Online game ownership in the digital age – do we really own what we play?

Over the past decade, digital sales have become the primary way gamers purchase video games. With this shift comes a series of growing pains that often puts gamers at odds with publishers. One particularly contentious issue is digital ownership and consumer rights; topics gaining renewed attention thanks to the Stop Destroying Videogames petition circulating online.

Created by the European consumer rights movement Stop Killing Games, the petition –formally a European Citizens’ Initiative – is addressing a core problem arising from the industry's digital transition. While many games can function independently, some modern titles require continuous support from their publishers to remain playable. When publishers shut down servers or remove support – typically due to declining profitability –consumers can lose access to games they have already purchased.

The petition aims to combat this by requiring publishers who sell or license video games in the European Union to provide reasonable means for continued consumer access before discontinuing support. With over 1.04 million signatures as of July 20, 2025, it has surpassed the threshold to be considered by the European Parliament. A separate UK petition has also gained traction, collecting over 150,000 signatures, which is enough to be considered for debate in the UK Parliament.

Ownership in the digital age

In most cases, when consumers purchase a video game, they are not buying the product itself but a license to access it. While the Stop Killing Games petition specifically targets video games and their publishers, the broader issue of losing access to digital purchases spans multiple industries.

Sony’s 2024 merger of anime streaming platforms Crunchyroll and FUNimation led to many FUNimation users losing access to titles they had purchased – often obscure and hard-to-find anime – due to differing access rights and business models.

So, while Stop Killing Games represents the latest pushback against these shifting digital norms, it is part of a wider movement to redefine what ownership means in a world increasingly dominated by licenses and subscriptions. These concerns are especially pressing as the cost of living rises and consumers seek long-term value and increased meaning in their purchases.

In response, some are turning back to analogue technologies. Retro video game consoles and other seemingly outdated formats are seeing renewed popularity, and associated market success, partly driven by a desire for permanence. Meanwhile, digital media piracy – which had declined thanks to the convenience of streaming – is once again on the rise, fueled by frustration over content being removed or locked away.

A growing demand for control

While it is unlikely we will ever fully return to the era of cartridges and discs, Stop Killing Games is tapping into a growing consumer desire for true ownership – and they are not alone.

The retro gaming market has seen a notable resurgence, often driven by nostalgia for a time when ownership was simple, and games could be freely shared. A bygone era where there were no questions about whether a title would disappear if a server went offline or a server at all.

Another signal of this demand was the explosive, though short-lived, success of the blockchain gaming space. As an offshoot of the cryptocurrency boom, blockchain gaming promised players true digital ownership, driving the market to a peak valuation of $114 billion. While many of its promises proved overhyped or impractical, its popularity reveals a deep hunger for more secure, transferable ownership in digital gaming.

Even if some industry leaders are skeptical of Stop Killing Games’ goals, the petition clearly highlights a market demand that warrants serious consideration.

Time to plan for the end

At its core, the petition asks that publishers be required to provide tools for continued access to games, even after official support ends. No studio wants to imagine its live service title failing, but planning for end-of-life scenarios could foster goodwill and long-term trust.

Publishers should weigh the risks of eroding consumer confidence in the longevity of a purchase. Games with significant live service elements may struggle if players are worried they might one day lose the money they previously invested into the game. In an industry where loyalty matters, addressing these concerns is not just an ethical issue, it is a smart business move.

The conversation sparked by Stop Killing Games represents a larger dialogue society is having regarding how we define ownership in an increasingly digital world.

Game publishers, and digital content providers more broadly, are at a crossroads: continue over-relying on short-term models that frustrate their audiences or evolve toward systems that cultivate meaning. Choosing the latter will not only earn trust with gamers but will also help preserve their companies in a digital economy overwhelmingly defined by impermanence.