When ending an online game, leave buyers a way to keep playing what they bought
Steps to make it happen
- Game companies write down and tell buyers, before selling, what will happen when the service ends.
- When a company ends a service, it gives notice before a set period of time begins.
- After the end, the company hands out a fixed version of the game that can be played without the internet.
- If that is too hard, the company gives players tools to run the game's behind-the-scenes system themselves.
- If a company can do neither, it explains why and does things like paying back part of the price.
- Places that preserve games take in the game and its records and keep them for later generations.
- It becomes rare for a game you bought to suddenly stop working one day.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal mainly covers games that people paid to buy but that need a connection to a server run by the company (a faraway computer that makes the game work) in order to be played. For games that are free to start and make money from in-game purchases, it asks only for advance notice of the end and a statement of how things will be handled at the end, and it makes ways to keep playing a goal to work toward rather than a requirement. The responsible party is the company that sells the game. At the time of sale, the company shows, in a way that is easy to see on the purchase screen, the minimum period it expects to keep the service running and what will happen when it ends. When it decides to end the service, it gives notice with a certain period of time in between. Then it chooses one of two options: release a fixed version that can be played alone with no internet connection, or publish a system and instructions that let players set up their own servers. If neither is technically possible, the company makes its reasons public and makes up for it with measures such as refunds based on when the game was bought. The company is not required to keep running its servers, and it is not required to release the whole program, which is like the game's blueprint. Features that depend on many people gathering, such as finding opponents to play against, are not covered. Parts that involve other people's rights, such as music and characters, may be removed before the game is kept. To prepare for a company going bankrupt, the company can also choose to hand over the necessary materials in advance to a public preservation body or similar institution.
BenefitsProtects buyers and keeps a playable record of our culture
The biggest benefit is that it reduces the chance that people who paid lose the game they own just because of a company's convenience. Because the plan for after the end is shown at the time of sale, people can choose with understanding before they buy, and trust between sellers and buyers grows. It does not ask companies to run servers forever, but to hand the game over to players when the service ends, so the burden on companies is relatively limited. If a game is made from the start with its ending in mind, the work of making the fixed version is also smaller. And if players can set up their own servers, the bonds between friends that have lasted for years, and the places where people meet through the game, do not disappear. Also, when a playable game is handed to a preservation body, researchers and later generations can actually experience the works of that time and learn how expression and technology changed. It also lays a foundation for treating games not as passing products but as a culture that is handed down, like films and books.
DrawbacksHeavy burden on makers, and it may narrow new creative work
What opponents worry about most is the burden on makers and the freedom of business. Rebuilding a server-based system into a single-player version, or putting it in a form that players can run, takes extra people and money. For small developers with little money in particular, it means paying even to clean up after a game that did not sell, and they may become less willing to try bold online games. That cost could also be passed on to buyers as higher prices. Releasing the server system also raises fears of cheating, pirated copies, and the leak of technology that is used in other games too. For games with complicated rights, such as music and outside characters, even removing a few parts can lead to hard negotiations. There is also a possible backfire: to avoid the rules, more companies may stop selling games outright and move to letting people play only for a monthly fee, leaving players with nothing in hand at all. And there is a strong view that since people agreed to the terms of use when they bought, an ending is only natural.
Learn the background
In the past, most games ran only on the machine in your hands, but now more and more games will not even start unless they connect to a server. So when a company ends a service for reasons such as profit, a game that people paid for can become completely unplayable. Many people think they bought the game, but under the terms of use they are often treated as only borrowing the right to play. This gap has caused frustration and debate in many places. Games are also a popular culture with a history of several decades, and they are a record that reflects the technology, the forms of expression, and the ways people played in their time. But a game that depends on a server cannot be run just by saving the data on hand, so even when museums and libraries try to preserve it, they cannot. Unlike films and books, games lose much of their value unless they can be played. As more games are made and more services end one after another, we need a shared way of thinking that protects both the rights of players and the cultural record.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes