I just saw the requirements for the physical edition of AC Black Flag Resynced, and it's disappointing. Even with the disc, you need a mandatory internet connection to install and start the game.

As someone who collects physical games, this is a dealbreaker. It's a single-player experience-why do we need Ubisoft's permission to play a disc we bought? If the servers go down in the future, this disc becomes useless.

I wanted to open a discussion here: Are we okay with this becoming the industry standard? How do we protect game preservation if even physical copies are just 'timed licenses' now?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. It feels like we are losing the right to actually 'own' our games.

Hi everyone,

I wanted to share why I've decided to boycott the upcoming Assassin's Creed Black Flag Resynced.

As someone who values physical media and game preservation, I was shocked to see that Ubisoft is once again requiring a "one-time internet connection" to install the game from the disc.

For me, buying a disc means I want to own the game forever, regardless of whether servers are up or down in 10 years. We saw what happened with The Crew, and I don't want my favorite AC game to suffer the same fate.

A disc that requires a server to "activate" or "download mandatory data" is just a digital license on a piece of plastic. It's not true ownership.

I'm standing with the #StopKillingGames movement. I won't spend my money on a product that Ubisoft can "kill" whenever they decide to turn off the activation servers.

Who else is skipping this release until Ubisoft provides a truly offline, complete-on-disc version?

https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckubisoft/s/qcOBenaChy

If I purchase a product and the developer is changing anything about that product, I think there should be very clear transparency as to what is being changed.

Whether it's a small patch of only a couple megabytes in size or a large patch that completely causes you to have to re-download the game, it doesn't matter. If they're changing something, we should know.

There have been many times that a game has released a patch without there being any notes on what that patch did whatsoever. I understand that most patches are to it improve the game and the experience playing it, but it's also a perfect opportunity for companies to negatively change things as well. if they can't provide the patch notes then the update should not be allowed to be released.

I was wondering about the history of publishers "killing" games so I checked the "dead games list" on your wiki. I did indeed find some examples that clearly align with Scott's vids (such as Battlefield 1943, Anthem).

On the other hand, I also found a lot of confusing stuff. For example:

• The chart lists three games in the Burnout series as "dead" but the listing notes that servers shut down but offline mode still works. I thought a viable offline version was an acceptable outcome.
• Bulletstorm. Per the chart, the studio abandoned the original version but they released a remastered version. Doesn't that satisfy your requirements?
• Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, III, and Revelations. If I understand the chart right, you can still play it in offline mode. So everything's fine, right? Why are those listed as "dead?"
• Ten versions of Angry Birds, except one was replaced with a free version. How does making a game free "kill" it? Another is "still mostly playable." 2-3 others were simply canceled. If a game was never released how can it be "killed"?

Here's the issue: I honestly can't get a clear read on what you guys are objecting to, specifically. Your listing mixes five different forms of "death", only one of which matches Scott's description of "killing" a game:

• abandoned online-only games (1943, Anthem, The Crew) I think this is the issue, right?
• online dropped but offline mode still playable (Burnout Paradise)
• delisted but still playable (some Angry Birds games)
• cancelled before release (some birds games)
• they just made it free (Birds)

Can you tell me precisely what it means to "kill" or "destroy" a game? What counts and what doesn't?

I would check your FAQ but it 404s.

https://preview.redd.it/htlnnd98sczg1.jpg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f8889dff845cec9f07aa36dfd10a6b3978d7885b

Hey everyone,

Summary: Stop Killing Games and Alderon Games signed and supports this joint statement because game preservation depends on the open web. Laws like the UK Online Safety Act, the UK Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and California’s Digital Age Assurance Act / AB 1043 show a growing trend toward age gates, access restrictions, and platform-level controls. These may be framed as child safety measures, but they can also make private servers, modding communities, fan projects, open-source tools, and preservation work harder or even impossible to operate.

