The Gamers Taking On the Industry to Stop It Switching Off Games
The gamers taking on the industry – When a game publisher decides to shut down an online title, do players lose their right to enjoy it? This question has sparked a growing movement among gamers, led by a campaign called Stop Killing Games. Founded by American YouTuber Ross Scott in 2024, the initiative challenges the practice of companies disabling access to games after purchase, often leaving them unplayable for users who can no longer connect to servers. The campaign has gained traction, culminating in a significant petition that reached over 1.3 million signatures, prompting the European Commission to take notice. A public hearing in the European Parliament followed in April, marking a pivotal moment in the fight for digital ownership rights.
The Catalyst: Ubisoft’s Decision to End The Crew
The campaign’s origin can be traced to Ubisoft’s announcement in 2024 that it would discontinue the online racing game *The Crew*. The French publisher cited “upcoming server infrastructure and licensing constraints” as reasons for the shutdown. However, for many players, the move felt more like a betrayal. *The Crew* had amassed more than 12 million players worldwide during its lifespan, becoming a staple of gaming culture for some. Ross Scott, who goes by Accursed Farms online, was deeply affected by the decision. “I just hate seeing creative works effectively destroyed,” he said in a statement. The phrase “killing” a game, used by Scott to describe the practice, refers to the moment when “every copy of that game that’s ever been sold has been disabled, and no one on the planet can run it.”
“I was around 18 at the time of the launch—it was a big part of my adult life growing up,” said Chemicalflood, a long-time player of *The Crew*. “It was a great escape from hardship at the time, so it has always been something special to me.”
For Chemicalflood, the closure of *The Crew*’s servers was not just about losing access but about severing a personal connection. The game had evolved into a shared experience with his children, who delighted in exploring its virtual recreation of the United States. “The shutdown itself wasn’t upsetting,” he explained. “But how they handled it was the kick in the teeth.” His frustration highlights a broader sentiment: while players may understand the necessity of ending support, they resent the abrupt and irreversible nature of the decision.
Ownership vs. Licensing: The Debate Intensifies
Ross Scott’s campaign has drawn attention to the distinction between ownership and licensing in digital media. When a gamer buys a physical copy of a game, they expect the right to play it indefinitely, he argues. Yet, with online-only titles, that right is conditional. “You bring it home and install the game, you play it for some time, and then suddenly the publisher destroys all copies worldwide, including yours,” said Whammy4, a founder of the fan community The Crew Unlimited. “It’s like someone breaking into your home and stealing your bike or car.”
“You buy a physical copy of a game, you bring it home and install the game, you play it for some amount of time. Then all of a sudden the publisher completely destroys all copies of the game worldwide, including yours,” Whammy4 said. “No refunds, no actual heads-up at the time of purchase, and nothing you can do to keep it at all.”
Scott and his supporters advocate for a more responsible approach to game closures. They propose that publishers should consider “end-of-life plans,” such as converting games to offline modes or releasing software to preserve them. “We’re not asking companies to keep servers running forever,” Scott clarified. “But they should at least give players a choice.”
Legal and Industry Responses
Ubisoft has defended its actions in court, arguing that players purchase a license to use the game rather than full ownership. This stance was tested in a class-action lawsuit filed by two California-based *The Crew* players, which was dismissed in June 2025 after the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew. The company emphasized that online services were not guaranteed to last indefinitely, a point it claims was made clear to consumers during the purchase process.
Meanwhile, the wider gaming industry has pushed back against the campaign. Video Games Europe, representing major publishers, stated that “shutting down online services must be an option” when games are no longer commercially viable. The organization warned that the campaign’s demands could increase the cost of developing online-only games. “Publishers need flexibility to adapt to market changes,” a representative said, adding that “end-of-life decisions are part of the business model.”
A Broader Movement in Gaming
While *The Crew* became the catalyst for Stop Killing Games, the issue is part of a larger trend in the gaming industry. The rise of “live-service” games—titles designed to be played for extended periods with ongoing updates—has intensified debates about digital ownership. These games often rely on persistent online infrastructure, making their shutdowns more impactful. In May 2024, Sony announced plans to discontinue support for *Destruction AllStars*, a multiplayer title that had struggled to retain players. Similarly, *Concord*, a live-service shooter launched by Sony in 2024, was taken offline less than two weeks after its release, despite offering full refunds to customers.
Scott and his allies argue that these closures are not just about business decisions but about the erosion of player rights. “Players shouldn’t be left hanging when their favorite games disappear,” he said. The campaign’s focus on transparency and accountability has resonated with a generation of gamers who value long-term access to the titles they invest in. By challenging publishers to provide more notice and options, Stop Killing Games aims to reshape the industry’s approach to digital content.
The Road Ahead
As the European Commission weighs the campaign’s arguments, the debate over game ownership continues to gain momentum. The Stop Killing Games initiative represents a shift in how consumers view their relationship with digital entertainment. For many, the fight is not just about preserving a game but about asserting their right to enjoy it without the threat of sudden obsolescence. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future disputes, influencing how publishers manage their online services and how players perceive their investments.
In a rapidly evolving industry, the tension between creative freedom and consumer rights remains unresolved. With more games relying on online connectivity, the question of whether players truly own their purchases grows ever more pressing. As Scott and others push for change, the hope is that the EU will recognize the importance of giving gamers a voice in the lifecycle of the games they love. Whether this movement will succeed in altering industry practices remains to be seen, but its impact is already being felt in the gaming community and beyond.
