A: An increasing number of videogames are designed to rely on a server the publisher controls in order for the game to function. This acts as a lifeline to the game. When the publisher decides to turn this off, it is essentially cutting off life support to the game, making it completely inoperable for all customers. Companies that do this often intentionally prevent people from 'repairing' the game also by withholding vital components. When this happens, the game is 'destroyed', because no one can ever operate it again.

A: While videogames are primarily just for entertainment and not of much consequence, the practice of a seller destroying a product someone has already paid for represents a radical assault on consumer rights and even the concept of ownership itself. If this practice does not stop, it may be codified into law and spread to other products of more importance over time, such as agricultural equipment, educational products, medical devices, etc. It is important consumers maintain a basic level of rights so as to not be overrun by predatory practices. Additionally, videogames are unique creative works. The concept of destroying every existing copy of a book, song, film, etc. would be considered a cultural loss for society. While a less recognized medium, videogames still deserve to have basic protections against the complete and willful destruction of many of its works.

A: If companies face penalties for destroying copies of games they have sold, this is very likely to start curbing this behavior. If a company is forced to allow customers to retain their games in even one country, implementing those fixes worldwide becomes a trivial issue for them. So, if destroying a game you paid for became illegal in France, companies that patched the game would likely apply the same patch to the games worldwide. An analogy to this process is how the ACCC in Australia forced Valve to offer refunds on Steam, so Valve ended up offering them to people worldwide as a result.

A: No, we are not asking that at all. We are in favor of publishers ending support for a game whenever they choose. What we are asking for is that they implement an end-of-life plan to modify or patch the game so that it can run on customer systems with no further support from the company being necessary. We agree that it is unrealistic to expect companies to support games indefinitely and do not advocate for that in any way. Additionally, there are already real-world examples of publishers ending support for online-only games in a responsible way, such as:

'Gran Turismo Sport' published by Sony
'Knockout City' published by Velan Studios
'Mega Man X DiVE' published by Capcom
'Scrolls / Caller's Bane' published by Mojang AB
'Duelyst' published by Bandai Namco Entertainment
etc.

A: The short answer is this is a large legal grey area, depending on the country. In the United States, this is generally the case. In other countries, the law is not clear at all since license agreements cannot override national laws. Those laws often consider videogames as goods, which have many consumer protections that apply to them. So despite what the license agreement may say, in some countries you are indeed sold your copy of the game license. Some terms still apply, however. For example, you are typically only sold your individual copy of the game license for personal use, not the intellectual property rights to the videogame itself.

A: Not at all. The majority of online multiplayer games in the past functioned without any company servers and were conducted by the customers privately hosting servers themselves and connecting to each other. Games that were designed this way are all still playable today. As to the practicality, this can vary significantly. If a company has designed a game with no thought given towards the possibility of letting users run the game without their support, then yes, this can be a challenging goal to transition to. If a game has been designed with that as an eventual requirement, then this process can be trivial and relatively simple to implement. Another way to look at this is it could be problematic for some games of today, but there is no reason it needs to be for games of the future.

A: Not at all. However, limitations can apply. Several MMORPGs that have been shut down have seen 'server emulators' emerge that are capable of hosting thousands of other players, just on a single user's system. Not all will be this scalable, however. For extra demanding videogames that require powerful servers the average user will not have access to, the game will not be playable on the same scale as when the developer or publisher was hosting it. That said, that is no excuse for players to not be able to continue playing the game in some form once support ends. So, if a server could originally support 5000 people, but the end user version can only support 500, that's still a massive improvement from no one being able to play the game ever again.

A: Not necessarily. We understand some features can be impractical for an end user to attain if running a server on an end-user system. That said, we also see the ability to continue playing the game in some form as a reasonable demand from companies that customers have given money to. There is a large difference between a game missing some features versus being completely unplayable in any form.

A: Not at all. In fact, nothing we are seeking would interfere with any business activity whatsoever while the game was actively being supported. The regulations we are seeking would only apply when companies decide to end support for games. At that time, they would need to be converted to have either offline or private hosting modes. Until then, companies could continue running games any way they see fit.

