‘Digital ownership must be respected’: UK Parliament debates Stop Killing Games campaign, but government refuses legal change

UK Parliament debates Stop Killing Games campaign | Credit: YouTube

The UK Parliament formally debated the Stop Killing Games campaign this week, following a petition signed by nearly 190,000 people across the country. Despite passionate cross-party support from MPs calling for better consumer protections, the UK government reaffirmed that it has no plans to amend existing consumer laws.

MPs opened the debate by recognizing the economic scale and cultural weight of gaming. The UK video game industry contributes £7.6 billion annually to the economy, supports over 75,000 jobs, and generated £4.3 billion in sales in 2024. As Ben Goldsborough, MP for South Norfolk, put it, “We are home to world-leading studios, cutting-edge research, and some of the most talented creative minds anywhere on Earth. We should value this industry not only for its economic output, but as a cultural powerhouse that shapes stories, art, and technology.”

What Is the Stop Killing Games Campaign All About?

At its core, the Stop Killing Games movement challenges a long-standing problem in modern gaming: digital impermanence. Many popular games from Ubisoft’s The Crew to EA’s Anthem, PlatinumGames’ Babylon’s Fall, and Warner Bros.’ MultiVersus have been rendered unplayable after servers were shut down.

The campaign argues that when players buy a game, they’re not just purchasing access for a few years; they’re buying a product that should remain usable even after a publisher ends official support. As the group states, developers should be legally required to offer viable offline modes or private server options before shutting down online games.

MPs call shutdowns a “cultural tragedy” and demand action

The debate saw dozens of MPs across all major parties speak out against what they called the “erasure of cultural history.” Many agreed that while live-service models have created vibrant online communities, their eventual shutdowns leave gamers with “nothing to show” for their time and investment.

Ben Goldsborough, who led the discussion, warned that when server-dependent games disappear, “a shared world disappears too.” He compared video game preservation to literary archiving, stating, “We would never dream of pulping every copy of Shakespeare, and we should not think any differently about video games.”

Henry Tufnell, MP for Mid and South Pembrokeshire, took a cultural stance, describing these shutdowns as equivalent to losing creative works forever:

“If every copy of a book, film, or song were destroyed, we would see it as a cultural tragedy. We should view the loss of video games in the same light.”

Mark Sewards, MP for Leeds South West and Morley, focused on consumer fairness, explaining that players are not asking for indefinite maintenance, just the right to continue playing what they bought.

“We are not demanding publishers keep servers running forever. We are not asking companies to keep pouring resources into a game that they have finished with. We are asking something simple: that companies don’t deliberately disable every copy of a game people have paid for.”

He drew comparisons to household products, saying, “It’s as if a printer manufacturer sent out a signal that made it stop working. That’s not end-of-support; it’s forced obsolescence.”

Meanwhile, Warinder Juss, MP for Wolverhampton West, questioned why the gaming industry is treated differently from others:

“We don’t accept our phones being bricked when a new model comes out. Why should we accept our games being made unplayable when new ones release?”

Pam Cox, MP for Colchester, echoed this frustration, acknowledging she’s not a gamer but a parent who’s spent heavily on games for her children.

“Digital ownership must be respected, and publishers should look to provide routes for players to retain or repair games even if the official service support for products ends.”

Vicky Slade, MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole, offered a personal touch, sharing how her son uses games to connect with friends around the world. “Video games can bring people together even when they’re far apart,” she said, adding that losing access to a purchased game can feel like “losing a favourite book or film forever.”

Several MPs also tied the discussion to broader corporate responsibility. Tom Gordon, MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough, raised concerns about who holds responsibility when companies go bust, shut down, or are bought out. He cited EA’s recent £55 billion buyout by a consortium including Saudi investors as an example of why future ownership transparency and accountability matter.

“The issue is what happens when a developer goes bust, shuts down or is gobbled up in a merger? In those instances, it is not clear who bears the responsibility of hosting or running servers for online gaming,” Gordon warned. “We have also seen measures taken [in EA] to replace developers with AI. That puts a question mark on how long term and sustainable gaming on such platforms will be for consumers.”

Collectively, MPs called for:

• Clear “end-of-life” disclosures on game listings and packaging.

• Minimum notice periods before shutdowns.

• Encouragement for offline patches or community server support.

• Public funding for institutions like the National Video Game Museum to preserve digital history.

Goldsborough closed his remarks by emphasizing that this is “not anti-industry”, but about fairness and heritage: 

“Running games costs real money. Requiring developers to define end-of-life strategies up front could stifle innovation and create unintended risks. But consumers deserve clarity.”

"This is about fairness, responsibility, creativity and protecting a cultural legacy of which the United Kingdom should be proud."

Government response: existing law “works,” no new regulation planned

Minister Stephanie Peacock, speaking on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), acknowledged the industry’s cultural and economic value but stood firm: the government will not impose new legal mandates on publishers.

“The government recognises the strength of feeling behind the campaign,” Peacock said. “[But] online video games are often dynamic, interactive services — not static products — and maintaining online services requires substantial investment over years or even decades.”

She emphasized that forcing publishers to support games indefinitely or hand over servers could create “harmful unintended consequences”, including security risks, commercial liability, and moderation challenges.

Requiring offline support for every online title, she added, would “fundamentally change how games are developed and distributed,” potentially discouraging innovation and experimentation within the UK’s games sector.

According to her, handing over servers to consumers or allowing community-hosted servers could also expose players, especially children, to unmoderated and potentially harmful content.

She also pointed out that licensing, not ownership, has always been the legal framework for games, even dating back to the 1980s. “In the 1980s, tearing the wrapping on a box to a games cartridge was the way that gamers agreed to licensing terms. Today, that happens when we click “accept” when buying a game on a digital storefront,” she said.

“UK law already requires information to be clear and correct,” she noted. “We believe the law works, but companies may need to communicate better.”

Instead of new regulations, Peacock said the government will work with the Chartered Trading Standards Institute to improve consumer guidance and ensure game descriptions and marketing clearly state online dependencies and shutdown risks.

She concluded by recognising the cultural importance of game preservation, citing efforts by the National Videogame Museum and institutions like the Science Museum to safeguard gaming history. The minister encouraged studios to "continue considering preservation efforts when developing, releasing, and supporting their games."

What’s next for Stop Killing Games

While the government’s stance might feel like a setback, the debate marked a significant milestone: official acknowledgment that the issue is legitimate and widely supported.

Now, all attention is on the larger European petition, signed by 1.45 million, currently under verification, which could soon prompt a formal response from the European Commission. According to the latest update, over 50% of votes have been validated, with major contributors like Germany and France yet to be counted. The process might be completed by the end of the year, with discussions potentially starting early next year.

If you want to watch the full discussion, it's available on the UK Parliament YouTube channel, and all comments are accessible on the official website.