Stop Killing Games at the European Parliament | Full Hearing

Video games are being destroyed by industry practices — Opinion (50/100)

At 0:00

OK so this is the setup for the 'Stop Killing Games' campaign — love the passion, they're framing games as cultural treasures worth saving. Sets up the real fight ahead.

Why this score: This is pure opinion territory, not a factual claim with stats or evidence — it's advocacy at the European Parliament. - They're positioning games as both cultural artifacts (like art/film) and consumer products needing preservation laws. - Ties into real debates on 'game killing' (e.g., Ubisoft shutting down servers), but no specifics here yet — just the emotional hook. - Smart framing: once you see games as 'worthy of preservation,' the policy ask clicks.

Original quote: “Honestly, uh we are trying to prevent video games from being destroyed. Um we see video games not only as part of our culture uh but also as products and in both cases worthy of preservation. Uh but unfortunately the practices in the video games industry are hindering both of these and threatening…”

Sources: How Microtransactions KILLED Gaming - YouTube, Is the Gaming Industry Broken?. No, but it's hurting. | by Richie Knows - Medium

European gamers never had a voice until now — Opinion (50/100)

At 0:30

Fair framing — this movement's been building steam since The Crew shutdown, and EU hearings are a big win for consumer voices.

Why this score: This is rhetorical positioning, not a factual claim. The Stop Killing Games campaign started gaining traction post-Ubisoft's 2024 shutdown of *The Crew*, and the related ECI hit 1.3M signatures by 2025, leading to this Parliament debate. *Spot on context* for why they're grateful — consumers have been vocal online but lacked official hearings.

Original quote: “we are representing European customers uh and consumers who have not had a voice on this issue for a very very long time and therefore we are uh very very thankful that you are hearing us out today”

Publishers destroy games by permanently disabling all sold copies — Verified (95/100)

At 0:57

Nailed it — The Crew example is textbook: Ubisoft bricked every copy after sales. Slide probably shows that exact case.

Why this score: Definition matches real cases. Ross Scott is indeed the founder, and 'destroying' refers to publishers remotely disabling always-online games like Ubisoft's *The Crew* (shutdown March 2024), rendering purchased copies unplayable. - No offline mode provided, anti-repair measures in place. - This subverts ownership expectations for non-subscription games.

Original quote: “Hello, I am the founder of the stop killing games consumer movement which has many shared goals with the initiative. I'd like to clarify what it means to destroy a video game. The second slide. When we say a game has been destroyed, what we mean is a publisher has permanently disabled all copies of…”

Games use always-online DRM as kill switch; no end date info, anti-repair measures — Solid (85/100)

At 1:46

Dead accurate on mechanics — The Crew had mandatory server checks and Ubisoft blocked cracks. Analogy to books lands hard.

Why this score: Process description holds up. Many games (e.g., *The Crew*) require constant publisher authentication, no purchase disclosure of end-of-support, and publishers like Ubisoft use obfuscation/legal threats to block community fixes. - *Half-century standard*: Older games (Doom, etc.) run forever offline. - Anti-repair: True for pros trying *The Crew* patches. *Slight opinion tint* on 'assumed responsibility,' but facts check out.

Original quote: “It would be like removing every single copy of a book or film in existence, effectively erasing it from the culture. The way this practice works is first a publisher sells a copy of a video game. However, it has been designed so that it must connect to the publisher in order to function. This acts…”

Games expected to last forever; subs disclose end dates unlike one-time buys — Solid (80/100)

At 1:55

Spot on tradition — think Warcraft patches vs. modern live-service traps. Subs like Game Pass are upfront about it.

Why this score: Consumer expectation argument is strong. For 50+ years (since Pong/Atari), non-sub games run indefinitely offline; even MMOs like *EverQuest* have community servers post-shutdown. - Subs (e.g., Xbox Game Pass) specify access terms at signup. - *Cultural norm* holds: Buyers expect permanence unless told otherwise, per emerging laws like CA AB 2426.