A: While free-to-play games are free for users to try, they are supported by microtransactions, which customers spend money on. When a publisher ends a free-to-play game without providing any recourse to the players, they are effectively robbing those that bought features for the game. Hence, they should be accountable to making the game playable in some fashion once support ends. Our proposed regulations would have no impact on non-commercial games that are 100% free, however.

A: It mostly is within the United States, but not in many other countries. Many existing laws are not written for a scenario where the seller destroys the product sold to the customer after the point of sale, since this is not something that normally happens in the real world. The fact that there is so much ambiguity on this practice is part of why we're pursuing so many legal avenues.

A: No, we would not require the company to give up any of its intellectual property rights, only allow players to continue running the game they purchased. In no way would that involve the publisher forfeiting any intellectual property rights.

A: No. While those can be a problem for the industry, those would only prohibit the company from selling additional copies of the game once their license expires. They would not prevent existing buyers from continuing to use the game they have already paid for.

A: Not at all. In asking for a game to be operable, we're not demanding all internal code and documentation, just a functional copy of the game. It would be no more of a security risk than selling the game in the first place.

A: It is very unlikely, and is far more likely to benefit them. Many videogame developers have voiced their dissatisfaction with having a game they spent years of their lives working on destroyed by their publisher, being powerless to stop it. By having laws requiring the game to function, it would help their work and legacy endure. It is possible a small number of developers could find new requirements problematic if they were unprepared for them, but we anticipate that if implemented, there would be a significant lead-in time giving developers time to prepare for the changes.

A: It is extremely unlikely. The costs associated with implementing this requirement can be very small, if not trivial. Furthermore, it often takes a company with large resources at its disposal to even construct games of this nature in the first place. Small developers with constrained budgets are less likely to be contributing to this problem.

A: Not while the game is being supported. All of our measures are focused on what happens to the game once support ends. So if disruptive players in an online-only game become banned, but regular players may continue playing with active support, then they would not be entitled to run the game offline until support officially ended, which could be many years later.

A: For existing video games, it's possible that some being sold cannot have an "end of life" plan as they were created with necessary software that the publisher doesn't have permission to redistribute. Games like these would need to be either retired or grandfathered in before new law went into effect. For the European Citizens' Initiative in particular, even if passed, its effects would not be retroactive. So while it may not be possible to prevent some existing games from being destroyed, if the law were to change, future games could be designed with "end of life" plans and stop this trend.

A: The wording on the European Citizens' Initiative is very intentional and is meant to solve the problem of video games being destroyed, while remaining flexible enough to give publishers and developers as much freedom as possible. If the initiative passes, it will be the EU Commission that decides the final language, not us. In light of this, it is best to keep the demand as simple as possible to minimize any chance of misinterpretation. Not only can specifics be disregarded by the EU Commission, but the more there are, the more that can take away focus from the primary problem, which is that of sold video games being intentionally destroyed.

A: No, the market demand and profitability of these games means the video games industry has an ongoing interest in selling these. Since our proposals do not interfere with existing business models, these types of games can remain just as profitable, ensuring their survival. The only difference is future ones will need to be designed with an "end of life" build once support finally ends. This is not difficult to have if done from the design phase onward, and any costs to it are far outweighed by potential sales in Australia and / or the EU.

A: Most, if not all countries have no separate laws regarding governing the sale of video games based on whether they are single-player or multiplayer. The primary distinction under the law is typically about whether the games were sold as an indefinite purchase, or as a subscription service with a clear end date. We do not see it as productive to introduce new laws on this distinction where none currently exist, thus, this would impact both game types. From a technical standpoint, multiplayer games can often be preserved with a comparable amount of effort as single-player ones; it's a deliberate decision by publishers when they choose not to. Furthermore, an increasing number of video games blend both single-player and multiplayer modes together, making this distinction too nebulous for many titles to have effective protections if the two modes are treated separately.