UK Government Stop Killing Games Petition

by

Over the past ten years or so, the United Kingdom has experienced a complex dynamic with the European Union. However, this didn’t deter Lewis Evans from taking an opportunity (or making his move).

The writer submitted a proposal to the British Parliament, mirroring Ross Scott’s campaign called “Stop Destroying Videogames,” which targeted the European Union.

The petition proposes that the government should amend consumer law to prevent publishers from deactivating or restricting video games they’ve already sold, without allowing customers to keep or fix these products. This is what the supporters of the petition are asking for as a legal consumer entitlement.

The petition, which will continue until July 14, has collected more than 12,980 signatures so far – a significant portion of the 100,000 necessary for discussion in Parliament. A look at the map reveals that gamers across all United Kingdom constituent nations have lent their support, with Glasgow and Belfast demonstrating numbers comparable to London.

Sadly, it might turn out to be futile. The Department of Culture, Media, and Sport issued a statement in response to the petition that appears to misinterpret the main concerns at hand.

The Empire Strikes Back

The main point is straightforward: There’s no intention to revise the U.S. laws regarding the disabling of video games. Sellers should abide by current consumer law regulations, and we will persistently oversee this matter.

As a passionate gamer, I understand and empathize with the worries about the longevity of our favorite games and associated merchandise. However, it’s important to clarify that, from what I’ve learned, there’s no legal obligation in the UK for software companies to continue supporting older versions of their products.

The problem with the statement is that it failed to grasp the essence of the petition entirely. In other words, just like “Stop Destroying Video Games,” its UK counterpart aims to prohibit companies from disabling games remotely, not forcing them to release periodic updates or something similar.

For games that are considered live-service or have similar features, it’s crucial because players can only utilize these features if they rely on the infrastructure offered by the game’s publisher or developer.

In the previous year, some American gamers took legal action against Ubisoft following an incident where they disabled “The Crew” game, rendering copies owned by these players essentially worthless due to lack of functionality. Similarly, Electronic Arts (EA) terminated console servers for several “Battlefield” series, leaving the multiplayer aspect inaccessible for existing owners, limiting their experience to only the game’s campaign mode.

Given the permanence of live service games, it’s crucial that regulatory and legislative entities recognize their presence and enact appropriate measures to ensure users receive similar protections as they do with other types of products.

Read More

2025-02-04 22:41