Ubisoft Backlash Explodes: Shareholders Now Join Gamers in Demanding End to ‘Killing Games’

Ubisoft is under fire once again, but this time, it’s not just angry fans fuelling the blaze. In a surprising twist, Ubisoft’s very own shareholders have stepped into the ring, demanding accountability from the publisher over its recent trend of pulling the plug on fully paid games. It’s the latest escalation in the rapidly growing Stop Killing Games movement that’s been making waves across the industry.

Stop Killing Games Goes Corporate

In a rarity for investor relations, the disapproval leapt beyond Reddit threads and Change.org petitions right into the boardroom. During Ubisoft’s annual general meeting on 17 July 2025, a coalition of shareholders backed a motion directly confronting the publisher’s controversial strategy of shutting down live service titles mere months, or sometimes even weeks, after launch. The target? Titles like The Crew, which was taken offline in March 2024.

The Stop Killing Games movement, which emerged fiercely after the announced decommissioning of The Crew (2014), struck a nerve with loyal players and industry watchers alike. However, investor involvement has now propelled it to a whole new level. This isn’t just a Twitter protest anymore, but a clash of ethics and business.

A significant shareholder, ‘ Shareholders for Change’, to be exact, co-filed a motion asking Ubisoft for “a detailed annual report describing the ethical, legal, and financial risks linked to the obsolescence of video games with restrictive digital ownership.” Ubisoft initially rejected the motion, claiming it risked revealing sensitive strategy; nonetheless, it was still presented at the AGM due to French financial law.

Ubisoft’s response was tepid at best. The publisher continued to lean on legally vague language about “preserving strategic freedom” and said the motion was non-binding. That didn’t sit well with a vocal part of the gaming community or the concerned investors. The irony is that the same company that encourages player immersion in sprawling, open digital worlds is now at the centre of a debate about the longevity and ethics surrounding those very worlds.

The Crew Controversy: A Tipping Point

The removal of access to The Crew, even for those who had purchased the game digitally, ignited a firestorm that has yet to die down. And why should it? Paying $60 for a boxed game only to have it vanish from your library a decade later, along with all progression, customisation, and memories, didn’t sit well with anyone. In the increasingly digital-first age of gaming, the issue of digital game preservation is more pressing than ever.

Ubisoft hasn’t just sunset one title either. It’s become almost expected: live service game launches with much flair, the player count dips, and months later, server closure notices go out. While the Games-as-a-Service model does offer longevity for some titles, many others, especially AA racers or smaller experimental IPs, have lifespans too short to justify full-price entries.

Many of these closures remove access not just to online multiplayer, but to core game content, even single-player elements. No offline modes, no migration plans, and definitely no refunds. That’s where this backlash differs from normal industry grumbles; this is now an ownership rights issue.

Gamers, increasingly savvy about digital licence agreements, are beginning to ask a tough question: what exactly are they buying if their copy can disappear at corporate discretion? Shareholders are beginning to ask whether this practice could snowball into long-term consumer trust erosion, something no publisher wants hanging over its online store.

European advocacy groups like Digital Rights Watch have now joined the discussion with open letters to both Ubisoft and the European Commission. The issue could escalate even further if legal reforms around digital ownership and the right to repair software hit the agenda in Brussels or Washington in the coming year.

Game Shutdowns: The Reputational Cost

It’s not just players and investors feeling cold feet. Developers, too, especially studios inside the Ubisoft ecosystem like Ivory Tower and Ubisoft Reflections, are rumoured to be growing restless with games being shut down before they have time to mature. Titles like Hyperscape and even Roller Champions never had the runway they needed. And because Ubisoft keeps most player count data private, it’s hard to tell if pull-the-plug decisions are data-driven or defensively strategic.

Ubisoft’s defence of “evolving with the market” might have made sense a few years ago. But with even high-profile, mainstream titles struggling in live service waters, looking at you, Marvel’s Avengers, the concept is losing its shine. Combine this with increased investor scepticism, and Ubisoft’s long-term reliance on digital-only titles appears shakier than ever.

So, where does this all leave players? Frustrated, sure—but also increasingly united. With the Stop Killing Games movement gaining real industry traction and now rubbing shoulders with institutional investors, Ubisoft’s next step could define more than just PR. It might define its future identity in an industry fed up with disposable games.

Excerpt: Ubisoft faces heat over killing paid games like The Crew, but this time, shareholders are joining the battle too.