Balancing the interests of users, publishers and developers in cases of shutdown of video games: A new European initiative

When purchasing a game, users assume that they will have ongoing unlimited access to the product—a notion that does not always correspond to reality. The nature of the relationship between publishers, developers and users as expressed in opaque licensing documentation often leaves the latter uncertain about their rights and does not guarantee them stable access to the game, which can be revoked at any time. This imbalance gives grounds to view the current regulatory framework as not entirely fair. The present study is based on statutory acts and user agreements that govern the relationship between publishers and users in cases of shutdown of gaming projects. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the European citizens’ initiative “Stop destroying videogames,” which calls for ensuring the functionality of games even after developer support has ceased. The aim of the study is to identify concrete methods for resolving the conflict of interests between publishers, developers, and users in the event of a game closure. Through an analysis of the aforementioned initiative, an evaluation of its merits and shortcomings, and a systematic comparison with statutory acts in the fields of copyright and consumer protection, it has been determined that, despite its limited restriction of the freedom of contract and the intellectual property rights of developers and publishers, the initiative contributes to achieving an effective balance of the rights and interests of all parties. Based on the study’s findings, the author concludes that it is fair to impose a number of obligations on publishers and developers. These obligations include, for example, the removal of technical measures for copyright protection, which are implemented via connections to the developer’s servers, the permission for private server hosting, and the alteration of the game distribution model, as well as compensating users for part of their expenses in the event of the closure of games in early access.

1. Abramovitch, S. H. (2007). Virtual property, real law: The regulation of property in video games. Canadian Journal of Law and Technology, 6(2), Article 2.

2. Andrianova, M. A., & Vlasenko, E. V. (2020). Riski provajdera, svyazannye s neopredelennost’yu pravovoj prirody pol’zovatel’skih soglashenij onlajn-igr [Provider risks connected with uncertainty in the legal nature of online games’ terms of use]. Digital Law Journal, 1(3), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2020-13-21-39

3. Dubois, L.-E., & Weststar, J. (2022). Games-as-a-service: Conflicted identities on the new front-line of video game development. New Media & Society, 24(10), 2332–2353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444821995815

4. Fairfield, J. (2005). Virtual Property. Boston University Law Review, 85, 1047–1102.

5. Harkai, I. (2022). Preservation of video games and their role as cultural heritage. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 17(10), 844–856. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpac090

6. King, D. L., Delfabbro, P. H., Billieux, J., & Potenza, M. N. (2020). Problematic online gaming and the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 9(2), 184–186. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00016

7. Lastowka, F. G. G., & Hunter, D. (2004). The laws of the virtual worlds. California Law Review, 92(1), 1–74.

8. Lau, P. L. (2024). Disrupting MMORPGs gaming: Exploring and renegotiating end-user license agreements in the Metaverse. International Journal of Commerce and Contracting, 8(1–2), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/20555636241246188

9. Lee, Y. H. (2018). Making videogame history: Videogame preservation and copyright law. Interactive Entertainment Law Review, 1(2), 103–108. https://doi.org/10.4337/ielr.2018.02.03

10. Lehtonen, M. J., Vesa, M., & Harviainen, J. T. (2022). Games-as-a-Disservice: Emergent value co-destruction in platform business models. Journal of Business Research, 141, 564–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.055

11. Limpach, O. (2020). The Publishing Challenge for Independent Video Game Developers: A Practical Guide (1st ed.). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780367815639

12. Medvedev, A.I. (2018). Pravovye otnosheniya v prostranstve virtual’nyh igrovyh mirov: Problemy teorii i praktiki [Legal relations in the space of virtual game worlds: Problems of theory and practice]. Vestnik Sibirskogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii [Vestnik of the Siberian Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia], (2 (31)), 139–150.

13. Mezei, P., & Harkai, I. (2022). End-user flexibilities in digital copyright law — an empirical analysis of end-user license agreements. Interactive Entertainment Law Review, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4337/ielr.2022.0003

14. Newman, J. (2018). The music of microswitches: Preserving videogame sound—a proposal. The Computer Games Journal, 7(4), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40869-018-0065-8

15. Oprysk, L. (2021). Digital consumer contract law without prejudice to copyright: EU digital content directive, reasonable consumer expectations and competition. GRUR International, 70(10), 943–956. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikab058

16. Rozhkova, M. A. (2020). Imushchestvennye prava na novye nematerial’nye ob”ekty v sisteme absolyutnykh prav [Property rights to new intangible objects in the system of absolute rights]. In M. A. Rozhkova (Ed.), Pravo cifrovoj ekonomiki—2020: Ezhegodnik-antologiya [Law of the Digital Economy—2020: A Yearbook-Anthology] (pp. 5–78). Statut.

17. Saveliev, A. I. (2014). Pravovaya priroda virtual’nyh ob”ektov, priobretaemyh za real’nye den’gi v mnogopol’zovatel’skih igrah [Legal nature of virtual objects purchased for real money in multiplayer online games]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review], 14(1), 127–150.

18. Wiśniewska, K., & Pałka, P. (2024). The impact of the Digital Content Directive on online platforms’ Terms of Service. Yearbook of European Law, 42, 388–406. https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yead004