The “Stop Killing Games” initiative, spearheaded by Ross Scott, has achieved a significant milestone, seemingly against the odds. Launched in April 2024, the movement advocates for game preservation, demanding that developers ensure long-term playability, even after official servers are shut down. The initial spark was ignited by the fate of games like “The Crew,” rendered unplayable despite offering a substantial single-player experience due to its reliance on online connectivity.
The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), a key component of the campaign, required a million signatures to trigger consideration for EU policy. The petition gained considerable traction early on, amassing over 400,000 signatures within months. However, the momentum experienced a noticeable slowdown, leaving the future of the initiative uncertain. Then came the silent process where things seemed dead.
Contributing to this slowdown was likely the vocal criticism from PirateSoftware, also known as Thor, a prominent streamer. Thor dismissed the initiative as “trash” during a live stream, actively discouraging his audience from supporting it. Given Thor’s considerable influence within the gaming community, his denouncement had a palpable impact. It became a point of public awareness.
Ross Scott initially remained silent, absorbing the blow from Thor’s broadside. However, in June 2025, he released a video titled “The end of Stop Killing Games,” directly addressing Thor’s criticisms and clarifying the initiative’s core tenets. Scott methodically dismantled Thor’s arguments, pointing out factual inaccuracies and highlighting the underlying principles of game ownership and preservation. He addressed what many felt was an intentional misrepresentation of the initative’s goals.
The result was a sudden manifestation of renewed energy. Following Scott’s video, a wave of support poured in from other prominent content creators. Figures like penguinz0 and Josh Strife Hayes lent their voices to the cause, amplifying Scott’s message and galvanizing their respective audiences.
This groundswell of support triggered a remarkable turnaround. The movement rapidly regained momentum, surging past the million-signature threshold just ten days after Scott’s response to PirateSoftware. The ECI garnered over 550,000 signatures in the final two weeks alone, a testament to the power of collective action and the gaming community’s desire for lasting ownership of their purchased games. One observer noted: “We’d been looking in the wrong place,” highlighting the importance of direct engagement and addressing misinformation head-on.
“This isn’t just about preserving old games,” stated Anya Petrova, a game archivist based in Berlin. “It’s about ensuring that the art and effort invested in creating these experiences aren’t simply erased when a company decides to pull the plug. It’s about respecting the player’s investment and right to access what they’ve purchased.”
The successful petition has now been submitted for consideration by the European Commission, marking a crucial step toward potential policy changes. The Commission will now assess the ECI and decide whether to propose legislation based on its demands.
The “Stop Killing Games” saga highlights the complex relationship between developers, publishers, and players in the digital age. It raises fundamental questions about ownership, accessibility, and the long-term preservation of video games as a cultural medium.
While the road ahead remains uncertain, the success of the ECI represents a significant victory for the game preservation movement and a powerful demonstration of the gaming community’s collective voice. The implications of this victory could extend far beyond the EU, potentially influencing game development practices and consumer rights worldwide. This is espeically true if we consider the impact the game dev community has on the culture in general.
Some of the specific changes “Stop Killing Games” would impliment include:
- Mandatory offline mode for primarily single-player games.
- Clear disclosure of server shutdown plans at the time of purchase.
- Regulations regarding the sale of games that rely on always-online services.
Many are now waiting to see what sort of actual implimentation will be proposed. However, many consumers are concerned about the future. Some even stated on X.com that it could be a slippery slope.
The journey of “Stop Killing Games” is a testament to the power of advocacy and the unwavering dedication of its supporters. Ross Scott, despite initial setbacks, has emerged as a champion for gamers’ rights, proving that even in the face of industry giants, a passionate community can make its voice heard. The story of this initative will be a case study of how a single person can make such a big impact on the culture of gaming as a whole.
However, skeptics like PirateSoftware remained unconvinced, posting on Facebook: “I still think this is overblown. Developers have a right to move on.” This sentiment underscores the ongoing debate surrounding game preservation and the challenges of balancing artistic freedom with consumer expectations. This isn’t just about making gaming history more available, but securing that ownership is what we believe it is when we purchase a game.
This is something that, I think, most pepole would be willing to agree with. Even the most casual player would want to know what it is that they own when they make a purchase.