On a political stage, the insufficient protection of consumers spending money on games that ultimately turn out to be flops and go offline is currently under discussion. There are more than enough recent examples like Anthem or New World.
What is the problem? More and more games rely on service models and require online connectivity. Buyers of such a product do not purchase the game itself but only the right to use it. If the servers of that game go offline, the purchase is rendered useless. The same applies to in-game offerings acquired through microtransactions.
This is particularly problematic because users often cannot foresee how long the service will continue to run at the time of investment. There are plenty of examples:
- The total flop Concord was online for just 12 days.
- The Day Before survived less than 2 months.
- Anthem launched in 2019 with great ambitions and hopes but also turned out to be a major flop for BioWare and EA. On January 12, 2026, the servers will go offline permanently.
- New World was able to turn a positive trend after difficult years, only to be written off by Amazon shortly thereafter – no more updates are coming, at least the servers are expected to stay online until 2026.
After the announcement of the quasi-end of New World, many players on community platforms expressed their frustration, having invested money into the game based on the very positive hype surrounding the MMORPG at the time. Their disappointment grew when they realized their money had gone into a practically dead product.
The government says the right things but (still) does nothing
What is the government discussing? As eurogamer.net reports, the British House of Commons has now debated improvements in consumer protection for video games and the preservation of games. During the discussions and statements, members of parliament mentioned games like Concord and Anthem as cautionary examples.
One MP is quoted in the Eurogamer report as follows:
A current example is Concord, a game released for PlayStation 5 and Windows in August 2024. After a disappointing launch, Sony Interactive Entertainment made the business decision to discontinue the game. To their credit, they refunded all purchases, but that is not always the case.
I know that esteemed members will agree with me that publishers who fail to clearly state the lifespan of a game at the time of sale must be held accountable.
That is why I welcome the enhanced consumer protection measures, including the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act of 2024, which came into effect earlier this year. This legislation rightly requires retailers to provide consumers with clear, timely, and accurate information, including the longevity and functionality of digital products.
Another MP adds: “Gamers still feel a deep sense of personal ownership because they invest more than just money. They invest time, effort, imagination, and friendship. When a game is discontinued without warning, that investment is lost.”
Despite overwhelming support in the House of Commons, no measures have yet been initiated or passed to modify consumer rights or ensure the sustainable preservation of games.
Currently, one still has to rely on initiatives from manufacturers and platform owners. One example is the “Preservation Program” from CD Projekt and gog.com, which already includes 250 classic games.
Wasn’t this already a big topic this year? Exactly! In summer, we reported on the initiative “Stop Killing Games”, which was initiated by YouTuber Ross Scott and supported by many content creators and players. You can read more about it here: Initiative to save video games had little hope, YouTuber and Twitch streamer rush to help.
Your opinion is important to us!
Do you like the article? Then let us know!