Why SKG signed

https://preview.redd.it/5uxjsnv9sczg1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=365a40c25265f182a0a710a6f75535576dfad2fd

Stop Killing Games has signed a joint statement with groups including Mozilla, EFF, Open Rights Group, Tor Project, Proton, Big Brother Watch, Internet Society, and others about the risks of current UK online safety policy.

We wanted to explain why this matters to SKG specifically.

SKG is about making sure games are not destroyed when official support ends. That does not just mean “publishers should keep servers on forever.” It means players and communities need practical ways to keep games working after publishers move on.

That often depends on things like:

• private servers
• modding communities
• fan patches
• community launchers
• forums, wikis, and Discords
• open-source tools
• independent hosting
• preservation projects

Broad age-gating laws and access restrictions can put that whole ecosystem at risk.

Urban Dead shows why this matters

A recent example is Urban Dead, a free browser-based MMO that had been running since 2005. It announced a shutdown after nearly 20 years, citing requirements created by the UK Online Safety Act.

Whatever your view of that specific case, it shows the problem clearly: small, old, community-run games can become too legally risky or too difficult to operate.

That is directly relevant to game preservation.

If laws are written in a way that assumes every online service is a giant platform with lawyers, compliance teams, ID-verification systems, app-store integration, and moderation infrastructure, then small communities get squeezed out.

The result is not just inconvenience. It can mean servers shut down, tools disappear, mods become harder to distribute, and fan projects become legally unsafe to run.

This is not only a UK issue

We are also worried about similar trends elsewhere, including California’s Digital Age Assurance Act / AB 1043, which pushes age assurance into operating systems, app stores, and software distribution.

That could make independent software, Linux-based ecosystems, community launchers, modding tools, and private server hosting harder to maintain.

Child safety matters, but this is the wrong approach

To be clear: protecting young people online matters. A lot of us are from the generation these laws are supposedly about, and we know there are harmful parts of the internet. Nobody is saying those problems should be ignored.

But it is frustrating to see policymakers suddenly claim everything is “for our safety” while young people are often left to deal with bigger problems on their own elsewhere. And even when the goal is reasonable, this approach goes far beyond what is normal or proportionate. Mission creep is real and some actors dont just creep.

The issue is that blunt access bans and mandatory age checks do not fix the root causes of online harm.

They often create new gatekeepers, collect more sensitive data, and make the open web harder to use. They also risk punishing the small community projects that are least able to comply, while the largest platforms adapt and become even more entrenched.

Read more about the issue

We encourage people to use this as an opportunity to inform themselves more thoroughly about the issue.

The joint statement responds to the UK Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and the wider policy discussion around online harms, including proposals such as curfews for users and broader restrictions on online access.

Some of our co-signers have published more in-depth summaries, and they are worth reading.

https://preview.redd.it/lmxkvgkmoczg1.png?width=1536&format=png&auto=webp&s=2d5cf52e78ac52010f825717bea7b283a545648f

For SKG, the principle is simple:

Games should not become unplayable because a publisher flips a switch.

And communities should not be prevented from keeping games alive because the open web is being turned into a permissioned, age-gated, platform-controlled system.

A safer internet should not mean a more closed internet.

That is why we signed.

The trend is clear and we believe its time for a REAL debate on the issue, in that sense we announce:

#StopKillingTheInternet

Video on the POG Act is up

Hello all.

I'm not mentioning the name of the project in respect to no self-promotion. I'm not here to promote, rather inquire and gauge the community

I'm the solo developer of a remote rendering system that surpasses traditional user-rendering in performance (extreme optimization of processes) and fidelity by a wide margin.
I'm not a corporate entity, but I know that I'm 22 logical iterations ahead of nVidia (who're still stuck on interpolated frame-gen, our first iteration)

I'm trying to leverage this technology to change the industry from the inside, and would like to discuss this with the SKG community; Essentially, we can do what the big studios can't: Provide a service with a superior, cheaper and more efficient protocol.

