The Stop Killing Games campaign has rolled out a major update positioning 2026 as the realistic timeline for potential EU regulatory action on game preservation. Led by Ross Scott of Accursed Farms, the consumer-focused movement is pushing for laws that would prevent publishers from rendering purchased games permanently unplayable when they shut down servers or authentication systems.
The update cycle includes presentations breaking down how developers could actually implement end-of-life plans. One featured talk from a game developer outlined practical options like minimizing third-party dependencies, using containerization tools like Docker, and enabling community-run hosting.
At its core, the campaign argues that selling a game and later flipping a kill switch that makes it unplayable amounts to destroying something customers bought. The proposed solution isn’t necessarily forcing publishers to release all source code. Instead, it’s about requiring some form of playable state at end-of-life—whether through offline mode patches, support for self-hosted servers, or documentation that lets communities build replacement infrastructure.
The biggest technical hurdle is middleware. Modern games are packed with third-party tech—networking layers, anti-cheat systems, physics verification, voice chat, analytics platforms, and cloud services. If a game depends on middleware that requires active licensing, what happens when support ends? Would middleware providers update their contracts to allow end-of-life compliance? Would they jack up prices if forced to permit broader redistribution after shutdown?
The architecture of modern multiplayer games adds another layer of complexity. Many titles rely on distributed microservices and cloud infrastructure that wasn’t designed to be handed off to players. Supporters counter that community hosting doesn’t need to match the scale or feature set of commercial operations—a basic dedicated server is often enough.
One key detail that keeps coming up is that EU regulations typically aren’t retroactive. Existing games likely wouldn’t be forced to change overnight. Instead, future games would need to be built with end-of-life requirements in mind from day one. Developers could select compliant middleware upfront or prepare alternative solutions to switch in when official support ends.
The Crew from Ubisoft has become the poster child for this issue. The racing game’s shutdown rendered it unplayable even though much of the experience was effectively single-player. Players couldn’t even launch the game because it required server authentication that no longer existed. Similar examples include Anthem, Battleborn, Concord, and numerous MMOs that vanished without trace.
Some in the preservation community worry the final outcome might be watered down to mandatory warning labels. Games could simply slap on a “best before 2030” notice and keep selling products with built-in expiration dates. Others see labeling as a potential compromise—better consumer disclosure and protection against surprise shutdowns even if games still eventually die.
The long game
Alternative proposals include safe harbor protections that would make it legal for communities to emulate servers and bypass DRM after official shutdown. This approach wouldn’t require publishers to hand over proprietary code but would remove legal barriers to preservation efforts.
The campaign distinguishes between two categories of games. First are titles that could technically function offline but are artificially blocked by server checks—these are the low-hanging fruit. Second are games built around server-side computation and persistent economies where offline conversion requires serious engineering work. Any realistic EU standard would need to account for this difference.
