Stop Killing Games: The Case Against Deletion

This article is a web-published version of our rebuttal Response to Video Games Europe, a trade lobby group in the EU, viewable and downloadable here.

See our FAQs. More idiosyncratic and handcrafted, as Jdawg prefers!

Video Games Europe (VGE) has issued a position paper¹ contesting the “Stop Killing Games” petition, defending current industry practices regarding server shutdowns and asserting that continued access to online video games must remain solely at the discretion of rightsholders. We reject this framing. The petition is not an attack on intellectual property rights or economic freedom—it is a call for minimum preservation

guarantees, cultural responsibility, and consumer fairness.

Below is our point-by-point response beginning at the Introduction:

1. Interactive Media ≠ Ephemeral License

VGE claims that unlike books or films, online video games are mutable works, and thus

cannot be preserved or sustained the same way. But evolution over time does not

preclude continuity of access. Consumers are not misled when a game evolves; they are

misled when a product disappears entirely.

The industry cannot have it both ways—profiting off the illusion of permanence while

disclaiming responsibility for ensuring any part of that permanence survives.

2. “Ownership” and Licensing: A Pretext, Not a Justification

The assertion that all video game purchases are simply licenses is legally sound, but

morally inadequate. Licensure in digital markets is now so expansive that it obscures

consumer expectations. Consumers believe they are purchasing access for as long as

the product is usable. If publishers sell “live services,” they must either make clear that

access is temporary or ensure graceful 'exfitting' options exist.

The Stop Killing Games petition demands the latter—not indefinite server operation,

but a survivable form of access once live services cease.

3. Feasibility of Preservation Is a Design Problem, Not a Legal One

VGE claims technical and architectural limitations prevent feasible support for private

servers or offline modes. This is a design outcome. Developers can and should design

with separation-of-concerns in mind—abstracting networking layers, isolating gameplay

logic, and exposing private server stubs or dedicated-hosting modes.

Nothing in the petition calls for retroactive rewrites of 10-year-old games. The demand

is for forward-looking mandates: if you sell a connected game, plan for its afterlife.

4. Player Safety and Moderation: False Dilemmas

The claim that private servers inevitably foster abuse due to lack of moderation is

unsupported. Many game communities successfully self-govern with effective

moderation tools for banning, filtering, and reporting. These decentralized systems

often respond more quickly and appropriately than centralized moderation.

Official moderation does not guarantee safety or data protection. Major breaches—

such as Sony’s 2011 PlayStation Network hack affecting millions of users and Nintendo’s

2020 account compromises—expose vulnerabilities in centralized systems. These

incidents demonstrate that centralized control is not inherently more secure or safer for

players.

Publishers retain legal enforcement rights against IP misuse regardless of server control,

making exclusive moderation unnecessary.

5. Security Risks and Server Code Exposure: Manageable with Modern

Tooling

Releasing server binaries or game code carries risks, but open-source ecosystems—from

web servers to game engines—have operated securely for decades. Techniques such as

stripping proprietary libraries, stubbing licensed components, and redacting sensitive

functions enable community involvement without full source disclosure. The risks cited

in VGE’s position may be overstated.

The petition encourages development of realistic technical solutions to ensure

community survivability after official support ends—such as releasing final server

binaries or supporting peer-hosted servers—while protecting IP and complying with

licenses. Successful examples include community-run servers for Command & Conquer

through C&C Online, the longstanding modding and server support ecosystems around

Minecraft, and fan-operated servers for RuneScape, all demonstrating sustainable

community stewardship.

Given repeated centralized platform breaches exposing user data (e.g., Sony, Nintendo),

decentralized hosting could reduce single points of failure and improve ecosystem

resilience. This approach balances safety, security, and IP protection through legal and

technical means without forfeiting control.

6. Intellectual Property Erosion: A Mischaracterization

VGE argues that enabling continued access erodes copyright and undermines control

over derivative works. But the petition does not demand redistribution rights, remixing,

or the release of raw assets. It requests access to play what has already been

purchased—under limited conditions, post-commercial support.

No principle of copyright law requires rightsholders to actively obstruct preservation.

The choice to delete working games is not an inevitable consequence of copyright; it is

a business preference.

7. Impact on Investment, Innovation, and Growth: Refuted by History

VGE’s claim that preservation harms investment and innovation is contradicted by

decades of evidence. In fact, titles such as DOOM, Duke Nukem 3D, Star Control II, and

Minecraft illustrate the opposite: community-led continuity extends interest, fuels

mod-driven innovation, and strengthens IP value over time.

id Software explicitly designed DOOM to support modding, and both John Carmack and

John Romero credit its enduring popularity to the vibrant creator community that

followed. The developers of Star Control have praised projects like Ur-Quan Masters for

preserving the series’ cultural impact. Notch, creator of Minecraft, cited the game's

open feedback loop and modding scene as central to its explosive growth—and

committed to future open-sourcing.

More than just preserving games, these models have incubated talent. Many of today’s

leading developers and industry professionals began in the modding or indie

communities. Restricting games to live-only support models risks cutting off this

pipeline of creativity and self-taught development—a loss not only to players, but to

the future of the medium.

