Stop Killing Games (EU edition) - Moldman vs. Publishers

[crowabunga]

At this rate of oversignage I'm feeling good.

 

[Adam Copium]

Feeling very of this entire thing

 

[NurEinTier]

weekend is up, time to ask more people to sign

 

[regalterry]

But a lot of smaller studio works are gone forever.

This can happen today too, very easily even.

Some BBC radio shows are only available today thanks to pirates archiving the content privately, source code of a shitload of Japanese games is basically gone because Japanese devs practiced deleting the data once the game shipped, the director's cut of Event Horizon with additional footage is lost to time because salt got to the master copy in the mine it was stored in.

Despite having 2000+ years of history and loss of countless works of art as a warning, we're no better than our ancestors at safeguarding our cultural output, despite how much easier it would be to do so.

I'm genuinely baffled there's no more private of government initiatives to digitalize the fuck out of everything and put it on the cloud, with separate, redundant server farms spread across multiple locations.

I know Google does a bit of that, and there's a few government initiatives going, but that's not nearly enough.

 

[StacticShock]

Apologies for the brief lock. You may have noticed that this thread is now several pages shorter. I've taken the liberty of moving the ongoing fight (from at least two threads) here:

thanks, 5 fucking pages of corporate cocksucking, jeesus.

 

[Adam Copium]

I'm genuinely baffled there's no more private of government initiatives to digitalize the fuck out of everything and put it on the cloud, with separate, redundant server farms spread across multiple locations.

There is a movement in some country that restores and remasters old films, digitalizes it and uploads it somewhere.
IDK how to describe it tbh

 

[Friedchickenfan]

Are the Muslim invaders allowed to sign? I think they like Counter Strike.

 

[Caddo Cobgang]

weekend is up, time to ask more people to sign

Can’t do it because I live in America but I hope you Euros win here so publishers stop pulling the plug on game servers when line slightly goes down also fuck Pirate Software

 

[The Tall Man]

Are the Muslim invaders allowed to sign? I think they like Counter Strike.

You think those Browns care about their rights? No matter how cowardly and docile you think White people are, Browns are even worse.
There is a reason Globohomo wants to rid itself of those pesky Whites. Those uppity Edomite goys think they've got rights and should have freedom and stuff.

 

[Ghostse]

This can happen today too, very easily even.

Some BBC radio shows are only available today thanks to pirates archiving the content privately, source code of a shitload of Japanese games is basically gone because Japanese devs practiced deleting the data once the game shipped, the director's cut of Event Horizon with additional footage is lost to time because salt got to the master copy in the mine it was stored in.

Despite having 2000+ years of history and loss of countless works of art as a warning, we're no better than our ancestors at safeguarding our cultural output, despite how much easier it would be to do so.

I'm genuinely baffled there's no more private of government initiatives to digitalize the fuck out of everything and put it on the cloud, with separate, redundant server farms spread across multiple locations.

I know Google does a bit of that, and there's a few government initiatives going, but that's not nearly enough.

To tl;dr:
Cloud isnt' a magical answer, nor is digitization. Read up on "bit rot". The real solution is multiple redundant copies in different locations but storing these things is NOT free and so you double/triple/quadruple your costs.

Also I feel you on the radio. A lot of US Radio shows only survive in what was sent to the Armed Forced Global Radio Network and government bureaucracy ensuring they were well kept and there were multiple copies.


I'm also going to try to tl;dr this as hard as I can:
Since the start of radio to about 1950s radio shows were distribued via Wire Recordings. Literally mailed out, and locals would often make a second just-in-case copy when they got them and listened to them to make sure they still worked. A lot of these just-in-case and rerun copies are why we have what we have, as even if the studio didn't scrap them the wires would naturally degauss, but when tape became more popular these were transferred to tape.

Marion Stokes is the only reason we have almost any archive of US broadcast TV, because by the time you get to the 70s broadcasts are nearly all satellite streams or broadcast-quality reusable tape and virtually nothing was saved, at least until the Home Video market is revealed.

There is a whole thing I could say about modern digitial "prints" and the fact they are encryption locked by date almost ensuring we that we will run intot he situation where the only surviving copy of a movie is available but completely irrecoverable due to corpo greed.

