Summary of Key Points
The shutdown of the Chinese Switch has revealed the “crude reality” of the digital gaming era: players think they are buying games, but in fact, they are only renting the right to use them temporarily. As gaming business models shift from physical purchases to digital licenses and then to service-based games (GaaS), players’ perceived “ownership” of these games is quietly stripped away. Once a game shuts down, all the money spent and time invested vanish, and any attempt to seek compensation is rendered futile due to user agreement pitfalls and legal loopholes. Players around the world have launched movements to “stop the killing of games” and are pushing for legislation in the European Union and California, USA, in an effort to change this situation. However, game developers are reluctant to provide players with a “dignified exit” due to technical costs, compliance risks, and commercial interests. This battle over digital game ownership is just beginning.
1. Games Have Changed: From Buying Physical Discs to Renting Services – You’re No Longer the Owner
In the past, buying a game meant you truly owned it; for example, with cartridges for the Atari or PS discs, as long as the hardware was functional, you could continue playing even if the developer went out of business. But now it’s different:
- Digital Games: For games on platforms like Steam, paying gives you the right to use the game, not ownership (this is clearly stated in the terms of service).
- Service-Based Games (GaaS): Games like Honor of Kings and Fortnite are free to play, but you have to continuously spend money on skins and subscriptions. These games are “living” entities that are constantly updated, but this also means their fate rests in the hands of the developers; if they stop making money, the games can be shut down, and all your previous investments are lost.
In simple terms, games used to be your property, but now they’ve become services you rent, and when the rental period ends (the game shuts down), you lose everything.
2. Why Can’t You Keep Anything After a Game Shuts Down? It’s All Due to User Agreements
Have you ever carefully read the “End User License Agreement” (EULA) when buying a game? 99.9% of people haven’t, and it contains hidden pitfalls:
- You Only Have the Right to Use: The ownership of all game content and in-game items belongs to the developer; you’re only allowed to use them temporarily.
- Developers Can Shut Down Games Without Reason: Whether it’s due to lack of profit, strategic changes, or the need to launch new games, developers can shut down a game unilaterally.
- No Compensation for Shutdowns: The agreement states that you accept the risks and waive your right to compensation; even if you spent thousands on in-game items, you won’t get anything back after the game shuts down.
What’s more infuriating is that these agreements are often unfair: you either accept them all or don’t play the game at all. A study by New York University found that only one in a thousand users reads the entire agreement, and on average, they only read it for about 30 seconds. Even if the agreement claims you’ll have to give up certain rights, most players won’t even notice.
3. Why Is It So Hard for Players to Seek Compensation? Laws and Technology Are on Developers’ Side
Players facing difficulties in seeking compensation encounter two major obstacles:
- Lagging Laws: There are no clear laws worldwide protecting the ownership of digital game content, so courts struggle to support players.
- Technological Disadvantages: Critical game data (such as character saves and items) is stored on the developers’ servers; local copies of the games are essentially useless. Once a game shuts down, the files on your computer can’t be played independently—it’s like buying a book but having the key taken away by the seller.
Therefore, despite their anger, players can only watch helplessly as their “digital property” disappears.
4. Global Players Are Rising Up: From “Stop Killing Games” to Legislative Protection
The forced deletion of Forza Horizon in 2023 sparked outrage, leading to the “Stop the Killing of Games” (SKG) movement, which demands that developers:
- Provide offline patches before shutting down games so players can continue playing them.
- Allow players to set up their own servers.
- Clearly inform players whether they are renting or buying the game.
This movement has gathered 1.3 million signatures in the European Union and is pushing for legislative change. In California, USA:
- AB2426 Act (effective 2025): Prohibits using the word “purchase” to mislead players; it must be clearly stated that they are renting the game.
- AB1921 Act (effective 2027): Requires developers to provide offline patches or refunds 60 days before a game shuts down.
While these laws only apply in certain regions, they at least limit developers’ arbitrary actions.
5. Why Don’t Developers Want to Provide a “Dignified Exit”? Money and Risks Are the Motives
Players just want an offline patch, so why do developers prefer to be criticized rather than provide one? The reasons are practical:
- High Technical Costs: Modern game mechanics (such as random event probabilities and physical effects) are tied to servers; changing them for offline play would require extensive code rewriting. Developers are unlikely to invest in this for games that no longer make money.
- Compliance Risks: Many games use third-party licenses (e.g., real car brands, band music); if these licenses expire, playing the game offline could lead to copyright issues.
- Commercial Interests: Keeping old games may attract players away from new ones. For example, if Forza Horizon were playable offline, who would buy its sequel, Forza Horizon: Celebration?
In short, developers always prioritize their profits over player needs.
Conclusion
The shutdown of the Chinese Switch is not an isolated incident; it reflects the broader issues in the digital gaming industry. There’s still a long way to go before players can truly own the games they purchase, as opposed to merely renting them for temporary use. However, laws like those in California and the SKG movement offer hope that in the future, players won’t have to worry about their digital property disappearing suddenly. After all, something you pay for should come with some form of protection, right?