Here at MLG, we live and breathe video games. We play them, we analyze them, we talk about them, and above all, we love them. That’s why, when the Stop Killing Games movement emerged, we couldn’t stay on the sidelines. From the very beginning, this movement struck a chord with us: the need to protect the games that are part of our history, our identity, and our gamer culture. What began as a protest-like petition has become an international phenomenon with the potential to change how player rights are handled worldwide. Today, after many ups and downs, moments of despair, and significant victories, the movement has reached a turning point. What once seemed doomed now seems unstoppable.
This article is our space to tell you, the way we always do here, what’s going on with SKG, what has been achieved, what challenges still remain, and why, although we always respect different viewpoints, we choose to see the strength of this cause as something positive. As gamers through and through, we believe that defending the existence and accessibility of video games is not a whim, it’s a cultural necessity.
What is Stop Killing Games and why does it exist?
Stop Killing Games is a grassroots movement born to fight back against an increasingly alarming trend: the permanent and irreversible shutdown of legally purchased video games. Many online titles, including those with single-player components, have been pulled from servers without offering buyers any alternative. When this happens, people who paid for these games are left without access, without a refund, and most seriously, without the right to keep something that was already theirs. The situation became particularly tense with the case of The Crew (2014), an online racing game by Ubisoft. Even though players had paid for it, the shutdown of its servers made the game completely unplayable, even in local mode. That was the case that lit the final spark behind the movement.
SKG’s proposal is neither radical nor destructive. It’s not about forcing companies to keep their servers up forever, but rather about demanding reasonable solutions: enabling offline modes, releasing the necessary code so the community can host private servers, or alternatively, providing tools to preserve access to the product. Essentially, SKG wants video games, like any other form of digital culture, not to disappear without a trace. Just as we can watch old films or read books from past centuries, we should also be able to play titles from years ago without depending on corporate goodwill.
A road full of obstacles
Even though the message is clear and sounds fair, SKG’s path has been neither smooth nor easy. For most of 2024, the movement remained active but stuck, growing slowly in its most ambitious campaign: the European Citizens’ Initiative. This legal mechanism requires at least one million verified signatures from EU citizens for the European Commission to be formally obligated to consider the proposal. By mid-year, SKG had only reached around 50% of that goal, creating a wave of frustration. Many voices within and outside the community began to lose hope that the movement could achieve anything concrete.
That situation was further complicated by internal tensions. On social media and forums, comments surfaced that divided the community. Some members of the movement adopted more extreme stances, like saying, “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.” And here, we want to be very clear, we don’t share those extreme views. We understand the passion, we understand the anger, but we firmly believe that everyone has the right to think differently. If you, gamer, see things in another way, we still read you with respect. What we want to avoid is falling into tribalism. Defending access to video games shouldn’t become a war between sides, but rather a conversation between people who love the same thing and may have different ideas about how to protect it.
The turning point: from collapse to unstoppable momentum
Despite the widespread pessimism, something changed. In late June and early July of 2025, the SKG movement surpassed the one million signatures required by the European Citizens’ Initiative. This wasn’t just a symbolic milestone. It means the European Commission must now formally receive the proposal, assess its validity, and offer an official response. It also opens the door to public hearings in the European Parliament, where representatives of the movement will be able to speak directly to lawmakers. While this doesn’t automatically guarantee that a new law will be passed, it does force the institutions to put the issue on the table.
This shift didn’t happen by chance. It was the result of an intensified campaign, of a community that doubled its efforts, and of a cause that managed to stay relevant in public conversation. And it’s important to note that, given the possibility that some signatures might be invalid during the verification stage, SKG organizers continue to promote the campaign to exceed the legal threshold comfortably. In other words, the movement isn’t slowing down, it now wants to secure its impact.
The UK case and other regions
Meanwhile, in the UK, a national petition, separate from the European initiative, also gained traction. After reaching 10,000 signatures, the British government was obligated to respond. The official reply was vague: it acknowledged that consumers have rights over digital products they purchase, but avoided committing to any concrete measures. Still, the campaign remains active, aiming for the 100,000-signature threshold that would allow the proposal to be formally debated in Parliament. While this doesn’t ensure immediate change, it proves the topic is entering the legislative discussion even outside the continent.
Elsewhere in the world, there have been signs of progress too. In the United States, for example, the state of California recently passed a law requiring digital platforms to clearly state that purchased video games are not full ownership, but licenses subject to conditions. This doesn’t solve the problem entirely, but it shifts the spotlight toward transparency and the consumer-product relationship. Additionally, some platforms like GOG.com have reiterated their commitment to keeping their games available offline, which aligns with SKG’s goals.
