«Stop Killing Games» — what is this movement and how it could forever change the gaming industry

On July 31, the signature collection period for the European Citizens' Initiative "Stop Destroying Videogames" will come to an end. If one million citizens of EU countries sign it by then, there’s a high chance the European Union will adopt a new law to protect consumer rights. The organizers of the "Stop Killing Games" movement want to ensure that gamers retain access to purchased games — even if publishers or developers suddenly decide to shut down support for their product entirely. Let’s take a closer look at what consequences players may face if the initiative succeeds.

There’s a surprising amount of confusion around the movement, as many people either don’t fully understand its purpose or interpret its core message too loosely. So, to avoid making the same mistake, it’s better to simply quote a short summary from the official website that explains the initiative’s core idea:

The movement was founded by YouTuber and video blogger Ross Scott, best known for his YouTube channel Accursed Farms. He was inspired to start the initiative in April last year, when Ubisoft suddenly shut down the servers for The Crew and removed the game entirely from sale.

Ross Scott promoted "Stop Killing Games" through his videos and launched several petitions addressed to the European Union, the UK Parliament, and other bodies in hopes that major countries would introduce regulatory laws to protect gamers' rights. Out of all the petitions, only the European Citizens’ Initiative currently has a real chance of success. However, if it goes through and a new law is developed and adopted, it will impact the entire gaming industry — not just in the EU. Publishers would have to comply with future European regulations if they want to stay in such a lucrative market.

Supporters of "Stop Killing Games" are unhappy with the current wording in many End User License Agreements (EULA), which gamers agree to when installing a game. For example, the Ubisoft EULA includes the following clause:

Similar clauses can be found in the EULAs of other companies, like Blizzard. Understandably, people are outraged by the very fact that buying a game doesn’t guarantee lifetime access — and that there’s no "expiration date" mentioned anywhere. You simply don’t know whether you’ll be able to play for one year, five years, or ten. In other words, gamers pay for their copy, but at any moment risk losing it entirely if support is pulled or servers are shut down. This contradicts the very idea of ownership, since buyers are essentially getting a license to use the game, not actual property.

The existence of this problem is hard to deny. Beyond The Crew, there have been other cases where players lost full access to their games with no refund option. For instance, after the commercial failure of Babylon's Fall and the server shutdown, players couldn’t even continue with the single-player content. Another example is how Gearbox ended support for Battleborn, rendering its solo content inaccessible. And yes, there were no refunds for skins or microtransactions.

Currently, the main ways to preserve games are by purchasing physical copies or turning to piracy. The first option is flawed because not all games work out of the box without additional downloads, and the second is illegal. And even physical discs are of little help when it comes to online-only projects.

"Stop Killing Games" participants hope to establish regulation that would require publishers and developers to find ways to keep their games in a playable state. Critics of the movement sometimes mistakenly interpret this as an unrealistic demand for eternal support, but that’s not the case at all. Once again, here’s a direct quote from the official site:

Until recently, the chances of the European Citizens’ Initiative reaching the required number of signatures seemed rather bleak. On the one hand, Ross Scott and his supporters had done the impossible: after a year of effort, they had gathered nearly half a million signatures. But on the other hand, by mid-2025, progress had stalled. Remember: the deadline is July 31, and they need one million.

On June 23, Ross Scott released a video where he essentially acknowledged the movement’s failure. That video turned out to be a turning point: major YouTubers like PewDiePie and MoistCritical took notice, along with passionate player communities on platforms like Reddit. The "Stop Killing Games" initiative exploded in gaming discourse and continues to dominate it — to the point where, at the time of writing, the number of signatures has surpassed 800 000. If this pace continues, there’s every reason to believe the initiative will succeed.

***

The importance of "Stop Killing Games" is hard to overstate. If the initiative goes through, it will be a major win for consumers. Games will no longer “die” just because servers shut down — publishers will be required to offer offline modes or provide ways to keep the game functional. Buying a game will no longer be akin to renting — it will become real ownership. It would also benefit digital preservation, helping ensure older games don’t vanish without a trace. However, keep in mind that, according to Ross Scott himself, any future regulations will not apply retroactively and will only affect upcoming projects.

But what do you think? How do you feel about a movement like this? Share your thoughts in the comments.