Can’t do it because I live in America but I hope you Euros win here so publishers stop pulling the plug on game servers when line slightly goes down also fuck Pirate Software

tl;dr: The choice for devs will be be comply by having an EoL model for online games to allow them to be playable after end of support, or completely exit the EU market. The EU market is big enough they will comply and once they have developed an EoL for a game, there is no reason not to provide that to all customers.

 

[Trigger Me Timbers]

Are the Muslim invaders allowed to sign? I think they like Counter Strike.

I was tempted to make fake Arabic/sand people posters telling muzzies that if they want to stay in the EU and help with their asylum/immigration status they should sign the petition.

I didn’t do it because I actually want SKG to happen, because I’m not an industry plant who’s father just so happens to own shares in one of the most profitable live service gaming companies on planet earth.

 

[Forklift Certified]

An other corpo bootlicker who can't grasp the essence of the SKG



Building better games regurgitates piratsoftware points basically in his live and an edited video before that...

 

[Just_A_guy]

An other corpo bootlicker who can't grasp the essence of the SKG

View attachment 7604434

Building better games regurgitates piratsoftware points basically in his live and an edited video before that...

Not to mention he's ignoring the fact that EVEN IT WAS MID there is legitimately content you CANNOT play at all in Destiny 2 anymore.

 

[ThinkBeforeYouSneed]

THE BEAST IS AFRAID
​

Full article here if you want to read it.

 

[Gossip Avoider]

Todays Email update:

Spoiler: Original in German

Hallo geschätzte "Stop Destroying Videogames" Unterstützer!



Zuerst, vielen Dank für eure Unterstützung! Wir haben die Grenze von 1 Million Unterschriften überschritten, dies ist ein riesiger Meilenstein für uns Alle!

First of all, thank you very much for your support! We have surpassed the 1 Million signature threshold, this is a huge milestone for all of us!



Noch ist mehr Zeit weitere Unterschriften zu sammeln, bis die Deadline am 31. Juli 2025 erreicht ist. Obwohl wir die minimale Anzahl bereits erreicht haben, müssen wir weiterhin Unterstützung sammeln. Es ist wichtig den aktuellen Schwung auszunutzen und die Initiative weiterhin zu verbreiten. Fordert wahlberechtigte Personen auf uns zu unterstützen und endlich diese kundenfeindlichen Praktien zu beenden.



Das ganze ist notwendig um die Folgen von ungültige Unterstützungserklärungen zu neutralisieren. Es ist normal, dass ein kleiner Prozentsatz nicht verifiziert werden kann.



Wir bitten euch jedem von der Initiative zu erzählen, verbreitet das Ganze überall hin! Egal ob Gamer oder nicht, unsere Initiative setzt sich für Konsumentenrechte, Schutz von unfairen Geschäftspraktien und dem Schutz von Kulturerbe ein. Das betrifft alle EU Bürger gleichermaßen.

Bedient euch gerne unserer verfügbaren Ressourcen auf StopKillingGames.com und unserem Discord https://discord.com/invite/gGAwxgarzZ



Es liegt in unserer Hand die Geschichte zu verändern!



Gemeinsam schaffen wir das!



Vielen Dank!



EBI Organisationsteam

Spoiler: English AI translation

Hello valued "Stop Destroying Videogames" supporters!


First of all, thank you very much for your support! We have surpassed the 1 million signature threshold, which is a huge milestone for all of us!


There is still time to collect more signatures until the deadline on July 31, 2025. Although we have already reached the minimum number, we must continue to gather support. It is important to capitalize on the current momentum and keep spreading the initiative. Encourage eligible individuals to support us and finally put an end to these anti-consumer practices.


This is necessary to counteract the effects of invalid support declarations. It is normal for a small percentage to be unverifiable.


We ask you to tell everyone about the initiative and spread the word everywhere! Whether gamer or not, our initiative advocates for consumer rights, protection from unfair business practices, and the preservation of cultural heritage. This affects all EU citizens equally.


Feel free to use our available resources on StopKillingGames.com and our Discord: https://discord.com/invite/gGAwxgarzZ


It is in our hands to change history!


Together, we can do this!


Thank you very much!


EBI Organizing Team

 

[Total Janny Holocaust]

View attachment 7606403

THE BEAST IS AFRAID
​

Full article here if you want to read it.

