The UK government has released a response to a petition filed by the Stop Killing Games campaign, but that would not be what the organisers wanted. The Ministry of Culture, Media and Sports said video game companies must comply with existing consumer laws, but also noted that there is no law to force them to support older versions of their products.

Stop Killing Games gathered earlier this year, catalyzed by Ubisoft's decision to end online support for the crew, which made the 10-year-old racing game unplayable due to online requirements. Founder Ross Scott wants the pressure from gamers to convince the government that it will impose laws requiring game makers to keep their games playable when online support ends.

According to the UK Government and Parliament petition website, a petition that has collected 10,000 signatures can get a response from the government, and a stop-killing Game petition far exceeds the benchmark that has collected more than 23,000 signatures so far. The site, however, does not guarantee a response that makes the petitioner happy, and I must guess that not many are happy with this response.

"Consumers should note that UK law does not have mandatory software companies or providers requirements to support older versions of the operating system, software, or connected products," the answer states. "There are cases where companies make commercial decisions based on the high running costs of maintaining old servers for video games, where the user base is decreasing.

UK law requires relevant consumer information to be "clear and accurate" and prohibits omitting, concealing or presenting that information "in an unclear, incomprehensible, ambiguous or premature manner.""For that purpose," if consumers are led to believe that a game will remain playable indefinitely on a particular system, even if physical support ends., The [Consumer Protection Rules] require that games remain technically viable (e.g., available offline) to play under such circumstances."

Reports of cases where these regulations have been broken can be made to the relevant consumer helpline, where the digital game does not meet legal requirements, repaired, replaced or replaced." You have the right to "return some money". However, this response concludes with a very strong suggestion that the passage of time is not necessarily a matter of quality control.

"Consumers should also be aware that they only violate if they have a statutory right that their goods (including intangible digital content) are of satisfactory quality, but not a standard that a reasonable person considers satisfactory, given the circumstances, including prices and stated descriptions," the response states. "For example, the manufacturer's support for the phone could be withdrawn as they launch a new model. It will remain available, but over time, without security updates, for example, some app developers will withdraw support."

This is not the best analogy ever, but still, overtones are not particularly encouraging. In a video response using Crew as an example, Scott said it was "debatable" whether the game's reliance on servers for basic functionality is clear enough for consumers, and that the box cover only "requires the Internet" because it is "buried in the fine print" of the eula."

"Less is not enough than to say exactly when the game will stop working," Scott said. "The majority of customers will not notice otherwise.

At the same time, he also admits that the interpretation of "clear and correct" is completely subjective, "the government can just say "no, this is a lot." Customers will be notified.

The government's response to the petition is not the end of the story: It will remain open until 10/16, and if it accrues 100,000 signatures, it will be a parliamentary assembly petition in other countries is also underway: in Canada, for example, it has 5,400 signatures and the support of Senator Elizabeth May, and will be directed towards an official response from the government. It is a necessary step. A representative for Stop Killing Games told GamesIndustry that the group is also talking to lawyers about the possibility of the next step. I have contacted Scott for comment on the UK government's response to the petition, but will be updated if there is a reply.