Preservation mechanisms such as mod support, server binaries, and offline modes are

not burdens—they are long-term assets that sustain relevance and goodwill. This is not

speculative: large-scale online games already use modular architectures to manage

evolving content. Smaller titles can exit with practical handoff strategies—final-state

servers, peer-hosted lobbies, or offline conversion. No one-size-fits-all approach is

required, only meaningful alternatives to deletion.

8. Third-Party Licensing and Music Rights: Known Constraints, Solvable in

Licensing

Games containing third-party content can be scoped accordingly. Music licenses can

expire without taking the entire game offline—either by patching out the music, muting

it, or providing silent versions for community use. These constraints are not new, and

publishers negotiate them routinely.

It is disingenuous to present licensed soundtracks as immovable obstacles when other

preservation channels (film, television, archived media) solve these problems regularly.

9. PEGI Ratings and Code of Conduct

VGE argues that PEGI obligations prevent enabling community hosting. This is

backwards. PEGI requirements apply only while publishers actively offer multiplayer

services—not after those services have ended. Once official support ceases, PEGI

oversight ceases as well. The only way to maintain continuous compliance would be to

never end support, which the petition does not call for.

PEGI does not restrict preservation. It governs commercial availability, not post-market

cultural continuity. The notion that enabling community hosting conflicts with PEGI

obligations confuses active service regulation with post-service software access.

The same holds true outside Europe. In the United States, ESRB oversight applies only

to actively marketed and maintained games. Japan’s CERO similarly regulates

commercially distributed content, not community-run servers or post-support use. The

so-called “problem” VGE raises is not a regulatory conflict—it is the absence of one.

10. Consumer Protections: Incomplete and Ineffective

The position paper references consumer law requirements for transparency and

duration. But the reality is clear: few consumers read licenses, and fewer still

understand that “support may end at any time.” The petition highlights that current

consumer protections do not address the disappearance of purchased content. The

industry sells games that later become unplayable—thereby nullifying the value sold.

The Digital Content Directive allows for pro-rated refunds if conformity fails. But it does

not mandate survivability. That gap is precisely what this petition aims to address.

Summary — If VGE and its members were genuinely committed to

preservation, they would oppose the practice of making games unplayable

by design

VGE claims that video game companies are committed to the preservation of games

and their cultural value—but this is fundamentally incompatible with practices like

remote deactivation, perpetual online dependency, and equivalent DRM-based access

control. Preservation is not compatible with systems designed to render games

inaccessible once support ends or licenses lapse.

A game that can no longer be played, regardless of whether a boxed copy exists or a

museum exhibit displays its logo, is not preserved. Donating defunct hardware or

promotional discs does not preserve interactive media—it aestheticizes its erasure.

Dozens of games tied to DRM platforms have become permanently inaccessible due to

authentication servers going offline or licenses expiring. Titles such as Tron: Evolution

(SecuROM), Gears of War PC, Darkspore, and Anno 2070 lost access because required

online checks were no longer supported or hosted. According to preservation groups,

thousands of digital titles are no longer available through any legal channel—not

because of demand, but because of vanished platforms, publisher withdrawal, or

expired rights. The Lost Media Wiki and efforts like the Video Game History Foundation

estimate that a significant portion of early digital-only games—particularly on platforms

like Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network—are no longer accessible in any form,

despite being less than two decades old.

If VGE were committed to real preservation, it would advocate for the ability to access

and play games post-support—just as libraries preserve books by ensuring they remain

readable, not by locking them behind disappearing keys. A game that cannot be played

is not preserved—no more than a burned book or a blank manuscript is.

Conclusion: Responsibility, Not Obligation

What the “Stop Killing Games” campaign calls for is not confiscation of IP, nor endless

developer obligations. It is a limited, achievable framework that respects consumer

investment and the cultural footprint of gaming. It asks that publishers who profit from

network-reliant titles provide a fallback once those networks go dark.

There are many ways to meet this goal: server binaries, offline patches, community

licenses, source handoffs, or modular design. The petition does not dictate the

method—only that something be done.

The claim that doing so would irreparably harm the industry is an evasion. The true

harm is in pretending that deletion is the only viable future.

The games we buy should not vanish. The communities we build are not disposable.

And the culture we create together deserves more than a silent shutdown.

In support of Stop Killing Games, www.stopkillinggames.com

Prepared and published by:

Gaming Brethren Advocates Mutual-aid Federation & Society

By Jdawg, current/previously CompTIA certified A+, Security+ [InfoSec], et al

practitioner

www.gbamfs.org See http://www.gbamfs.org/faqs for more about our org concepts and purpose Note neologism coinage²: Exfit/Exfitting (v): A form of decommissioning intended to repurpose (i.e., retrofit) software originally developed for internal or commercial use, adapting it for new, non-commercial or non-institutional purposes. A conceptual mash-up of exporting and retrofitting. Whereas refurbishing is a hardware concept, this is its analog for bits.

¹https://www.videogameseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/VGE-Position-Discontinuation-of-Support-to-Online-Games-04072025.pdf ²Courtesy Jdawg, just now. Because 'degradation,' isn't quite suitable (even if conceptually valid and applicable in terms of porting software with reduced functionality; no one cares for this technicality!) — so Exfitting it will be! Thank you for your attention.