The European Parliament receives an initiative against the end of games.

The Stop Killing Games movement finally had its day in a hearing at the European Parliament, and the outcome seemed to dampen the arrogant stance of major publishers. Led by Ross Scott, the initiative fights to ensure that digitally purchased games do not become electronic paperweights when companies decide to shut down servers. During the 45-minute session, it became evident that the practice of "destroying" products sold as permanent is a genuine concern for hundreds of millions of citizens. It's strange to think that the industry attempts to sell a game as a durable good, yet reserves the right to enter your "virtual library" and delete the file without offering any explanation or offline alternative.

"The industry is trying to win on both sides, trying to find ways to say they're selling a game that they're actually not selling." — fired Ross Scott, exposing the legal confusion companies create to circumvent basic rights.

The discussion gained traction following the closure of The Crew by Ubisoft, but recent examples like Concord by Sony and the ongoing failure of Anthem by EA demonstrate that the problem is only growing. The committee's vice-president, Nils Ušakovs, admitted that digital preservation and respect for consumer rights are urgent issues. Meanwhile, Giuseppe Abbamonte, director of the European Commission, promised to revisit copyright regulations, which currently seem to protect corporations' immediate profits more than the buyer's ownership. It's an important moral victory, although implementing strict laws still depends on reports that are expected only in July.

Scott's argument was spot-on when comparing the situation to other sectors: if you buy a book, the publisher cannot enter your home and take it back. However, in gaming, 93.5% of titles analyzed in a survey of 400 works were permanently deactivated as soon as official support ended. This planned obsolescence is, in the words of the project's founder, something that borders on fraud, as the prices charged are the same for games that last forever, hiding the "expiration date" to not affect initial sales. The critique here is clear: companies want the money from a definitive sale but deliver a poor rental service without an end contract.

"This commercial practice causes more environmental destruction than anything else by a huge margin." — stated Scott, emphasizing that the goal is not to change how companies profit, but rather to ensure that, when they cease support, they leave the game functional for those who paid for it.

Support from figures like Dutch MP Catarina Vieira, who demonstrated in-depth knowledge of the gaming ecosystem, brought new momentum to the cause. What Stop Killing Games demands is basic: accountability. If a studio wants to abandon a project, they should release tools for private servers or patches that allow local functionality. Seeing the European Parliament take this seriously is a sign that the period of selling "licenses" disguised as products might be coming to an end, forcing transparency that Microsoft, EA, and Ubisoft have avoided for decades.

We now wait to see if this political pressure will translate into real protections or if the lobbying of tech giants will be able to silence players' protests in exchange for even more restrictive terms of service.

Considering that almost all major releases today rely on a constant connection, would you prefer to pay less for a game you know will expire or believe that the full price should guarantee eternal access, regardless of the publisher's intentions?