According to HotHardware, the Stop Killing Games movement has escalated to government levels after Ubisoft shut down The Crew, with its petition gathering over a million signatures across the European Union. The UK Parliament officially debated the issue, where Sports Minister Stephanie Peacock firmly stated the government has no plans to change current policies. She argued that requiring companies to retool online-only games for offline play would create undue burdens and that handing games over to fans presents significant challenges. However, several Labour MPs including Mark Sewards and Warinder Juss pushed back hard, arguing publishers have a duty to keep purchased games playable and comparing the situation to other consumer products. While the government position remains unchanged, the debate itself represents a major milestone for the movement’s visibility.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The Real Problem Nobody’s Solving
Here’s the thing – this isn’t really about The Crew or any single game. It’s about the fundamental shift in what “buying a game” actually means today. When you purchase a purely online game, you’re basically renting access to servers that could disappear tomorrow. And companies have been perfectly happy with this arrangement because it gives them complete control.
Stephanie Peacock’s argument about “undue burden” isn’t wrong from a technical perspective. Converting an online-only game to work offline isn’t like flipping a switch. You’re talking about rearchitecting authentication systems, recreating matchmaking logic, potentially rewriting entire backend services that handle everything from player progression to world state. For some games, the offline version would be a completely different piece of software.
Preservation Versus Commerce
But Labour MP Ben Goldsborough hit on something crucial that often gets overlooked – cultural preservation. We’re losing gaming history at an alarming rate. Think about it: future historians won’t be able to study the evolution of online gaming because the servers will be long gone. The argument that “companies may need to communicate better” feels like the weakest possible concession when we’re talking about preserving entire genres of interactive art.
Warinder Juss made the mobile phone comparison, and it’s actually pretty sharp. If Apple decided your iPhone would just stop working because they released a new model, there would be riots in the streets. Yet we accept this exact scenario with games we’ve invested hundreds of dollars and thousands of hours into. The double standard is glaring when you really think about it.
So What Actually Changes Now?
Realistically? Not much in the short term. The government’s position is clear, and they’re not budging. But getting this debate onto the parliamentary floor is huge for awareness. It signals that this isn’t just gamers complaining – it’s a legitimate consumer rights issue that elected officials are taking seriously.
The official petition crossing the million signature threshold shows the scale of public concern. When numbers get that big, politicians start paying attention even if they’re not ready to act yet. This debate plants seeds that could grow into actual policy down the road, especially as more games go online-only and more players get burned.
Basically, we’re watching the very beginning of what could become meaningful change. It’s frustratingly slow, and it won’t help people who lost access to The Crew. But for the games you might buy five years from now? This conversation matters more than it seems.
