The European Commission released their full position now on the Stop Destroying Videogames initiative, and it's not the response many will have been hoping for.
As a reminder on what Stop Destroying Videogames is all about - the idea behind it was to stop game publishers just completely removing your ability to access games you've purchased when shutting servers down. It's all part of the wider Stop Killing Games movement.
In the statement the European Commission mentioned they "cannot propose a legal obligation to keep video games playable after they stop being provided commercially". Why? They say that's thanks to "existing intellectual property rights" as "rights holders enjoy exclusive rights over their creations" and that "In addition to copyright, other intellectual property rights may also be relevant as they may protect different visual and technological aspects of a video game".
They say that existing EU consumer law "already provides for important safeguards protecting the economic interests of consumers", and note that video game publishers have to inform about "the duration and the conditions for terminating the contract before the consumers signs up for the video game".
That's not completely the end of it though, they do plan to "initiate an exchange with the video game industry and consumer representatives with the aim to draw up an industry code of conduct on managing video games' ‘end of life'" and work directly with consumer organisations and authorities to "raise awareness about the applicable rights that protect consumers, including on safeguards protecting the economic interests of consumers".
Sounds like they might be boosting actual enforcement of the existing consumer rules, to have some publishers rethink how long their games are online for. But still, a bit of a kick in the teeth for anyone hoping for actual real change from this.
Source: European Commission
With this result, it clearly opens the doors for other countries to point to this so they don't have to do anything either. Realistically though, it can be quite a complicated situation. One I've written about numerous times before. Servers behind the scenes can be incredibly complex, especially when it comes to games that have DLC and micro-transactions. And then you have to add to that the licensing on music and other things. Plus various other things I'm not thinking of right now.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
See more from me
You can also find comments for this article on social media: 
Quoting: devlandMy take is that northern European social democracies have the best system so far. They are always governed by multiple parties working together to reach compromises and never one single entity that ends up pissing off everyone else.If you like it that way, more power to you. Everyone has a reason for choosing their favourite distro 🫡.
Mountain Man 22 hours ago
seflasporin 21 hours ago
Quoting: Mountain ManI was not expecting this to go anywhere. You can't reasonably legislate to a company that they must guarantee their product will continue to function in perpetuity.That's not what they're trying to do, like at all. The most they would have to do is allow the community to create servers like Marne and Tonga did for Battlefield 1 and V.
Mountain Man 20 hours ago
Quoting: seflasporinWhich is just another way of saying that a company should be legally mandated to guarantee their product will continue to function in perpetuity.Quoting: Mountain ManI was not expecting this to go anywhere. You can't reasonably legislate to a company that they must guarantee their product will continue to function in perpetuity.That's not what they're trying to do, like at all. The most they would have to do is allow the community to create servers like Marne and Tonga did for Battlefield 1 and V.
seflasporin 20 hours ago
Arehandoro 20 hours ago
of course that wont happen, it only do when it affect us.
Quoting: Mountain ManNo, it just means that they should not have the right to stop any one else from trying to make it work by filing copyright claims to people trying to reverse engineer servers for games that the company no longer sells.Quoting: seflasporinWhich is just another way of saying that a company should be legally mandated to guarantee their product will continue to function in perpetuity.Quoting: Mountain ManI was not expecting this to go anywhere. You can't reasonably legislate to a company that they must guarantee their product will continue to function in perpetuity.That's not what they're trying to do, like at all. The most they would have to do is allow the community to create servers like Marne and Tonga did for Battlefield 1 and V.
And it would be nice if they could provide specs or source on how the servers work to help those 3d party attempts but once those 3d party implementations are done they are on their own and have to take over the ball so to speak.
Last edited by F.Ultra on 17 Jun 2026 at 2:11 am UTC
of course that wont happen, it only do when it affect us, ordinary people, not the powerfull ones that rule the world.
Arehandoro 9 hours ago
Quoting: devlandNot quite. There are some areas that do require unanimity, but for the [vast majority of EU legislation](https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/how-does-the-council-vote/qualified-majority/) works with Qualified Majority Voting. The EU can, within its reach, also impose laws and regulations for individual members. The sentiment in many countries is that usually these benefit the biggest/strongest economies. Greece and Spain suffered them greatly during the 2008 crisis.Quoting: SlaxerDoes the EU have the power to influence or veto the way a European country governs itself? Are they funded with your tax dollars? If yes to either of those, then they are a government on top of your government.1 - No. Each member is self governed. Members have the power to veto EU legislation, not the other way around.
For something to become EU law ALL members need to agree to it.
Quoting: Arehandorofor the [vast majority of EU legislation](https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/how-does-the-council-vote/qualified-majority/) works with Qualified Majority VotingI stand corrected. TIL. Thanks.
But it also seems that there is a blocking minority at play which means that if 4 or more members that vote against then the qualified majority is not attained.
It's also worth noting that an abstention under qualified majority voting counts as a vote against, and therefore contributes to the (blocking) minority.
benstor214 4 hours ago
Quoting: SlaxerDoes the EU have the power to influence or veto the way a European country governs itself? Are they funded with your tax dollars? If yes to either of those, then they are a government on top of your government.Your second question is flawed. The better way to phrase it would be: “Does the EU have the right to tax the citizens of its member states?” To which the answer is no.
(And even if they had the right to collect taxes, I doubt they would collect “dollars”.)
If anything that is funded by tax “dollars” would become a government on top of the government that collected said taxes, then my local theater group would be a government on top of my government as they are fully funded by my government.
Last edited by benstor214 on 17 Jun 2026 at 1:35 pm UTC
Caldathras 2 hours ago
Quoting: devlandLook at the nordic European countries. Their social democracy works very well and it's based on compromise. They almost never have one party ruling over the others. It's always all of them working with the others to get some of the things each of them wants.I seem to remember once a Canadian politician declaring that such multi-party governing arrangements were undemocratic. I also remember shaking my head at the stupidity of his remark. There is nothing illegal or undemocratic about it, even in Canada. The parties here are so caught up in competing with one another that compromise never even occurs to them.
But then, this is also the nation where a provincial Premier once declared that referendums were undemocratic. That Premier's ego knew no bounds.
Patreon
PayPal