I'd love to see the lolbergs reactions to this, who were like
>NOOO DON'T INVOLVE THE GUBMINT, LET THE MARKET SELF REGULATE!
As you can see, the publishers will literally congregate in lobbying groups to protect their bullshit anti-consumer practices before even thinking about self-regulating. I'm sorry, but i'm fed up with this shit, so i'm getting the government involved, and you WILL give an iota of thought about preserving your old game before you throw it away like some used cumrag!

 

[The Tall Man]

Eh, congratulations?

I think we, uh, probably did it, gamers. Maybe.

 

[The Tall Man]

Statement by the lobbying group VGE

https://www.videogameseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/VGE-Position-Discontinuation-of-Support-to-Online-Games-04072025.pdf

European petition: Stop Killing Games
Why providing continued support do not work for all games

Introduction
The video games industry is committed to consistently providing players with high-quality interactive gaming experiences and recognises the passion and community that grows around its games.

The decision to discontinue a video game’s online services is multi-faceted and is never taken lightly and must always be a matter of choice. When it does happen, the industry ensures that players are given fair notice of the prospective changes in compliance with local consumer protection laws.

This document explains the reasons why a video game company may decide to discontinue the functionalities supporting the online video game, and why this may lead to the video game may no longer be playable.

Online video games are interactive entertainment

Unlike a book, or a film, an online video game is not a static work. Online video games are interactive entertainment, that combine numerous elements of artistic and intellectual creation with software programming and server infrastructure.

Online video games evolve over time after their initial release, providing consumers with regular new content, experiences, patches, and updates. This is highly valued by players and is required to compete in the market. It involves significant, ongoing development expenditure over years, sometimes decades.

Video games companies put significant investment into creating and developing the best interactive entertainment and experience for their passionate player bases.

The right to decide how, when, and for how long to make an online video game services available to players is vital in justifying this cost and fostering continued technical innovation. As rightsholders and economic entities, video games companies must remain free to decide when an online game is no longer commercially viable and to end continued server support for that game. Imposing a legal obligation to continue server support indefinitely, or to develop online video games in a specific technical manner that will allow permanent use, will raise the costs and risks of developing such games. It will have a chilling effect on game design, and act as a disincentive to making such games available in Europe. It is far from a trivial modification or a simple addition to the game development phase. It would ignore material reputational, safety, and security concerns.

While there are video games companies that have elected to enable their online games to live beyond that is being proposed their commercial viability, this is and must always be a matter of choice as it will depend on what is reasonable and appropriate for the specific game, games company, and audience.

All video games, whether digital or physical copies, are licensed. As is the case with virtually all digital works when consumers purchase online games, regardless of the country of sale, what they acquire is a personal license to access and play the copy of the game they have purchased in accordance with the game’s terms of service. The consumer does not acquire ownership of that video game. These clear intellectual property rights underpin the entire market and enable the strong investment that the industry has seen for decades. There is no legal uncertainty about the status quo of video games.

Why an obligation on video game companies to provide only a limited type of end-of-life plan is disproportionate
It is not clear what the initiators of the stop killing games petition seek to achieve as a legal change. It appears to be a combination of a requirement to provide online services for as long as a consumer wants them, regardless of price paid, and/or a requirement to provide a very specific form of end-of-life plan where the game is altered to enable private servers to operate. We do not believe these are proportionate demands.

Online video games are complex operations. They offer interactive features that are supported by multiple servers enabling functionality of ever-increasing complexity. This is integral to the modern gameplay experience that players expect. As consumer expectations for more engaging and evolving content increases, these online features are increasingly becoming intertwined in the overall gameplay experience as opposed to being limited to a dedicated online mode within the game. In many video games, this interconnected dependency makes it difficult to cleanly segregate online features from offline functionality. Here are the ways in which players and companies would be affected:

Player Safety:
Reduced or No Player Protection: Requiring games to run on private servers would result in the inability for games companies to continue to protect players from illegal or harmful content or conduct, as their moderation and player safety teams would no longer be involved. In particular cheating could become rampant without proper enforcement. Reporting systems designed to allow players to flag problematic content and behaviour to games companies would no longer operate as intended or would have to be disabled entirely. The absence of effective moderation systems would create a less safe environment for consumers and may foster the proliferation of undesirable content while simultaneously frustrating the ability for EU Digital Services Coordinators to act against such content. This not only presents a safety risk for consumers but could also lead to brand reputation issues for the video games company

Increased Security Risks: Releasing game code or server binaries to facilitate the creation of private servers operated by players could expose games companies and consumers to bad actors, malware, data breaches, and DDOS attacks.

