Video Games Europe, a trade association that represents a bunch of major game publishers, have issued a statement pushing back against Stop Killing Games. We just recently had the news that Stop Killing Games has been seeing a huge surge, so a lot more are taking notice of it.
VGE represents the likes of Activision Blizzard King, Bandai Namco, Epic Games, ESL FACEIT Group, Netflix, Nintendo, SEGA, Roblox, Ubisoft, Riot Games and many others.
Here's their full statement:
We appreciate the passion of our community; however, the decision to discontinue online services is multi-faceted, never taken lightly and must be an option for companies when an online experience is no longer commercially viable. We understand that it can be disappointing for players but, when it does happen, the industry ensures that players are given fair notice of the prospective changes in compliance with local consumer protection laws.
Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable. In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss our position with policy makers and those who have led the European Citizens Initiative in the coming months.
It's perhaps no surprise they're not in favour of it. It is their job to serve the interests of game publishers and other companies they're involved with.
The thing is, from a consumer point of view you are paying for something that can just be taken away whenever a publisher moves on from it. Stop Killing Games is not asking for publishers to infinitely support games, as shutting off their own direct support is not something that's trying to be stopped. But simply giving players an option to continue it themselves is the main argument.
Complicated though, since every store (yes, including GOG) are just giving you a license. You don't own the games you buy.
When it comes to private servers, I can somewhat understand what they're saying. They can be a minefield of legal issues, and with all the new regulations coming in from various countries like the UK's Online Safety Act, running a private server is getting a lot more complicated too. Because yes, games that have chat and interactions are in scope of it and regulations from other countries too.
This comes in around the same time as EA announcing that Anthem is going to be shutting down, with players no longer able to jump in from January 12 2026.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
See more from me
You can also find comments for this article on social media: 
doragasu 10 hours ago
Corben 10 hours ago
I still see a chance for a service/plugin/software that devs can use to implement multiplayer, gives them full control as long as they monetize their game, and then hand over control to the community or a community driven service.
hardpenguin 10 hours ago
Last edited by such on 7 Jul 2025 at 9:30 am UTC
First they start off with trying to distract from what is actually being asked, they talk about indefinite online functionality, which is not what Stop Killing Games is asking for, they merely ask for the games to remain functional within reason and not be completely bricked. A developer or publisher can opt to release the server software, alternatively they can also add an off-line mode, if neither is possible they can release documentation on how the server software works to assist in reverse engineering, may solutions are possible, no specific solution is demanded. Whatever keeps the core game content accessible or leaves behind the game in a fixable state is reasonable.
Then in the 2nd paragraph they just proceed to argue against it on the grounds of content moderation and data security. Content moderation and data security on a community server is not their concern, it is up to the community to self regulate. Frankly, the average community server will not do anything shady with my data, these greedy publishers do, they'll just sell it to anyone who would like to use it for targeted marketing or to train their models on.
tarmo888 9 hours ago
I also think that people are getting the same answers to misrepresented wishes because everybody answers to the initiative, not the FAQ. And even if they would be answering to the FAQ, they would still get answers to things that are remotely possible, but still difficult.
Gamers simply don't understand the complexities of game development, they only see - publish just one last patch.
robertosf92 9 hours ago
Pyronick 8 hours ago
Gamers simply don't understand the complexities of game development, they only see - publish just one last patch.Game development today is being strangled by a broken business model: selling a product as if it's a service.
In most civil codes, this kind of bait-and-switch would be illegal. You pay full price for a game, but you don't actually own it. The moment the servers go down, the game vanishes... No refunds, no rights.
What bothers me is that this petition only focuses on games. But this isn't just a gaming problem—it's a software problem. The entire SaaS (Software as a Service) model has become one of the most abusive, unregulated business practices since the days of Standard Oil or IG Farben. It strips consumers of ownership and locks everything behind recurring fees and corporate control. This is what "You will own nothing - and you will be happy" is, except nobody will be happy in the end.
This petition is a good step, but the bigger issue goes way beyond games. We need to start pushing back on the entire model.
Last edited by Pyronick on 7 Jul 2025 at 11:42 am UTC
Szkodnix 7 hours ago
Now let's see what actual EU Comission will have to say, rather than typically corporate dogs hired to protect shadowy gaming companies interests.
Dogs can bark, but it shouldn't really change much.
kneekoo 7 hours ago
People don't expect game makers to be forever responsible for the infrastructure, they just want to be able to play the game even if that means they have to go through the hurdles of making their own servers and managing them on their own. But this probably sounds too simple for their complicated minds to get it.
Sure: I will not be able to do raids in an online game. I might not be able to complete dungeons alone. Or ... I could try and be utterly destroyed because I am alone. But that's another point entirely and wouldn't be something companies need to worry about.
All they need to do is: Make sure I can still run the game after they shut everything down. How well it runs will be beneath an S.E.P.-Field.
Last edited by Keksus on 7 Jul 2025 at 12:56 pm UTC
Right ?
Is somewhat of a hipocresía that they suddenly care about players... but not enough Ti let them play xD
Kimyrielle 2 hours ago
But this probably sounds too simple for their complicated minds to get it.
Oh, they understand perfectly well what we want. They just have not the slightest intent to give it us, because they love being the greedy control freaks they are. So they make up all these crap to disguise their real answer, which is "It's much more profitable and fun not to sell them anything, and be able to take it away whenever we feel like it."
Patreon
PayPal
How to play games from GOG and Epic Games on Linux, SteamOS and Steam Deck
How to get Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4 online working on Linux, SteamOS, Steam Deck