Not everyone sees the Commission's decision as a defeat.

The European Commission has rejected calls for new legislation requiring publishers to keep games playable after they are discontinued, opting instead to pursue voluntary industry guidelines.

The decision marks a significant moment for the Stop Killing Games campaign, which emerged following Ubisoft's shutdown of The Crew. When the publisher took the game's servers offline, players lost access entirely, helping fuel a wider debate around digital ownership, consumer rights, and what happens when online games reach the end of their lifespan.

Rather than introducing new legal obligations, the Commission said it will work with consumer organisations and industry representatives on a code of conduct covering how games are managed after commercial support ends.

Why did the EU reject new Stop Killing Games legislation?

In a press release, the European Commission said it is currently unable to create a legal obligation requiring companies to maintain playability once a game is no longer being commercially provided.

The Commission considers that at this stage it cannot propose a legal obligation to keep video games playable after they stop being provided commercially," the Commission said.

The Commission pointed to intellectual property law as one of the biggest hurdles to introducing new rules. It argued that copyright holders already have exclusive rights over their works, while other legal protections can cover different aspects of a game's technology and design.

Those comments arrive against the backdrop of the ongoing dispute over The Crew. Ubisoft's decision to shut down the game's servers sparked criticism from players and eventually led French consumer group UFC-Que Choisir to file a lawsuit, which led to a petition that reached more than 1.4 million signatures in support of the Stop Killing Games Initaitve. The organisation alleges consumers were misled about the game's lifespan and says some contractual terms unfairly removed ownership rights. Ubisoft's position is that players purchased a licence to access the game, not ownership of the game itself.

Rather than seeking fresh legislation, the Commission suggested that existing consumer laws may offer another route. It said better enforcement of those rights could push companies to consider longer support periods or alternative solutions once a game's commercial life comes to an end. In its statement, the regulator argued that "active enforcement of these existing consumer rights" could encourage companies to offer games with longer lifespans and explore solutions that better meet consumer expectations.

What happens next for Stop Killing Games?

Rather than introducing new legal requirements, the Commission said it will meet with consumer representatives and industry groups "with the aim to draw up an industry code of conduct on managing video games' 'end of life'." It also plans to promote greater awareness of existing consumer rights.

The proposed code of conduct would focus on how publishers manage games as they reach the end of their commercial life, though the Commission has not outlined any binding requirements or enforcement mechanisms. Alongside that effort, it said it will work with consumer organisations and authorities to raise awareness of the rights players already have under existing consumer protection laws.

How is Stop Killing Games responding to the EU Commission's decision?

Stop Killing Games founder Ross Scott had anticipated the possibility of a limited response from the Commission long before the decision was announced.

In a video published shortly before the ruling, Scott said the campaign would welcome support from the Commission, but feared that "all we'll see is a non-binding communication and nothing changes", a prediction that closely aligns with the outcome ultimately announced.

Despite that, Scott argued that "the Commission's decision doesn't really matter" to the campaign's long-term prospects.

According to Scott, the movement has already secured significant support within the European Parliament and may still be able to achieve legislative change through amendments to the existing Digital Fairness Act.

"We have made serious inroads in parliament," Scott said, adding that the campaign had recently seen an inquiry calling for legislative action signed by 45 Members of the European Parliament. He further argued that organisers are "in a position to pass legislation on this even without the Commission's blessing."

Following the Commission's announcement, the campaign reiterated that position in a post on X:

"This decision is not unexpected. But we were prepared," the post reads. The campaign added that it is pushing to have Stop Killing Games incorporated into the Digital Fairness Act and can continue "without the Commission and their non-decision."

The group had already struck a similarly optimistic tone before the ruling was announced, arguing that "EU legislation should be going through either way" and that it was "in a better position than ever to win this."

Scott also sought to reassure supporters ahead of the announcement, saying: "So the message from all this is don't be discouraged by what the Commission decides on the 16th. It is no longer the deciding factor in this."

He added that "everything seems to be on course to go through in the EU and in California," suggesting the campaign's focus has increasingly shifted towards lawmakers rather than regulators.

For now, the Commission's decision means there will be no immediate legal requirement forcing publishers to preserve access to discontinued games. However, with campaign organisers continuing to push for legislative action and consumer groups maintaining pressure on publishers, the debate over digital ownership and game preservation appears far from settled, especially with the movement gaining traction in North America, with the proposal of Protect Our Games Act in California, USA.