Impact on Companies:
Significant Engineering and Architectural Challenges: Allowing players to run private servers would present significant engineering and architectural challenges for many games, due to the way in which such online features are integrated with other proprietary systems and services required for the game. Creating a private-server compatible version would be a prohibitive cost, in some cases years or decades after the game’s initial release when only a small audience remains.

Negative impact on investment in games, jobs, growth and consumer choice: Ensuring an online game can work without official server support, requires a significant investment of engineering resources making it a very costly exercise for video games companies. Many of the costs that games companies would incur in implementing an end-of-life plan would have to be incurred towards the end of the commercial life of the game, when it is no longer commercially viable to continue support. Requirements to implement such plans could lead to less risk taking, fewer investment projects in developing new games, and potentially fewer jobs. Ultimately, it could lead to increased costs for consumers and less choice.

Reputational Harm: Allowing players to run private servers, with online inter action possibilities could result in players using those games in ways that don’t align with the games companies’ brand values, leading to a negative association with the brand, thereby harming its reputation.

Impact on Intellectual Property Rights:
Erosion of Intellectual Property Rights: Mandating games companies to keep their online games operable post-official support would undermine their rights and autonomy in deciding how their intellectual property is utilized. There is a vital interest in maintaining effective copyright protection, including protection against circumvention of technologies that control access to copyrighted video game software, where such circumvention is undertaken in circumstances that would lead to the unauthorized public exploitation of games.

Competition from Community-Supported Versions: Such a requirement could lead to community-supported versions of games competing with official versions, potentially jeopardizing the financial investments of the video games companies. This would lead to confusion between trademarks, and the original trademark holder may be held responsible for actions undertaken by a community supported version.

Forfeiture of Licensing and Reproduction Rights: Allowing consumers to create or run modified copies of online games would necessitate games companies to either license additional rights or refrain from enforcing them, effectively leading to a forfeiture of control over these rights.

Constraints from Third-Party IP: Games companies often utilize third-party software and services, which may have licensing terms restricting their use to the commercial life of the game or prohibiting sublicensing to players, thereby hindering the modification or patching of games for private servers. In particular this could jeopardize and infringe the copyright of the musical works and lead to legal action from these right holders on the basis of unauthorized exploitation of their works.

Constraints from third party services: Games depend on third-party services such as platforms on which the game is offered to the consumer. Releasing the code for those services, which would be necessary should a legal requirement allow player communities to run a game, may not be possible as this would potentially be an IP infringement. Furthermore, game company's servers are increasingly run on the cloud. If cloud servers are discontinued, which sometimes happens, this necessitates either shutting down older titles or creating costly workarounds. The latter may not always be possible.

All of the above would also affect compliance with PEGI ratings. Where a game has a PEGI age rating and offers multiplayer functionality, the games company is contractually bound by the PEGI Code of Conduct to respect various obligations related to online safety and privacy. The inability to do so would expose the games company to legal uncertainty with respect to its contractual obligations under the PEGI Code of Conduct.

The importance of consumer protection laws
Notwithstanding the applicable licensing structure, all video games offered to players in the EU are subject to European consumer protection laws, which include robust transparency and fairness obligations on games companies and ensure that games companies act reasonably when terminating online support for a game.

European consumer protection laws provide consumers with warranties and redress rights with respect to both the game and the physical medium on which the game is made available, but these laws do not transfer ownership of the game to consumers.

Games are licensed to the consumer in accordance with their terms of service. These set out the terms upon which consumers may access and play such games and the situations in which such licensed rights may be terminated. Consumers are informed that their access to online games and associated services may terminate and are informed with sufficient notice in cases where that does happen.

Transparency: Players must be given reasonable prior notice before any termination of access to the game.

Reimbursement: The Digital Content Directive provides consumers with price reduction and reimbursement rights in certain circumstances, but also with repair and replacement rights if a game service fails to achieve conformity with certain required warranties.

Service Duration: EU legislation requires that the service aspects of online video games be provided for a reasonable amount of time, taking into account all relevant factors. It would be disproportionate for a specific duration to be imposed as this would need to be valid of all types of services, not just games.

Fair Terms: The Unfair Terms Directive prohibits games companies from imposing terms on consumers that significantly imbalance the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of consumers.

Video game companies are committed to the preservation of games and their cultural value
It is important to separate the legal proposals being made by the petitioners – for specific end-of life requirements for commercial video games – from the question of the preservation of games as creative and cultural works.

