UK Government Rejects Law Demands After Fury Over ‘Killed’ Video Games

The UK government isn’t backing new laws to stop publishers from disabling games entirely, even as petitions like Stop Killing Games surge past 190,000 signatures and spark hours of debate in parliament. On Monday, MPs faced off with officials over the fate of games that get pulled from servers, leaving fans with nothing. The Crew, Anthem, and MultiVersus, all named as recent examples of live-service titles that simply disappear.

Players, MPs, and Publishers: The Core Arguments

Pam Cox, MP for Colchester, hammered the point home: current law lets publishers “vanish” games people paid for. “Digital ownership must be respected,” she said, pushing for routes that let players “retain or repair games” even if official support stops. Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) called games a piece of cultural heritage. He compared the loss of digital-only games to burning every existing copy of a book, movie, or album; a scenario we’d call a tragedy in any other artistic field.

Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) went further. He said gamers just want a “simple guarantee” they won’t wake up to find every trace of their paid game wiped out. “It’s as if someone bought that printer, and then one day the manufacturer sent out a signal that deliberately stopped it from working at all, claiming it had reached the end of support,” Sewards said. He cited Ubisoft’s The Crew and other lost games. “We are not asking for indefinite technical support. What we are asking is fairly simple: don’t delete what we own.”

He argued publishers could offer options: offline patches, private server tools, or something that lets customers keep playing after public servers go dark.

UK Government: No Law Change Coming

The reply was blunt. Stephanie Peacock, minister for sport, tourism, civil society and youth, said the strength of feeling is “recognised,” but the law isn’t changing. “The Government also recognises the concerns from the video gaming industry about some of the campaign’s asks. Online video games are often dynamic, interactive services, not static products, and maintaining online services requires substantial investment over years or even decades.”

She insisted that creating post-support plans or giving control of servers to gamers could be “extremely challenging” for companies, with commercial, legal, and safety risks attached. The threat of unmoderated community servers, security problems, and unclear responsibility were all cited. “We do not think that a blanket requirement is proportionate or in the interests of businesses or consumers,” she told MPs.

On digital ownership? Peacock pushed back, saying video games have always been licensed rather than sold outright. She tied modern license agreements back to the 1980s, when “tearing the wrapping on a box” meant accepting the terms, even if today it’s hidden behind a digital storefront click.

She did, however, acknowledge the need for clarity when purchases can vanish or be “pulled shortly after launch.” The focus, she said, should be transparency: “consumers are entitled to information that enables them to make informed purchasing decisions confidently.”

The Preservation Dilemma

On the wider cultural loss, Peacock agreed that games hold unique artistic value. The government supports game preservation via national museums and partnerships with developers, but admits it’s “uniquely complex,” especially for online-only games.

She promised continued talks with groups like the Chartered Trading Standards Institute to develop clearer business guidance for companies, so players know what they’re really buying. But forced end-of-life options? Not on the table.

The debate leaves the UK’s millions of gamers with the same rules as before. Unless publishers change their tune, there’s still nothing stopping them from flipping the switch and wiping out games, whether you “bought” them or not.