down servers means a guaranteed loss on your investment into the title.
In response, a movement called Stop Killing Games has started. It aims to influence governments to pass laws requiring publishers to maintain games in a working state after servers shut down. It uses 2014 Ubisoft racing game The Crew as an example, which shut down its servers in 2024 with no refunds to long-term players. The game was never marketed as having an expiration date, nor did gift cards for its in-game currency system - with activation codes lasting until 2099 - suggest it would ever end.
That lawsuit tries to use California law to hold a company accountable. Places like the European Union are receiving direct petitions to change their laws around the subject thanks to the Stop Killing Games Movement.
Could the same happen in the U.S.? The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has yet to respond to consumer complaints about The Crew. Digital storefronts such as Steam have put up notices saying you are buying a license to play, not the game itself. All signs point towards informing consumers of this reality rather than working to change it.
However, while waves are being made overseas, perhaps some could ripple onto the U.S.
Source: Stop Killing GamesLet's Talk Consumer Protection Laws
The FTC is the main government agency that protects consumers from fraudulent practices. According to 15 U.S.C. § 46, this body can investigate any business engaging in commerce (besides banks), create regulations, and ensure adherence to antitrust laws.
A majority of their regulations in the gaming world is related to in-game purchases. Most recently, they are refunding unwanted charges for Fortnite items purchased by children and requiring companies such as Hoyoverse to add preventative measures against children purchasing "loot boxes," which is a catch-all term for chance-based rewards systems in video games.
Yet, little can be said about their actions in regards to the actual purchase of a game.
The closest thing we have is regulations on how the longevity of the game is construed. This is indirectly governed by Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45), which prevents "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." This refuses to address the core of the issue. While the lawsuit against Ubisoft's game can make progress based on this rule, all this will do is require publishers to inform consumers of the finite nature of their games.
How Do Other Countries Approach It?
This phenomenon isn't unique to the U.S.
Earlier this year, the U.K. Parliament announced it has no plans to change consumer protection laws to protect consumers' access to live service games after their servers shut down. Their current legislation, the Consumer Rights Act of 2015, only requires products to be of a "satisfactory quality" that matches a "particular purpose" as originally advertised. If a player was led to believe the game would last forever, that's a different story; otherwise, it's fair game. The rest of the European continent echoes the same sentiment currently, but responses to the Stop Killing Games movement are ongoing.
In Australia, the Standing Committee on Petitions formally responded to the call for new legislation, stating they won't act. Instead, the organizers of the movement were referred to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which resolves disputes regarding products and services in the country. Here, publishers can be called out on technicalities such as claiming a virtual item will last "forever" when the life of the game is not, in fact, forever.
Unfortunately, calling out technicalities seems to be the consensus across the various countries this movement is present in. It will provide immediate recourse for consumer misinformation, but it will not assist in game preservation.
What Could Happen in the Future?
Some misconceptions about the movement claim that it'll force publishers to convert multiplayer games to single-player, detracting from their core business model and making it difficult to sustain two different parts of their game. The movement's FAQ debunks this. Many games like MMORPGs rely on a large world where players can interact with one another, and cannot reasonably function in an offline format. That's why private hosting has become a better alternative, where games such as World of Warcraft can exist indefinitely when individuals, not publishers, have the burden of providing the servers to host games.
The movement also doesn't call for every feature to be available. The goal is to have a semblance of game preservation and transparency with the consumer on how online games will be made available at the end of their lifespan.
Nonetheless, these changes are not favorable to certain models. Notably, gacha games, a type of loot-box-based live service game where players roll for limited-time characters or equipment, are not able to be converted to a single-player format without destroying the game's premise. Private hosting is also out of the question if publishers and developers wish to protect their proprietary server-hosting technology. With many of these games originating in Asian countries, it's unlikely the movement could ever spread to them. To add on, these games are almost always free to play - the decision to purchase characters is on you. You can't have stake in a game you didn't buy.
So, to reiterate, you don't own the games you buy. However, the Stop Killing Games petition provides some hope in being able to take back a little bit of access. The U.S. doesn't have a petition-based system for suggesting laws, but you're highly encouraged to sign the petition at this link if you or someone you know is from the European Union. For us in the U.S., we have to remain hopeful - no game should be dead forever.
Comments
Post a Comment