Foremost, I agree with every point made by the SKG movement.
With that, as a gamer, artist and developer, the games we make are meant to be played. Artists shouldn't be pouring their love into what a corporate entity will determine to be 'abandonware', it's not only a waste, but disrespectful to their time, love, passion and talent.

Additional pro-consumer values I hold, and will deliver.

The system safeguards itself from obsolescence: Any game you play on the system supports the entire library's catalogue.

Unforeseen obsolesces safeguard: Should any game be made obsolete for ANY reason at all, I will personally release all data of that title to the community, including detailed instructions to create optimized and compatible community servers.

Any assets that need to be modified (due to the system having the ability to essentially ignore poly limits and having vastly larger texture sizes) I will personally work with the community to edit these assets to an optimized and game-ready state, including tutorials or streams.

Any purchases made in any game will have a real-world physical counterpart. Should you buy a cosmetic in game you will have the option to have the same item (a miniature for the offline tabletop version) delivered, or to accrue the value for a piece of merchandise from the store, be it another miniature or a deluxe figure.

This is possible due to several aspects of the system that severely reduce development and power-costs on our end. Plus it's just good business.

Please comment if you have a question, anything. Skepticism welcomed, my goal is to serve the gaming community and revive the golden age of gaming. Our gaming 'renaissance'!

Some of these are already part of the movement. Feel free to discuss/roast/give feedback.

1. Studios will, for single player games, ensure that the games will be playable offline after support ends

2. Every single player game should be playable offline at all times

3. Game licenses should be protected. If you have bought a license then the game should always be available to you

4. Game licenses should be global. If you have bought a license on Steam then you should be able to access it on other platforms like Epic. This might sound unreasonable but it's possible that it is good for studios as well because I think this is the only way to break the steam monopoly. Gamers play where their collection is, not the only reason, but a major one. So this could be beneficial for other platforms. Certainly we could pay a fee for such a service, after all we are not communists.

It has been a pleasure. Hope we have answered all your questions

There has been great progress in the consumer movement 'Stop Killing Games' in Europe, UK, and more recently, the US. (Plus some other countries)

Is there progress for this initiative in Canada or maybe information about it regarding Canada?

I couldn't really find much other than this link.

Does anyone know what other sources there are? Or maybe more promising info?

https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-4965

The core idea behind the Stop Killing Games movement is to have clear End-of-Life (EOL) terms in a game’s Terms of Service and some form of continued access after shutdown. This is reasonable. However, I think a lot of people misunderstand what they’re actually asking for when they say things like “let us connect to unofficial servers” or “give us the ability to run our own servers.” Like it’s some simple feature request.

Servers contain core game logic, progression systems, economies, anti-cheat, and persistent data. 

Enabling players to run their own servers would, in many cases, require exposing proprietary server code, internal tooling, and database structures if they still want to play the account they had. That introduces serious concerns around security risks for the company complying with this.

It’s difficult to see proposals like that making it through any serious technical or legal review.

A more realistic expectation is something like an offline mode post-EOL, where the game can run locally without reliance on server infrastructure. This would require developers to design games with both offline and online pathways from the outset, something we already see in titles like those from FromSoftware. (Dark souls 1-3 etc.)

The push for player run servers often comes from comparisons to private servers, particularly in games like World of Warcraft. But those examples are frequently misunderstood. Private servers typically exist because of extensive reverse engineering, which includes packet sniffing, protocol reconstruction, and other legally questionable methods just to approximate server behavior. Even then, they are imperfect replicas, often plagued by bugs, and broken quests.

This is the issue I have with all of this, and perhaps someone can talk sense to me and help me see why this wouldn’t be an issue, and maybe that I’m misguided to some degree. How would we feasibly get to “run our own servers” or have them “hand us the servers”? 

Hi, I'm a South African gamer who has never played/owned the crew before so I couldn't report Ubisoft.

So I was wondering how I can get fellow gamers in my country to help, like a petition or something.

Please drop some suggestions, thank you.