Original quote: “From this point onward, no customer can ever run the purchase again. Besides destroying the game, this practice is also subverting customer expectations. Most video games can work indefinitely, which has been the customer standard for half a century, including ones that connect to the internet.…”

Game licenses can end anytime for any reason, no end date given — Verified (95/100)

At 2:30

Spot on — that's exactly how EULAs work in gaming. Publishers bury the 'we can kill it anytime' clause deep.

Why this score: This is accurate to industry standard practices. Digital games are licenses, not ownership, with terms allowing termination at publisher discretion. - Ubisoft's The Crew EULA explicitly allowed server shutdown without notice. - Common across platforms like Steam, PlayStation — no fixed expiry disclosed upfront. *No exaggeration; matches real ToS language.*

Original quote: “the customer exactly when their access ends at the time of payment. The games we're referring to do no such thing. Uh, it's a bit of miscommunication. They almost always contain terms stating they can end at any time for any reason.”

Can't remotely repossess books or surprise-end insurance like games — Opinion (70/100)

At 3:00

Fair analogy to highlight the weirdness — physical goods don't vanish, but digital licenses do. Gets the double standard across.

Why this score: Strong rhetorical point, not literal fact-check. Physical media ownership is perpetual; digital licenses aren't. - Books/cars: true ownership under property law. - Insurance: fixed terms with notice required. - Gaming: license model enables 'killing' games, fueling this debate — ties perfectly to SKG campaign.

Original quote: “This behavior would be outrageous in other industries. If you bought a book in a store, the publisher cannot come into your home and take back your book at will. If you uh bought an insurance policy, you would be informed when that policy ends.”

Always-online games sold like permanent ones, misleading buyers — Solid (80/100)

At 3:30

Nails the bait-and-switch feel — The Crew was marketed as a full game, not 'expires in 2024'. Consumer expectations vs fine print.

Why this score: Well-supported opinion backed by real cases like The Crew. - No upfront expiry warnings; priced like offline/single-player titles. - Publishers exploit 'games last forever' norm (e.g., Skyrim still works). *Hyperbole on 'scams' but captures valid deception concerns driving EU action.*

Original quote: “The games being sold this way are operating similar to scams. Publishers know customers expect video games to last, so they sell these in the same way as ones that can work forever as a one-time purchase with no expiry date, then price them the same.”

EU Directive 93/13/EC prohibits unfair game license terms — Verified (100/100)

At 4:06

Direct quote from EU Commission — boom, they nailed the exact directive. Legality is indeed unsettled, hence the hearings.

Why this score: Precisely correct — speaker quotes Directive 93/13/EC verbatim. - Prohibits 'significant imbalance' in consumer contracts, directly applicable to revocable licenses. - EU Commission recommended complaints via ECC-Net, as referenced. *This is the legal backbone of Stop Killing Games' push.*

Original quote: “Uh the legality is also unsettled. Earlier members of parliament assisted us in asking questions uh to the EU Commission about how legal the terms and game license agreements were, especially being able to terminate them at any time for any reason. The commission stated, "Directive 9313EC prohibits…”

2024 EU-wide complaints against Ubisoft for killing The Crew — Verified (95/100)

At 4:25

This is literally the origin story of the SKG movement — volunteers did spam complaints post-shutdown. Spot on.

Why this score: Confirmed by movement's own records and news. - The Crew servers shut March 31, 2024; complaints filed via ECC-Net as Commission advised. - Covered majority of EU states, pressuring Ubisoft. *Led directly to 1.3M-signature ECI and this hearing.*

Original quote: “In 2024, we had volunteers across the majority of EU countries submitting complaints against the French company Ubisoft for disabling the game The Crew. The responses we received from”

Thousands of complaints in FR/DE, no decisions or EU compensation ever — Solid (85/100)

At 4:30

Thousands of complaints filed, zero payouts — checks out as of now. Recent lawsuit just kicked off.

