The European Commission has decided against forcing video game companies to keep their online titles playable after shutting them down. On June 16, 2026, the regulator issued its formal response to the "Stop Destroying Videogames" European citizens' initiative, concluding that a legal obligation to preserve games would not be proportionate under existing EU law (EUR-Lex, 2026).
Instead, the Commission pledged to work with the games industry on a voluntary code of conduct for sunsetting titles and to strengthen consumer awareness about existing rights. The decision disappointed the more than 1.2 million people who signed the petition, but it also drew new attention to a problem that isn't going away: thousands of games vanishing from existence once their servers go dark.
How the Stop Killing Games movement started
The movement traces back to April 2024, when Ubisoft shut down the servers for The Crew, a 2014 racing game with over 12 million registered players. Ubisoft didn't just end support. It revoked player licenses entirely, deleting the title from people's libraries without offering meaningful refunds (Engadget, 2026). The move sparked a firestorm about what "buying" a digital game actually means.
Ross Scott, a YouTuber known for the machinima series Freeman's Mind, launched the Stop Killing Games campaign in response. Scott argued that publishers were selling games as permanent purchases while reserving the unilateral right to destroy them. Within weeks, the campaign had attracted widespread media coverage and support from creators including PewDiePie, jacksepticeye, and Minecraft creator Markus "Notch" Persson (Wikipedia, 2026).
Why the EU said no to mandatory preservation
The Commission's reasoning rested on several legal pillars. Under EU copyright law, rightsholders retain exclusive control over how their works are distributed and used, including the conditions under which a license ends. Forcing publishers to keep games running could conflict with those rights, the Commission said, particularly when games incorporate third-party licensed content like real car brands or music tracks (EUR-Lex, 2026).
The regulator also flagged cybersecurity concerns. Maintaining server infrastructure for discontinued games creates potential security vulnerabilities once publishers stop issuing patches and updates. And there's the cost factor: with 26% of European game developers laid off between 2024 and 2025, the Commission argued that mandating preservation obligations would add financial strain to an industry already under pressure (EUR-Lex, 2026).
The very gaming companies that the EU wants to take this preservation effort on voluntarily lobbied against codifying preservation efforts. Why would they do that if they were willing to do this all voluntarily?
— Techdirt
What the voluntary code of conduct means
The Commission's alternative is a self-regulatory code of conduct developed with the industry, consumer organizations, and cultural heritage institutions. The code would address how publishers handle end-of-life for games, promote clearer labeling about potential discontinuation on storefronts, and explore partnerships for long-term preservation. A report on the Digital Content Directive's application to game shutdowns is due by the end of 2026 (EUR-Lex, 2026).
Critics immediately questioned the approach. The Video Games Europe trade association had already lobbied against mandatory rules, arguing that preservation obligations would be "too expensive for developers and publishers." Now it would help draft the very voluntary standards meant to replace those rules. The Commission acknowledged that stakeholder views diverged significantly but framed the code as a pragmatic middle ground.
What consumer protection laws already cover
The EU isn't starting from scratch. Several existing directives already offer partial protection. The Digital Content Directive requires providers to inform consumers about contract duration and termination conditions, and ensures proportionate refunds when discontinuation doesn't match what consumers reasonably expected. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive prohibits misleading omissions about a product's lifespan at the point of sale (EUR-Lex, 2026).
- Refund rights for games discontinued in violation of the contract
- Transparency requirements about discontinuation at the point of sale
- A voluntary industry code of conduct for sunsetting games by end of 2026
- A Digital Content Directive report covering game shutdowns by end of 2026
- Strengthened consumer awareness campaigns about existing rights
But here's the catch: these rules don't require publishers to keep games running. They only mandate transparency and refunds. If a game shuts down after five years, a consumer might get a proportionate refund for time lost, but they won't get their game back. The gap between "you get your money back" and "you get to keep playing" is exactly what the movement wanted to close.
How many games are actually at risk?
The numbers paint a grim picture. Stop Killing Games tracked 738 online-dependent games and found that 68% were either already unplayable or at serious risk of becoming so. Only 16 games, roughly 2.4%, were preserved by their original developers. Another 110 were kept alive by fan communities through reverse-engineered servers (Wikipedia, 2026).