Video Games Europe and their member companies are committed to, and actively support, serious professional efforts to preserve video games and recognize the industry’s creative contributions under circumstances that do not jeopardize game companies’ rights under copyright law.

For example, members regularly donate game copies and hardware to preservation organizations and support museum exhibitions featuring games (1). Other video game companies have undertaken the gigantic task of creating video games libraries to support the preservation of games (2).

However, the industry’s innovation and economic activity depends on strong copyright protection for the software and other creative works that are its lifeblood, and preservation efforts should not be confused with uses that could conflict with the normal exploitation of the work by the right holder or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

1 Electronic Arts recently supported use of Battlefield 1 in a World War I exhibition at the Notre Dame de Lorette in Souchez, France (June 2023-January 2024) and War and Peace Museum in Novion Porcien, France (April December 2024) and use of SimCity 2000 in the “Game Society” exhibition at the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art in Seoul, Korea (May-September 2023).

2 https://embracergamesarchive.com/

The video game industry’s response to the “Stop Killing Games” petition is riddled with falsehoods to protect anti-consumer practices. Here’s why their claims fail:

1. Misrepresenting the Petition: The industry falsely claims the petition demands indefinite server support. In reality, it seeks community-driven end-of-life plans, allowing players to maintain games at no cost to publishers after support ends.
2. Exaggerating Technical Challenges: The industry inflates the complexity of enabling private servers. Building games without planned obsolescence is best practice, cheaper, and aligns with flexible hosting solutions, benefiting both developers and players.
3. False Safety and Security Fears: Claims that private servers increase risks like cheating or malware are baseless. Community-run servers often outperform official ones in moderation and have had far less data leaks in the past, and publishers bear no liability for them.
4. Misleading Economic Arguments: The industry warns of reduced innovation and jobs, but mandating end-of-life plans would drive innovation (new server solutions) and protect consumer investments, boosting market trust.
5. Denying Cultural Destruction: The industry downplays its role in “digital book burning” by shutting down games, erasing cultural heritage and players’ purchases. Their preservation efforts are superficial and insufficient. They don't even come close to counter their rate of digital book burning.
6. Irrelevant IP Claims: The industry’s argument that end-of-life plans erode intellectual property rights is nonsense. Community servers post-support don’t conflict with IP, just as owning a book doesn’t infringe an author’s copyright.
7. Ignoring EU Consumer Rights: The industry claims compliance with EU laws, but their unfair terms of service often violate the Unfair Terms Directive. EU law supports consumers’ rights to their purchased copies, not publisher destruction.

Conclusion: The “Stop Killing Games” petition upholds EU consumer rights and cultural preservation. The industry’s arguments are a smokescreen to protect blood soaked profits over customer rights. Regulators must act to ensure games remain playable, safeguarding consumers and culture.

---

The VGE response reveals a fear of the EU’s focus on cultural preservation. Buried at the end of their document, they downplay preservation as a non-issue and urge separating it from SKG, a clear attempt to dodge accountability and try to brush this away asap.

SKG should seize this vulnerability and reframe the narrative, branding the industry as “Digital Book Burners,” “Destroyers of Cultural Heritage,” and “Thieves of Sold Goods.” These labels expose the industry’s destruction of games and betrayal of consumers. I hope the ECI team includes someone sharp enough in PR to grasp this. If SKG gets dragged into debates about brand reputation or technicalities, they’ll lose.
Calling out the industry as “thieves” and “digital book burners” is the way to win.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Statement by the lobbying group VGE
https://www.videogameseurope.eu/wp-...ation-of-Support-to-Online-Games-04072025.pdf

Lots of bullshit here. Going to effort post about it, if someone's willing copy and paste it to Ross to save him time:

Player Safety:
Reduced or No Player Protection: Requiring games to run on private servers would result in the inability for games companies to continue to protect players from illegal or harmful content or conduct, as their moderation and player safety teams would no longer be involved. In particular cheating could become rampant without proper enforcement. Reporting systems designed to allow players to flag problematic content and behaviour to games companies would no longer operate as intended or would have to be disabled entirely. The absence of effective moderation systems would create a less safe environment for consumers and may foster the proliferation of undesirable content while simultaneously frustrating the ability for EU Digital Services Coordinators to act against such content. This not only presents a safety risk for consumers but could also lead to brand reputation issues for the video games company

Unless I have the ability to sue game devs for being exposed to such content then it's a pointless argument. Not to mention it can be patched by just moving the responsibility to whoever hosts the servers.