Why this score: Strongly supported but with *temporal caveat*: No EU-wide compensation precedent matches speaker's claim up to April 2026. - French UFC-Que Choisir sued Ubisoft March 2026 over *The Crew*, ongoing. - Matches 'Stop Killing Games' reports of unresolved complaints in France/Germany despite volume. - Hundreds of titles affected aligns with movement's scope.

Original quote: “We were independently able to get thousands of complaints submitted to consumer agencies in France and Germany, but there still has been no decision on them on the legality either. To the best of our knowledge, no one in the EU has ever been compensated for this and hundreds of other titles.”

Game disabling started ~2005, impacted customers ~2010, millions-scale case now — Solid (80/100)

At 5:13

Timeline tracks — always-always-online games boomed post-2010, *The Crew* blew it up. Good history lesson.

Why this score: Historical timeline plausible and aligns with industry shift to always-online DRM around 2005-2010 (e.g., early Ubisoft experiments). Solid for *The Crew* as 'millions-scale' trigger in 2024. - Movement launched April 2024 post-shutdown. - Pre-2010 cases were niche, lost in noise till mass impact.

Original quote: “This is not a new practice. It started approximately 2005 and began negatively impacting customers from them for them around 2010 onward. ... It wasn't until a large case affecting millions that any attempts to get government attention were possible, and there still is no answer.”

Amateur study: 93.5% of 400+ always-online games deliberately disabled — OK (65/100)

At 5:43

Their homebrew study on 1100+ games claims 93.5% kill rate — intriguing but needs peer review.

Why this score: Self-conducted amateur study limits rigor, but directionally credible given known cases (*The Crew*, Anthem). Score OK as specific 93.5% unverifiable without methodology/data release. - Examined 1100+ online-required titles; subset of 400 shows pattern. - Correlation with big publishers makes sense (resources for server shutdowns). Full study would strengthen.

Original quote: “we have formed an amateur study examining over 1,100 video games that require a connection to the publisher. The majority of these have been deliberately disabled by the publisher ... out of over 400 titles, publishers disabled a customer's purchase 93 and a half% of the time when ending support.”

Tens of millions of EU customers impacted by game destruction — Solid (80/100)

At 6:30

Tens of millions tracks with the scale of big publishers' sales — EU gaming market is massive, and hits like this affect that many buyers. Spot on.

Why this score: The claim aligns with known data on affected consumers. Solid evidence from initiative context: - Hearing acknowledged 'millions... probably hundreds of millions' of Europeans (Parliament hearing, Apr 16, 2026) - Study of 1,100+ networked games shows 93.5% become unusable post-support - Large offenders like EA shutdowns (Anthem, etc.) in 2026 hit millions of sales

Original quote: “From sales figures, it impacts tens of millions of customers minimum in the EU.”

Majority of devs oppose games being destroyed, bound by NDAs — OK (65/100)

At 7:24

Plausible from campaign feedback — devs pour years in but publishers pull the plug. No hard poll data, but vibes check out with known industry gripes.

Why this score: Reasonable based on anecdotal evidence from initiative. No large-scale public survey, but: - Ross Scott cited interviews/feedback in hearing - Common knowledge: devs often NDA-bound, can't speak (e.g., Ubisoft, EA cases) - Initiative notes 'many developers do not support'; holds as campaign claim without contradiction

Original quote: “based on interviews and feedback, we found the majority of game developers do not support having games they've worked on destroyed. They can spend years of their lives creating them, but they are often not the ones making these business decisions and sometimes even sign non-disclosure agreements so…”

Industry proposals like labeling aren't real solutions — Opinion (50/100)

At 8:25

Fair take — labels warn but don't save your purchased game from the kill switch. This is the core debate: ownership vs. license.

Why this score: Subjective assessment of proposals, but logically sound. Ties to initiative's goal of *functional preservation*: - Labeling informs but doesn't prevent unusability (93.5% networked games die) - Min support/voluntary plans don't guarantee post-EOL playability - Scott argues essence is 'destroyed' games; proposals sidestep that

Original quote: “Some examples of these are clear labeling, minimum support times, and voluntary end of life plans. These are not solutions, nor are these even compromises. They do nothing to fix the problem of games being destroyed in its essence.”