Ross Scott presented even starker numbers to the European Parliament in April 2026: 93.5% of 400 discontinued games had been left in a completely unusable state. The pattern is consistent. Publishers shut down servers, revoke licenses, and in many cases actively prevent fan-made preservation efforts through copyright enforcement. The result is a growing graveyard of cultural works that no one can access.
| Status | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Preserved by developers | 16 | 2.4% |
| Preserved by fans | 110 | 16.5% |
| At risk | 313 | 46.9% |
| Unplayable | 229 | 34.3% |
California and Brazil push forward with legislation
While the EU hesitated, other jurisdictions moved. California passed AB 2426 in September 2024, a law that prohibits sellers from using "buy" and "purchase" language when consumers only receive a revocable license. The law took effect January 1, 2025, and prompted Steam to add disclaimers clarifying that game purchases grant a license, not ownership (Wikipedia, 2026).
California went further in 2026 with the Protect Our Games Act (AB-1921). The bill requires publishers to give 60 days' notice before ending support and mandates either an offline patch, a standalone version, or a full refund. The Assembly passed it 43-16 in May 2026, though it still needed a Senate supermajority. In July 2026, Brazil introduced its own bill, directly inspired by Stop Killing Games, requiring publishers to offer offline support tools or server-side emulators upon discontinuation (Wikipedia, 2026).
The bigger picture for digital ownership
The Crew is a case study in what goes wrong. After shutting down servers in March 2024, Ubisoft revoked player licenses in early April. But fans discovered the game contained dormant code for an offline mode that had never been activated. A community project called The Crew Unlimited built a server emulator and released it in September 2025, making the game playable again without Ubisoft's involvement (Wikipedia, 2026).
That fan effort illustrates the fundamental tension. The Crew Unlimited team had to reverse-engineer the game's network protocols and rewrite parts of its logic from scratch, all without Ubisoft's cooperation and under constant risk of a copyright takedown. The EU's rejection doesn't kill the preservation conversation. It reframes it. The Digital Content Directive report due by end of 2026 could open the door to stronger rules if the voluntary code of conduct fails to produce results.
Meanwhile, the movement continues to gain traction globally. The French consumer group UFC-Que Choisir sued Ubisoft in March 2026 over The Crew's shutdown. Stop Killing Games launched formal NGOs in both the EU and the US to support long-term counter-lobbying. And with every new live-service game that shuts down, the argument for preservation rights gets stronger.
Publishers know customers expect video games to last, so they sell these in the same ways as ones that can work forever, as a one-time purchase with no expiry date and price them the same. The industry is trying to have it both ways.
— Ross Scott, European Parliament testimony, April 2026
What players should know right now
If you buy a game in the EU today, you have the right to clear information about how long it will remain playable and what happens when support ends. If a game shuts down in a way that contradicts what you were told at the point of sale, you may be entitled to a proportionate refund. But you don't have the right to keep playing. That distinction matters, and it's the gap that the next phase of this fight will try to close.
- EUR-Lex — EC Response to Stop Destroying Videogames ECI (C/2026/3601)
- Engadget — The EU won't pursue a mandatory game preservation law
- Wikipedia — Stop Killing Games
- Wikipedia — The Crew (video game)
- The Disc-Pocalypse: Retail Game Sales Collapse in 2027
- GTA VI's Digital-Only Launch: The Numbers That Shock
- PS5 Blackout: Digital Ownership Under Siege
- The $70 Game Price Backlash: Publishers Rethink Pricing
Did the EU pass a game preservation law?
No. The Commission decided against mandatory preservation, citing copyright concerns. It pledged a voluntary code of conduct with a report due by end of 2026.
Can I get a refund if a game shuts down?
In the EU, yes — the Digital Content Directive requires proportionate refunds. But you don't have the right to keep playing.
How many games are at risk?
Stop Killing Games tracked 738 online games and found 68% were unplayable or at risk. Only 16 (2.4%) were preserved by developers. Another 110 were kept alive by fans.
Bottom line
If you buy a game in the EU today, you have the right to clear information about how long it will remain playable and what happens when support ends. If a game shuts down in a way that contradicts what you were told at the point of sale, you may be entitled to a proportionate refund. But you don't have the right to keep playing. That distinction matters, and it's the gap that the next phase of this fight will try to close.
What we still don't know
This is a fast-moving story. We update the post as new facts land — and we'll flag it when we do.
Enjoyed this? Pay it forward
A sharp story is worth passing on. Share it with the people who read tech like it matters.