Yesterday, the UK Parliament conducted a small debate on an e-petition that had been raised by concerned constituents about consumer law and videogames. In layman's terms, it was all about how frustrating it is when players don't have ownership over their games and get left hung out to dry by big studios, unceremoniously ending support for live service games.
"I come to the debate not only as a member of Parliament, but also as a lifelong gamer," Ben Goldsborough MP says during the e-petition debate. "The videogame industry itself contributes £7.6 billion to the UK economy and supports over 75,000 jobs. We are home to world-leading studios, cutting-edge research, and some of the most talented and creative minds anywhere on earth. We should value this industry not only for its economic output but as a cultural powerhouse that shapes stories, art, music, and technology."
The petition in question that started it all is now closed, but not before gathering 189,887 signatures. It had the goal of getting the UK government to update consumer law to prohibit publishers from disabling videogames that have already been sold without any refunds for players.
I wouldn't want to call this a pipe dream, especially as we've seen some headway made in strengthening consumer protections via the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. But a debate in the Commons doesn't necessarily mean any worthwhile change will happen. Although it has to be said that it was nice to see representatives take this issue seriously.
"The nature of games has changed," Goldsborough continues. "Many modern titles are live services, constantly updated, server-dependent, and reliant on ongoing operational costs. It's not inherently a bad thing, live services have created vibrant global communities, but it has also changed what it means to 'own' a game.
"When a game shuts down without clear notice, the investment is lost. The shared world disappears. The Videogame History Foundation estimates that 87% of games released before 2010 are now critically endangered. This is not just a consumer issue; it is a cultural one. This debate is not just about keeping games playable; it's about preserving our cultural heritage.
"We do not accept our mobile phones being switched off whenever a company produces a new model and wants us to buy the new model," MP Warinder Juss adds. "So why should we allow thousands of pounds worth of games to be made unplayable just because new games have been introduced?"
It's become increasingly common over the last few years for games to come out, float around for a while and then disappear into the ether as game publishers try to distract us with ramblings of making teams more aerodynamic or whatever excuse they can come up with. When XDefiant closed up shop, Ubisoft simply said that it "didn't have the gas to go the distance" for this live service shooter.
Others stick around for a while before getting axed out of nowhere, while some sadly don't even make it out of development, missing the chance to prove themselves altogether. But when you think of videogames with a messed-up launch and short lifespan, the most popular word association at this point is probably Concord, so popular even that its horror story made its way into the Commons debate.
"A recent example is 'Concord', a game released for PlayStation 5 and Windows in August 2024," MP Henry Tufnell explains. "Following a disappointing launch, Sony Interactive Entertainment made a commercial decision to shut it down. To its credit, Sony refunded all purchases, but that is not always the case. Members will agree that if publishers fail to make the lifespan of a game clear at the point of sale, they must be held accountable."
Since its disastrous launch last year, Concord has become shorthand for when a game implodes in on itself, an abrupt ending to a live service game that some had already put quite a bit of money into. Any time someone wants to bring up how unstable live service game ownership is, you'd best bet Concord's name will quickly follow suit. It's a tough legacy, but a fair one.
But mishaps like Concord are why petitions like this one exist. Players have every right to get the reassurance that their investments will be refunded if studios fumble the ball. "I would urge the government to explore funding, partnerships, and sector support to ensure we maintain a library full of significant games," Goldsborough ends with. "We would never imagine pulping every copy of Shakespeare, and we should not think any differently about videogames.
"Requiring developers to define end-of-life strategies upfront could stifle innovation and create unintended risks. But gamers deserve clarity. If a game is likely to go offline, they should be told."
You must confirm your public display name before commenting
Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.