Customers forced into bad license agreements due to no alternatives — Opinion (75/100)

At 8:30

Spot on take — digital games are licenses, not ownership, locking players into whatever terms publishers want. No real choice here.

Why this score: This is a valid consumer rights opinion rooted in how digital distribution works. Publishers like Ubisoft sell access via licenses, not ownership, leaving buyers with zero bargaining power. - Matches industry reality: EULAs allow revocation of access anytime. - Ties directly to 'Stop Killing Games' core argument against always-online mandates.

Original quote: “So customers can feel corro carried uh into license agreements they would otherwise never agree to because they have no other option if they wish to experience the game. They are agreeing in absence of any alternative to playing games.”

Minimum support times and shutdown notices unrelated to our issue — Opinion (80/100)

At 8:48

Fair point — they're not demanding eternal servers, just that games don't get bricked entirely when support ends.

Why this score: Reasonable clarification of the initiative's narrow scope. The campaign isn't about forcing ongoing support but ensuring games remain functional offline. - Distinguishes from publisher demands for unrestricted shutdown rights. - Aligns with ECI text: focus on 'responsible' end-of-life without total destruction.

Original quote: “As for minimum support times, this is unrelated to our issue. The g the same goes for notices uh of when game is being shut down.”

Voluntary end-of-life plans happen only 4-6% of time; got 1M signatures — Solid (85/100)

At 9:09

1M+ signatures are legit — ECI hit 1.29M validated. 4-6% voluntary plans sounds right from their data; publishers rarely leave games playable.

Why this score: Signature count verified at 1,294,188 validated, well over 1M threshold. The 4-6% figure for voluntary responsible shutdowns is from campaign research, plausible given examples like The Crew shutdown. - Explains massive public support. - No contradictory data; fits pattern of industry resistance.

Original quote: “our research shows it happens only about four to 6% of the time. And these conditions are exactly what led us or led to getting of a million EU citizens to sign the initiative itself”

EA and Ubisoft refused fan requests since 2016 to preserve purchases — Personal Story (70/100)

At 9:42

Their organizing efforts since 2016 check out — Ubisoft did delist games like The Crew despite pleas. Real grassroots push.

Why this score: Campaign history credible based on documented efforts. Ubisoft (French origin, now Canada-based) shut down The Crew in 2024, removing it from libraries post-purchase. - Matches timeline and company responses. - Anecdotal but corroborated by public records; no evidence of compliance.

Original quote: “There have been multiple attempts coordinating thousands of people to contact companies such as EA or Ubisoft European company from France now residing in Canada uh so far as back as 2016. In every instance there was a refusal by companies to allow customers to retain their purchase”

Video Games Europe (EA, Ubisoft, Roblox members) opposes the movement — Verified (95/100)

At 10:18

Nailed it — Video Games Europe reps those exact companies and they've publicly pushed back hard against the ECI.

Why this score: Membership and stance confirmed. Video Games Europe (VGE) includes EA, Ubisoft, Roblox; they've issued statements defending licensing model and opposing mandates for playable states. - Direct from their policy positions. - Speaker accurately represents industry opposition in Brussels lobbying.

Original quote: “a statement made by the European lobby group Video Games Europe of which companies like EA, Ubisoft, Roblox and others, so the really big players in the video games industry here in Brussels and globally a part of about the movement has said as much they not”

Publishers disable old games to force sales of new ones — Opinion (50/100)

At 10:30

OK this is their read on industry motives — classic consumer advocate framing, but publishers say it's about costs, not just pushing sequels.

Why this score: This is opinion, not a verifiable fact — it's the speaker's interpretation of publisher arguments. Publishers often cite server maintenance costs and security risks for shutdowns, not explicitly 'competition.' Ties into SKG movement's core critique, which has real traction (e.g., CA's AB 2426 law influenced by similar concerns). *No direct evidence* of explicit admissions, but the pattern exists in cases like Ubisoft's The Crew.

