Long-term access to online games has become an urgent concern for players, and Scott says the practice of shutting down servers with little warning would be unacceptable in almost any other industry. In a recent Ars Live conversation with Ars Technica Senior Gaming Editor Kyle Orland, Scott explained why he decided to organize a movement on the issue and what governments might do next.
Scott said the state of long-term game access was already “intolerable a decade and a half ago” and that he had hoped someone with more experience or knowledge would lead the charge. When nothing materialized, he felt he had “[drawn] the short straw” by stepping up himself.
He compared the way publishers end online games to consumer protections in other fields. If a company planned to shut down a game in five years if it performed poorly, he argued, that timeline should be communicated at launch. “This manner of things doesn’t really apply to other goods and services,” Scott said. He pointed to warranties or insurance policies that do not state an expiration date but instead tell consumers “we’ll tell you when it expires.” Such an arrangement, he added, would likely conflict with other laws.
On the technical side, Scott suggested that planning ahead for an online game’s end of life can keep transition costs low. Many developers, he said, would support the idea that if the requirement is established from the beginning, the game can be designed differently. “The cost can be extremely low then because it comes down to developing the game differently rather than having to have all these additional costs,” he explained.
Scott noted that most online-only games already have local test environments. Even if a game relies on Amazon servers, developers typically keep an operational version of the server for testing during outages or incompatibility issues. “If they already have that, that’s half the battle right there,” he said.
Scott expressed disappointment with how the European Parliament has handled the movement’s concerns so far. He said many governments and ruling bodies are unsure how existing law applies to game shutdowns, so he hoped a large petition to the EU Commission would force a clarification. Instead, the Commission dodged the issue, telling supporters that courts in each member state should decide, even though harmonizing policy across member states is part of the Commission’s job. “In my opinion, they’re not doing their job,” Scott said, clarifying that the problem is not disagreement but a failure to follow the charter.
Despite that frustration, the attention generated by the petition helped gather support within the EU Parliament. Scott said those lawmakers have been “very favorable” to the movement’s goals. The effort is now scheduled to be included in the Digital Fairness Act, which he described as a coincidence but a perfect fit for the issues the movement raises.
Scott remains hopeful that the Digital Fairness Act will finally bring clarity to the issue, even if the European Commission has so far avoided taking a position. The next steps, he said, are scheduled and moving forward.
