The Copyright Side of Stop Killing Games

On December 14, 2023, Ubisoft announced that it would shut down the servers for their popular driving game, The Crew. Released in 2016, the game came out to mixed reviews but still sold over 12 million copies and found an audience who were still enjoying the game regularly.

Unfortunately for those players, the shutdown meant that the game would no longer be playable at all. The game, which many had paid full price for, would simply cease to exist.

This prompted Ross Scott, a YouTuber famous for the Freeman’s Mind series, to launch the Stop Killing Games (SKG) campaign. The idea is fairly simple: If a user pays to purchase a game, that game should not be taken away from them just because the developer decides to shut down the servers.

To be clear, the initiative does not call for developers to keep their games running indefinitely. It merely calls for them to offer alternatives such as an offline mode, the ability to create private servers, or offer refunds. The goal is not only to protect consumers but also improve preservation efforts.

The SKG campaign has exploded in popularity. However, that popularity has not resulted in much in the way of legislative success. In the EU, the group failed to introduce a relevant bill, and in California, a similar bill was defeated in committee.

According to SKG, the cause of these defeats is pushback from the industry.

But while the developers have been victorious, that pushback reached a comedic level during a California hearing when a representative from the Electronic Software Association (ESA) claimed that Minecraft private servers were “illegal” and tantamount to piracy. However, Microsoft specifically allows private servers for Minecraft and even distributes the software for them.

But this does raise an interesting question: What copyright hurdles would have to be overcome for this initiative to succeed? The answer is surprisingly complicated.

Copyright and Video Games

From a copyright perspective, video games are somewhat unique. They receive multiple types of copyright protection, including protection in the source code, the artwork, the music, and any video content.

This can make their copyright status extremely complicated, especially since many times there are multiple sources involved. For example, a game developer may license their game engine, such as Unreal Engine, from a third party, purchase their assets from a library, use open source software for their server/communications architecture, and create their own levels and design their own experience on top of that.

This says nothing about other licensing, such as sports leagues, car makers, movie tie-in licenses, and other elements that the game may be heavily based upon.

For example. The game Baldur’s Gate 3 was coded and designed by Larian Studios. But it is based on a Dungeons & Dragons license, which is owned by Wizards of the Coast. Though it uses the in-house Divinity game engine, according to the game’s credits, it contains source code from Autodesk, Blink Video, OpenSSL, NVIDIA, FaceFX, Wise, and many, many more.

Some of the projects are open source, such as OpenSSL, but others are not. It’s a mix of different license types and sources.

Obviously, every major game release is a complicated web of licensing deals, and that does complicate any type of plan to keep the games running eternally. But that doesn’t mean that it is impossible, especially given what SKG is actually asking for.

The Other Side of the Coin

To be clear, these issues are complicated, and no two games are in the same position. Because of that, many have argued that SKG doesn’t really understand the complexity of the situation or what they are asking for.

To a degree, that is fair. This isn’t simply a matter of “flipping a switch” to keep a game running eternally. There are very real copyright, trademark, and other licensing issues that can interfere.

But it’s also worth noting that what the initiative is asking for is actually quite limited.

First off, the initiative doesn’t apply to subscription-based or free-to-play games. It would only apply to games that are purchased outright (aside from microtransactions) but are then completely switched off when the servers are shut down.

The Crew is the perfect example of this. Twelve million people purchased the game only to have it stop working completely when the servers shut down.

To that end, SKG proposes a variety of solutions, including creating an offline mode, allowing players to create private servers, or offering refunds.

From a copyright perspective, the private server option is almost certainly the most complicated. If the game uses any software that they didn’t create and isn’t open source to create their client/server architecture, then this approach would be incredibly difficult.

Creating an offline mode would be easier from an licensing perspective, but it would be more difficult from a coding perspective. If a game was built for online play, then an offline mode, even a limited one, could be a major undertaking.

Refunds, obviously, create their own problem. If a game developer had to refund every player after a game is shut down, then obviously they would have made zero dollars on that game. While that might make sense for games that close amazingly early, such as what happened with King of Meat, what happens if a game is owned and enjoyed for many years?

Still, the demands are reasonable from a customer standpoint. They purchased the game and want to continue playing it. That is not a ridiculous request.

The Real Solution

To me, the goal of SKG isn’t so much to pass a specific piece of legislation or force a certain outcome. Instead, it’s to make developers think about their games as permanent works, even after the servers go dark.

It’s true that many of the copyright issues are complicated and would be difficult to overcome in already-made games. Changes might require relicensing software, assets, or other intellectual property. That would be both difficult and expensive.

But if developers go into making a game with the understanding that it will be permanent in some capacity, then things get easier. They can structure their deals accordingly, use software that is licensed for distribution, and so forth. It’s a situation where an ounce of planning is worth more than a pound of action.

But while it’s easier, it is also some work. Licenses are likely to get more expensive, and extra programming will be required. This isn’t a simple matter of greedy companies shutting down their games for no clear reason. It’s the result of a series of business and technical decisions that brought the game to that point.

To change the outcome, we have to change the process. Changing the process needs to start as early in the development cycle as possible. That’s why changing the mindset is at least as important as changing the law.

Bottom Line

In the end, this issue has been tainted with alarmist rhetoric on both sides. This is not as simple as “flipping a switch” to keep games running, nor is a private Minecraft server piracy. This is not an impossible task that no game developer can do, nor is it a simple one that can be done instantly.

Developers can and should be thinking about the post-server shutdown life of their games. What happens when the servers go dark? They should be making preparations for that, and it is sad that legislation may be required to make that happen.

As complicated as this issue is, there seems to be a lot of room for compromise and common ground. Developers, for example, could seize upon this and promote their games as permanent works. Make it clear in marketing and promotion that they have a post-shutdown plan. Use this as a selling point.

Others who don’t want to do that can move to different business models, such as subscriptions or free-to-play. Those models may be a better fit for games where there is no practical post-shutdown plan.

When consumers purchase a game, they do have a reasonable expectation that it will be theirs to play and enjoy even after the developer has moved on. If developers can begin development with that in mind, much of this heartache can be avoided.

The challenge in doing that is both technical and legal. But it’s not an impossible one. It just requires a bit of commitment and a willingness to make some sacrifices for the sake of the game’s future.