Stop Killing Games final verified vote count for the EU petition is just under 1.3 million

As a gamedev: I think you got it perfectly right.

Nowadays online multiplayer games with dedicated servers and in-game store are usually designed around a cloud platform. Not because it couldn't be done otherwise, but because it's cheaper to develop around a ready-made cloud API than developing the server-side software yourself. Those cloud-APIs tend to end up everywhere in the game though, simply because once one has them as a dependency, it's just too convenient to use them whenever they are suitable.For instance, if you have an in-game-store run by a cloud platform, it is just natural to also have the player inventory managed by the cloud platform, because then the server can just modify the inventory when the player uses the store. When the publisher stops paying for the cloud platform though, the players' inventory management becomes unavailable, and has to be coded again, from scratch. The same is true for all other features handled by the cloud provider (matchmaking, score-tracking, etc.).

Implementing all those things so the game works without the cloud provider is probably doable within a couple of man-weeks, but it's not nothing, and publishers need an incentive to pay for it.

(That's why I, as a gamedev, support Stop Killing Games - it offers us developers leverage that we can use to convince publishers to pay for features like an offline-mode or direct-IP support.)

I, as a player, would rather prefer that games will never be designed around an ingame store anymore.

@soulsource how much difference is there between a cloud platform and, say, a Linux PC? Besides the scale of the cloud. Is it possible to reuse the software designed for a cloud and run it on a conventional x86_64 Linux device with perhaps minimal changes to the game client so it can locate the custom server? Same for Arm64 Linux, I don't know which one is more popular on cloud

Quoting: mr-victory@soulsource how much difference is there between a cloud platform and, say, a Linux PC? Besides the scale of the cloud. Is it possible to reuse the software designed for a cloud and run it on a conventional x86_64 Linux device with perhaps minimal changes to the game client so it can locate the custom server? Same for Arm64 Linux, I don't know which one is more popular on cloud

Not much of a difference in principle.

And if we are talking solo-play only (which would be the minimal requirement the initiative aims for), no "scale" is needed really.
Only a "mock"-server of sorts that allows a single individual to play somehow.

Such mock-servers (at least in a limited capacity) are already a reality in all major MMOs, as they are a necessity of development (you wouldn't want every single dev to have to connect to some online instance for testing their latest change).

Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 26 Jan 2026 at 2:32 pm UTC

A minor correction: Stop Killing Games is another entity related but not the same as the group organizing the EU initiative. They are called Stop Destroying Videogames. It's on the initiative page (which if it worked it would show the name) https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home

I still play Dirt 3. It runs perfectly on the Steam Deck and provides loads of fun even to this day. I cannot say the same for many modern racing titles. I waited years for Forza Horizon 4 to reach a reasonable price, but by the time I was ready to buy it, it had already been pulled from the store. What is the point of waiting for a game to be affordable only for it to be killed at the six-year mark?

I absolutely hate the idea of buying racing games anymore because I know they will inevitably be delisted. Why should I spend $60 to $120 on a game to have "all the bells and whistles" when the developer plans to stop selling it before the decade is even out?

I find it very difficult to justify rewarding this type of anti-consumer behavior. I would much rather a game use indefinite licensing deals, or even feature fictional cars and original music, than for "limited licensing" to be used as a justification for killing a product. Ultimately, licensing is just a secondary excuse for the primary driver: greed.

Quoting: CreepioI still play Dirt 3. It runs perfectly on the Steam Deck and provides loads of fun even to this day. I cannot say the same for many modern racing titles. I waited years for Forza Horizon 4 to reach a reasonable price, but by the time I was ready to buy it, it had already been pulled from the store. What is the point of waiting for a game to be affordable only for it to be killed at the six-year mark?

It's absolutely not the same. FH4 still works well as of today, including online features such as pvp races and eliminator game mode. The only exception is that they killed the festival playlists, effectively making some of the achievements impossible to unlock, which is a bummer. Anyway, delisting a game from the store because the licences expired is absolutely not the same as making the game not launch after the servers are shut down.

@soulsource how much difference is there between a cloud platform and, say, a Linux PC? Besides the scale of the cloud. Is it possible to reuse the software designed for a cloud and run it on a conventional x86_64 Linux device with perhaps minimal changes to the game client so it can locate the custom server? Same for Arm64 Linux, I don't know which one is more popular on cloud

The big difference is the software. Which is owned by the cloud platform providers and not available to the game developers. Of course it can be mocked (as TheShEEEP pointed out), but that's work too, that needs to be paid for.

I, as a player, would rather prefer that games will never be designed around an ingame store anymore.

As a gamedev: I wished so too. However, often the options a publisher gives are "live support title with in-game store", or "the project won't happen". Since it isn't easy to find game project funding at the moment, the second option might very well mean having to fire people, or even closing the studio, so it's about as much a choice as the Patrician's offer of "freedom" in Going Postal.

I honestly don't see this going anywhere. You really can't demand that software developers not take advantage of cost saving technologies like cloud servers. What's next, demanding that music and video streaming services make their content permanently available to customers in the event that they shutdown? And what about software other than games that depends on servers and key activations? Phone apps? Digital thermostats? Network connected security cameras? The long list of "smart devices" that require some sort of online service to function? How broad do we expect this law to be?