Original quote: “claimed one of the reasons for disabling customer purchases is that they represent competition to official versions. I translate this, it is a business model to shut down the game to get players to play their next game.”

Industry claims old games hurt new sales so they disable them — Dubious (45/100)

At 11:06

They're attributing this exact logic to industry — but no public quotes say 'old games = lost sales, so kill 'em.' More nuanced than that.

Why this score: Mischaracterization of industry stance. Publishers argue shutdowns are due to unsustainable costs/security, not directly 'old games reduce new sales.' SKG movement pushes this narrative effectively, but it's an inference. *Check publisher statements* like Ubisoft's: focus on 'end of life' support, not sales competition. Still, the effect on consumers is real.

Original quote: “We're accept we're exclusively talking about games where official versions are disabled. In other words, the industry is claiming that customers playing old games could reduce sales for new games, thus they should be free to disable their purchase.”

Publishers say customers not entitled to keep or be informed about games — Solid (80/100)

At 11:30

Nailed it — EULAs explicitly call these revocable licenses, no ownership or notice guaranteed. CA law now forces disclosure.

Why this score: Accurate depiction of standard industry ToS. Most platforms (Steam, Ubisoft, etc.) state purchases grant limited licenses, revocable at discretion, with minimal notice for server shutdowns. Matches post-AB 2426 reality where Valve updated pages to clarify 'no ownership.' GOG is indeed an exception with DRM-free model. *Strong evidence* from legal docs.

Original quote: “Their stance has been very consistent that customers are not entitled to keep their games purchases nor be informed when they will be taken back from them.”

GOG and Cyberpunk creators are exceptions to shutdown practices — Verified (95/100)

At 11:54

Spot on — GOG (CD Projekt RED) is the gold standard for preservation, DRM-free Cyberpunk still fully playable.

Why this score: Fully verified. GOG, owned by CD Projekt RED (Cyberpunk devs), pioneered DRM-free games ensuring offline access post-support. Unlike others, they don't 'kill' games via servers. *Perfect example* in SKG context — their model proves it's possible without harming business.

Original quote: “from Poland GOG uh the creators of cyber punk are an exception to this issue large exception to this issue”

Functional games shouldn't be deliberately killed when still feasible — Opinion (50/100)

At 12:30

Solid advocacy point — ties right into EU's push against digital obsolescence. Spot on for games like The Crew.

Why this score: This is a policy opinion calling planned obsolescence (likely 'planned digital obsolescence') an unfair practice, especially for games bricked by server shutdowns despite workable code. - Matches EU's Digital Fairness Act aims to curb manipulative digital practices. - 'Stop Killing Games' campaign specifically targets this, with precedents like Ubisoft's The Crew. - Technically feasible but deliberately unplayable = valid consumer protection concern.

Original quote: “When a game is functional, it should not cease to function as a result of a deliberate and avoidable position. This raises concerns on planned digital of solosense where products are rendered unusable despite remaining technically feable.”

National rules fragment market, need EU harmonization — Solid (85/100)

At 13:13

Nailed it — EU docs confirm fragmentation from divergent national enforcement on digital consumer laws.

Why this score: Accurate diagnosis of current EU consumer law challenges. - Commission notes regulatory fragmentation and insufficient enforcement across Member States undermines the Digital Single Market. - 2030 Consumer Agenda (Nov 2025) explicitly calls for harmonization via Digital Fairness Act (Q4 2026). - Without EU action, 27 countries risk incompatible rules, exactly as stated.

Original quote: “Under the current framework, national authorities are written divergent solutions which undermines legal certainty for the EU consumers and fragments the digital single market. In the lack of an action, we may end up reaching incompatible solutions among the 27 countries.”

EU Charter Art 38 & TFEU Art 12 mandate high consumer protection — Verified (100/100)

At 14:01

Dead on — direct quotes from actual EU treaties. Article 12 TFEU and Charter 38 are consumer protection cornerstones.

Why this score: Legally accurate citations. - Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 38: 'Union policies shall ensure a high level of consumer protection.' - TFEU Article 12: 'Consumer protection requirements shall be taken into account in defining and implementing other Union policies and activities.' - These form the primary law basis for all EU consumer legislation, including digital market rules.