Increased Security Risks: Releasing game code or server binaries to facilitate the creation of private servers operated by players could expose games companies and consumers to bad actors, malware, data breaches, and DDOS attacks.

Unless the game dev directly links the altered code then it is not their responsibility.

Impact on Companies:
Significant Engineering and Architectural Challenges: Allowing players to run private servers would present significant engineering and architectural challenges for many games, due to the way in which such online features are integrated with other proprietary systems and services required for the game. Creating a private-server compatible version would be a prohibitive cost, in some cases years or decades after the game’s initial release when only a small audience remains.

Then just put the interface up so the players figures out how to bridge the gap.

Negative impact on investment in games, jobs, growth and consumer choice: Ensuring an online game can work without official server support, requires a significant investment of engineering resources making it a very costly exercise for video games companies. Many of the costs that games companies would incur in implementing an end-of-life plan would have to be incurred towards the end of the commercial life of the game, when it is no longer commercially viable to continue support. Requirements to implement such plans could lead to less risk taking, fewer investment projects in developing new games, and potentially fewer jobs. Ultimately, it could lead to increased costs for consumers and less choice.

Then implement those before even starting work on the game so the cost is minimal. In general the argument is especially horseshit as it implies the financial responsibility will only happen once the game is shutting down, even if the game had massive success beforehand.

Reputational Harm: Allowing players to run private servers, with online inter action possibilities could result in players using those games in ways that don’t align with the games companies’ brand values, leading to a negative association with the brand, thereby harming its reputation.

It's not your responsibility and it could be used just as easily to ban mods.

Impact on Intellectual Property Rights:
Erosion of Intellectual Property Rights: Mandating games companies to keep their online games operable post-official support would undermine their rights and autonomy in deciding how their intellectual property is utilized. There is a vital interest in maintaining effective copyright protection, including protection against circumvention of technologies that control access to copyrighted video game software, where such circumvention is undertaken in circumstances that would lead to the unauthorized public exploitation of games.

Then don't sell your games if your IP is more important than sales.

Competition from Community-Supported Versions: Such a requirement could lead to community-supported versions of games competing with official versions, potentially jeopardizing the financial investments of the video games companies. This would lead to confusion between trademarks, and the original trademark holder may be held responsible for actions undertaken by a community supported version.

But the only reason you stop support is due to weak sales, so the competition is incredibly unlikely by definition.

Forfeiture of Licensing and Reproduction Rights: Allowing consumers to create or run modified copies of online games would necessitate games companies to either license additional rights or refrain from enforcing them, effectively leading to a forfeiture of control over these rights.

And I want my ownership rights that supersedes those.

Constraints from Third-Party IP: Games companies often utilize third-party software and services, which may have licensing terms restricting their use to the commercial life of the game or prohibiting sublicensing to players, thereby hindering the modification or patching of games for private servers. In particular this could jeopardize and infringe the copyright of the musical works and lead to legal action from these right holders on the basis of unauthorized exploitation of their works.

Again, keep the interface up for the users to replace.

Reimbursement: The Digital Content Directive provides consumers with price reduction and reimbursement rights in certain circumstances, but also with repair and replacement rights if a game service fails to achieve conformity with certain required warranties.

Was there ever a case it happened with a digital service?

Video Games Europe and their member companies are committed to, and actively support, serious professional efforts to preserve video games and recognize the industry’s creative contributions under circumstances that do not jeopardize game companies’ rights under copyright law.

For example, members regularly donate game copies and hardware to preservation organizations and support museum exhibitions featuring games (1). Other video game companies have undertaken the gigantic task of creating video games libraries to support the preservation of games (2).

Unless those museums will be able to run the games 100 years from now it's entirely pointless to donate those games.

TL;DR: Replace video games with board games and imagine the devs come into your house and burns the board and pieces down, while arguing it's for your own safety because you might choke on the pieces, that their IP will be harmed if you drew anything on the board, and that their specific dice uses a third party IP that no one is allowed to use without their permission.

 

[DefinitelyNotMe]

We are at stage 2 now bois
The minion of the archenemy was defeated and now we are facing the devil itself.
The homosexual questionier made a good video about it.