Frankly, I think this is never going to happen.

Quoting: Mountain ManHow broad do we expect this law to be?

The original introduction video to the campaign talked about this. They also mentioned that in an ideal world, all of what you mentioned would be regulated in a way that allows people to keep accessing the content they bought a license for. However, the initiators were aware that it would never happen if it was that broad, so they picked games as a smaller target. That's not perfect, but it's a start.

Quoting: soulsource

Quoting: Mountain ManHow broad do we expect this law to be?

The original introduction video to the campaign talked about this. They also mentioned that in an ideal world, all of what you mentioned would be regulated in a way that allows people to keep accessing the content they bought a license for. However, the initiators were aware that it would never happen if it was that broad, so they picked games as a smaller target. That's not perfect, but it's a start.

I think that will ultimately kill any chance of this becoming a reality, especially since most lawmakers consider video games to be nothing more than childish amusement. Game developers could also make a good case that they are being unfairly singled out when even by this groups own admission, there are many other consumer products that depend on network services.

Last edited by Mountain Man on 27 Jan 2026 at 3:42 pm UTC

Quoting: Mountain ManYou really can't demand that software developers not take advantage of cost saving technologies like cloud servers.

Sure you can. Just like the Chinese were able to demand that milk producers not take advantage of cost saving technologies like watering it way down and thickening it with malamine. We demand that people not take advantage of cost savings all the time, if taking advantage of them would cause some disadvantage to their customers or the common good. We demand that factories spend money on scrubber thingies in their smokestacks so we don't get acid rain; that's why there is still maple syrup.

Quoting: Mountain ManYou really can't demand that software developers not take advantage of cost saving technologies like cloud servers.

Of course you could.

But that isn't the goal - as I already wrote, those mock servers are already a reality in almost any project.
It would be work to make these more user-palatable, but not much. Paling in comparison to the dough raked in by online games that were even just a bit successful.

It is also by far not the only way to go about this, nor the cheapest.
You are drinking the publisher cool-aid already and they haven't even really started firing their propaganda - weird, dude!

You could absolutely - and reasonably! - demand that an end-of-life plan must be made before an MMO/Online-focused game is released, and that end-of-life plan MUST include a way to play in a "reasonable, minimal way" (eg. say offline only, or self-hosted, etc) past end-of-life.
Or you can't release/sell it in the EU.
Simple, really.

If those few weeks of work and minimal amount of resource cost would keep a game from being developed, then developing that game was never a viable business decision anyway.
Publishers really have no leg to stand on here.

You also can't forget: When you ignore the suits, the vast majority of developers is in favor of this.
Understandably so, as nobody wants to see years of their work just ceasing to exist.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Mountain ManYou really can't demand that software developers not take advantage of cost saving technologies like cloud servers.

Sure you can. Just like the Chinese were able to demand that milk producers not take advantage of cost saving technologies like watering it way down and thickening it with malamine. We demand that people not take advantage of cost savings all the time, if taking advantage of them would cause some disadvantage to their customers or the common good. We demand that factories spend money on scrubber thingies in their smokestacks so we don't get acid rain; that's why there is still maple syrup.

Watering down milk and adding thickeners without disclosing this to the consumer is fraudulent, so of course it's illegal. That's not at all the same as a developer using existing cloud services rather than expending the resources to create their own online infrastructure. As long as they disclose the fact upfront that future functionality is not guaranteed, then there is no fraud. And I think that's ultimately where this is going, that any product that depends on servers will be required to carry a prominent disclaimer that necessary online services could be discontinued at any time without warning.

Last edited by Mountain Man on 27 Jan 2026 at 4:36 pm UTC

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: Mountain ManYou really can't demand that software developers not take advantage of cost saving technologies like cloud servers.

Of course you could.

But that isn't the goal - as I already wrote, those mock servers are already a reality in almost any project.
It would be work to make these more user-palatable, but not much. Paling in comparison to the dough raked in by online games that were even just a bit successful.

It is also by far not the only way to go about this, nor the cheapest.
You are drinking the publisher cool-aid already and they haven't even really started firing their propaganda - weird, dude!

You could absolutely - and reasonably! - demand that an end-of-life plan must be made before an MMO/Online-focused game is released, and that end-of-life plan MUST include a way to play in a "reasonable, minimal way" (eg. say offline only, or self-hosted, etc) past end-of-life.
Or you can't release/sell it in the EU.
Simple, really.

If those few weeks of work and minimal amount of resource cost would keep a game from being developed, then developing that game was never a viable business decision anyway.
Publishers really have no leg to stand on here.

You also can't forget: When you ignore the suits, the vast majority of developers is in favor of this.
Understandably so, as nobody wants to see years of their work just ceasing to exist.

Frankly, I have no time or patience for people who dismiss an opposing opinion as "drinking the cool-aid".

@Mountain Man

It means blindly accepting direction and/or the status quo without giving it any consideration of your own. From what I've read, this does not seem to apply to you.

You are entitled to your opinion, even if others do not agree with it.

Last edited by Caldathras on 27 Jan 2026 at 8:28 pm UTC