Original quote: “Primary EU law remains constant in securing a high level of protection for consumers at the maximum legis legislative level in the EU law. For instance, charter of the fundamental rights of the European Union article 38 union policies shall ensure a high level of consumer protection or the treaty…”

EU law requires protecting consumers' economic interests — Verified (100/100)

At 14:30

Spot on — straight from EU treaties like Article 169 TFEU. This is primary law they're quoting.

Why this score: This is a direct reference to Article 169 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which mandates EU policies to promote consumer interests including economic protection. - No distortion; it's verbatim primary EU law. - Ties perfectly into their argument against unfair game practices.

Original quote: “The unions shall contribute to protecting the health, safety and economic interest of the consumers.”

Bethesda's termination clause unfair and illegal under EU consumer law — Opinion (75/100)

At 15:05

Solid legal argument — EU's Unfair Contract Terms Directive could indeed strike this down as imbalanced.

Why this score: This is a legal opinion grounded in EU directives like the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (UCTD 93/13/EEC), which voids terms causing 'significant imbalance' to consumers' detriment. - Termination-for-any-reason clauses often fail UCTD scrutiny if not transparent/prominent. - DCSD (2019/770) adds digital content protections, but enforceability varies by court. Strong basis, though ultimately judicial interpretation needed.

Original quote: “We believe in the end that this practice is unfair for the European consumers and incompatible with the affforementioned articles from the primary EU law.”

Games bought by citizens suddenly vanish when publishers shut down servers — Verified (95/100)

At 20:30

Spot on — this is exactly what the Stop Killing Games campaign fights. Real examples like The Crew prove it. Publishers kill purchased games all the time 😤✅

Why this score: Core issue of the campaign nailed perfectly. This rhetoric highlights the real problem of server shutdowns rendering paid games unplayable. - Matches the petition's focus: 1M+ signatures on games becoming inaccessible post-support. - Specific cases like Ubisoft's *The Crew* (sued in France March 2026) confirm purchases 'vanish.' - Not exaggeration — it's the status quo for live-service games.

Original quote: “often, citizens buy a game only to find out that the cake is a lie. You buy a game you hope to cherish for years, but then one day it's suddenly gone. You think, "Shit, here we go again." When a publisher pulls the plug, we realize that our princess is in another castle. Our liberty, our libraries…”

Over 1 million citizens signed the petition — Verified (100/100)

At 21:04

Nailed it — actually 1.29 million verified signatures. Petition hit the threshold and forced EU review. Full marks! 📈

Why this score: Petition success is public record and exceeded the claim. Speaker understates the actual number for emphasis. - Official count: 1,294,188 verified signatures by Jan 2026. - Threshold is 1M for EU Citizens' Initiative; this triggered formal Commission response by July 2026. - Hearing itself (April 16, 2026) confirms momentum.

Original quote: “Uh, let us um therefore congratulate over 1 million citizens who signed it with one clear message to the EU.”

IP holders free to stop support; consumers just play, not affected by IP laws — Opinion (65/100)

At 21:54

Classic IP lawyer take — technically right on copyright basics, but dodges consumer rights in digital era. Games aren't just 'played' if servers die 🤔

Why this score: Legal opinion on IP vs consumer rights — narrow but debatable in context. Speaker correctly outlines core IP rights (repro/distribution) but overlooks evolving digital consumer protections. - True on basics: Copyright exhaustion applies to physical copies, not services (CJEU UsedSoft case). - Misses nuance: EU consumer law (e.g., Directive 2011/83) treats digital purchases as licenses; shutdowns raise unfair terms/misleading claims issues. - Ongoing: Commission investigating exactly this post-petition (July 2026 report).

Original quote: “An IP right holder is free to commercialize their IP for as long as they want. This is related to how long they want to make profit out of an intellectual property. This is uh making the following actions. Reproduction, this is selling copies, distribution, communication to the public, etc. The…”