UK Rejects 'Stop Killing Games' Petition

Here's the video response from Ross Scott, who is leading the 'Stop Killing Games' campaign:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI2G4xLBVkY

In summary, the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport responded to the petition once it reached 10k signatures. Their response suggests they did not understand the original request. They said they would not pursue a remedy for the issue and pointed those affected by it to the UK Competition and Market Authority. If the petition reaches 100k signatures before July 15, 2025 it will be considered for debate in Parliament.

Here is the actual petition, along with the UK's full response:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/702074/

Buyers deserve to know how long a game will remain playable. With most games tied to a service model, the buyer is paying for entry to a timed event/experience, not ownership. As I understand, the Stop Killing Games campaign would be happy if publishers simply had to inform the buyers of their games that this is the case, at least when they know ahead of time that it is. Currently, most publishers market games as something you "buy" and it's yours forever. They will also offer their game on subscription (Xbox GamePass, PSN, etc), but what many consumers don't understand is that for most games, both options are a subscription.

And worse yet, that the publishers will go out of their way to break products that could work indefinitely to enforce that subscription model, just because they are about to launch Product 2 that they need people to "buy" again.

This lack of transparency extends beyond games. Consumers don't generally think about the useful lifespan of what they buy, whether it is software, hardware - cars, home appliances, and even homes themselves. All of these things have a shorter expected lifespan now than 30 years ago, because we consider them to be practically indefinite, and marketers know this. Very few people who buy mid-range Android phones with no planned OTA updates say "okay, this $500 phone will last about a year and a half before it becomes too insecure to use, so I'm subscribing to it for $25/month; with a cloud service it will be $35/month, and with the apps I need, it will be $40/month".

It would be in the best interest of the buyer to be informed, but I don't think anyone in the market has their best interests in mind, except for regulators put in place by elected government for that purpose. In that sense, UK has government has once again failed to do its job here, like many other governments. On the positive side, if you think about everything you buy as a subscription, you don't have to fall for bad deals. It's a shame many others will, though, and the products will continue to be enshittified for you too.

What I explained... is not hard to understand if you think about it, but it is a complex matter with many moving regulatory and consumer behavior parts. No one will spend the 20-60 minutes to understand these complex dynamics behind a basic game they buy. It is unreasonable to expect. This is why it should be clearly labelled that you aren't buying anything, it's a timed event that the publisher will end. Sometimes, very rapidly. So is your car (which you may be unable to sell or maintain yourself), cell-phone (which will get outdated), and washing machine (which has chips expected to last 6 months beyond the warranty period). But that's a bigger topic for other consumer rights advocates.

Ur being hacked