What about the rest of the world? The Brazilian case as a key example
Although most of the legal and political momentum behind SKG is coming from Europe and the UK, it’s worth looking at how other countries are also starting to take steps in the same spirit. In many regions, like Canada, Australia, South Korea, or even South Africa, the conversation hasn’t taken concrete form yet, but there’s a growing concern about access to digital games and the lack of user control over what they buy. However, there’s one country in particular that deserves special attention: Brazil.
In June 2025, São Paulo’s consumer protection agency, Procon-SP, formally took action against Nintendo for what it considers abusive clauses in the user agreement for the Nintendo Switch 2. The reason? Nintendo reserves the right to remotely and permanently block consoles that violate its policies, whether due to suspected piracy, unauthorized accessories, or even administrative issues. The now well-known error 2124-4508 can render a console useless without prior warning and without offering clear appeal processes, leaving players locked out of their entire digital library.
Procon-SP argues that these practices violate Brazil’s Consumer Protection Code, as the product can be rendered partially or totally unusable without the user being properly informed or given a chance to defend themselves. The agency also criticizes the mandatory arbitration clause in the user agreement, which could prevent consumers from pursuing legal action through the courts. These kinds of practices have been challenged before. In a previous case, a Brazilian court ruled against Sony and ordered the company to unlock a PlayStation console that had been disabled without sufficient justification. That ruling recognized that while companies may restrict online functionality in cases of violation, they may not make the entire device unusable.
This conflict between Procon-SP and Nintendo is not exactly the same as what SKG is addressing, but the similarities are clear. Just like in Europe, the core issue here is the absolute control that companies retain over products that have already been sold, and the demand that consumers be treated as rightful owners of what they purchased. At its heart, it’s the same fight: stopping digital content from being at the mercy of corporate decisions. If you buy something, it should be yours in a real, not conditional, sense.
That’s why the Brazilian case could be a positive sign for all of Latin America and beyond. If a local authority can legally challenge these practices and pressure a multinational like Nintendo to reconsider its policies, then there’s room for other countries to do the same. And if gamers raise their voices in an organized and consistent way, as SKG is doing in Europe, there’s a real chance that respect for digital rights stops being an exception and starts becoming the norm.
Why it matters to us
For us at MLG, this isn’t just a social or legal cause. It’s something personal, emotional, and deeply connected to who we are as a community. We’ve grown up with games that shaped us. Titles that gave us joy, companionship, excitement, and comfort. Some of those games are no longer available. Not because they were bad. Not because no one wanted them. Simply because someone decided to shut them down, delete them, disconnect them from the world. That, for anyone who’s lived meaningful moments through a game, is a harsh blow.
Besides, defending access to games isn’t just about nostalgia. It’s a matter of respect. Respect for the player who paid for something and should have the basic right to keep accessing it. Respect for the developers who poured years of work into creating something that, without preservation, might vanish without a trace. And respect for the history of the medium. Because yes gamer, video games are also history, they’re culture, and they deserve to be archived, revisited, and celebrated. It’s not about living in the past, it’s about not letting it be erased.
A conclusion that’s really a beginning
The Stop Killing Games movement represents something bigger than just a petition. It’s a sign of maturity within the gaming world. A wake-up call that shows we’re not just consumers, but part of a cultural ecosystem that deserves protection. Today, SKG has crossed one of the hardest thresholds: being taken seriously. It’s no longer a shout into the void. It’s a real topic in the political, legal, and social agenda of Europe, and it’s slowly reaching other corners of the world.
But like every early victory, this is just the beginning. There’s still no concrete legislation. There are still technical challenges. There are still companies that don’t fully grasp what’s at stake. And there’s still a lot to talk about, debate, and build together. The good news is, there’s now a solid foundation. There’s momentum. And there’s a community, you, us, all of us who love video games, ready to take things a step further so that the games we enjoy today don’t vanish into oblivion tomorrow.
So, gamer, wherever you are, whatever you think, we want you to know we’re in this together. From MLG, we’re going to keep informing you, analyzing and celebrating what we love: video games. And if you feel connected to this cause, this energy, this story… then you’re already part of the change. And at this point, we’d really love to know what you think, because if you’ve made it this far, then clearly you care about the topic, and we care about what you have to say, so as always, the comments section is all yours! You know gamer, we’ll be reading you! 🎮
