‘Stop Killing Games’ Got Its EU Parliament Hearing

Progress may be slow, but it’s still progress. While I’ve been talking about the importance of video game preservation as a function of our own overall cultural preservation, very few people out there are actually trying to do something about it all. One of those doers has been Ross Scott and others involved in the Stop Killing Games movement. Scott, a YouTuber, started this whole thing in 2024 and really got it rolling on a second attempt in 2025. In that short period of time, the movement managed to secure some allies in the EU and British governments, ran a successful signature campaign to get the EU to open the discussion on legislative and enforcement remedies, and got that hearing on the schedule.

And that hearing has now been conducted in what many are assessing as a good first step in the process.

The Stop Killing Games initiative now faces increased legislative examination because of its current status as a proposed law. The Stop Killing Games movement brought its digital obsolescence battle to European Parliament this month because its members succeeded in establishing their first political presence. The hearing organized by Ross Scott and Moritz Katzner aimed to expose the harmful industry custom which enables companies to disable online games completely. The movement believes that publishers who stop supporting products which they sold as retail items engage in false advertising which violates consumer rights.

Advocates for the proposed legislation introduced an organized approach to guide lawmaking bodies during the proceeding. The main requirement of their proposal demands software firms to create offline functionality for their products or make their server code accessible as open source when games reach their end of life stage. Scott and Katzner maintained that these products serve as vital cultural heritage items which consumers own through their property rights. The commission members received evidence which showed that abrupt game terminations take away users’ financial resources and time investments while failing to provide proper solutions.

As a more direct reminder, below are the articulated goals of the movement.

• Games sold must be left in a functional state
• Games sold must require no further connection to the publisher or affiliated parties to function
• The above also applies to games that have sold microtransactions to customers
• The above cannot be superseded by end user license agreements

The hearing itself included witness testimony from consumer rights groups in the EU, which is really important. While cultural preservation clearly remains a primary goal of the movement, that goal was cleverly wrapped within claims that there are already laws on the books designed to protect customer rights and property when purchased that many game publishers appear to be pretty clearly violating. Within the hearing itself it was also revealed that the movement has gained even further support from other politicians and advocacy groups within the EU.

It was, by all accounts, a really positive hearing for those of us who care about game preservation. But we do need to temper our expectations as to the timeline for what comes next, because the EU is a big ol’ bureaucracy and this is all going to take a great deal of time.

The gaming community should not expect instant changes to policy according to advocates who received positive feedback from committee leaders. Moritz Katzner explained that the hearing served as an effective platform to present their case yet it stands as the first step in a lengthy administrative procedure. The campaign succeeded in establishing its primary objective by bringing the subject into official political debates but now needs to navigate ledge machinery to convert these consumer rights violations into legal protections which will be enforced across Europe.

And that may, or likely will, take years. But it’s a fight worth sticking out, if you care at all about art preservation and the rights of the public to retain ownership of the things they’ve paid for. And, frankly, if you care about the public domain, which you damned well should.

I’m going to keep coming back to this point, because I think it’s pretty much unassailable. In any copyright system in which the purpose of the limited monopoly granted to a publisher of art is to benefit the public through both the creation of more art as well as those creations ending up in the public domain for everyone’s benefit, then video games being designed such that publishers can disappear them on a whim breaks the copyright bargain. It seems to me that it goes unrecognized too often that if a work of art, including video games, isn’t guaranteed to end up in the public domain eventually, then it shouldn’t be granted a copyright in the first place.

But, for now, it’s nice to see the Stop Killing Games movement having taken the first legislative step. All that’s left now is a whole lot of waiting, advocacy, and combat to be done with adverse lobbying dollars.