When Is A Video Game Allowed To Die?

by

At a shareholders gathering in July 2025, Ubisoft’s CEO, Yves Guillemot, made an insightful yet clear statement about online video games: “We offer a service, but it’s not set in stone; at some point, the service might come to an end. Nothing lasts forever.” He further emphasized: “We can’t sustain support for every game eternally.” In simpler terms, I as a fan would say, “He reminded us that online games are services, and just like any other service, they may eventually be discontinued due to their finite lifespan.

This reaction is towards the consumer campaign titled “Stop Killing Games,” which advocates against alleged planned obsolescence in online video games produced by publishers. Fueled by Ubisoft’s shutdown of The Crew, this movement has grown significantly over the past year, primarily through petitions directly addressed to European governments.

Looking at it in another perspective, Guillemot appears nonchalant, much like a politician casually dismissing constituents’ worries about healthcare coverage by pointing out the unavoidable fact of mortality. However, what’s striking is that publishers and studios seldom discuss, publicly at least, the finite lifespan of contemporary live-service games. This reality often remains unaddressed until it’s necessary to shut down a game. It’s quite unusual for an executive to openly admit that their online game will eventually cease operation.

As a gamer, when a new video game drops, I can’t help but feel a spark of optimism that it could be something truly special, a game that leaves a lasting impression on the gaming community. For online games, the dream is to become a staple, a go-to title for gamers worldwide – the next Fortnite or Destiny 2. In this digital age, online games are constantly racing towards an elusive finish line they can’t quite see. But let’s face it, as we’ve witnessed with games like Concord, MultiVersus, XDefiant, and countless others, aiming to be the next Fortnite is a steep climb, and in today’s market, it might even seem unattainable.

Contemplating the numerous unsuccessful attempts by would-be players of games like Genshin Impact, Call of Duty, Destiny, and so forth, I find myself wondering about the everlasting games that remain popular. Could it be possible that in our later years, we’ll still be engaging with Fortnite Chapter 30 Season 4, playing it from the cloud via data centers on Mars?

If we truly embrace the idea that nothing is everlasting, it’s reasonable to expect that Fortnite, at some point in time, possibly far into the future, will no longer receive updates from Epic Games. After a certain period, the servers might shut down, effectively ending the game as we currently experience it.

Perhaps corporations could halt the termination of video games, but this won’t prevent them from ultimately becoming obsolete. It would be prudent for creators of online games to contemplate a compassionate method for ending their creations when necessary.

Nintendo, a company typically known more for its offline games, took an unusual step before launching Splatoon 3: it established a definite end for the game. Instead of providing continuous updates indefinitely, the shooting game will receive only two years of seasonal content such as new maps, weapons, and outfits. However, the game will still be fully playable beyond this period.

I remember experiencing all the phases of grief while playing Splatoon 3. The knowledge that new content for the game had an expiration date left me conflicted. At first, it seemed pointless to play; I was aware that no matter how much success or acclaim it might achieve, Nintendo would eventually move on from it, as they did with Super Mario Maker 2 and Animal Crossing: New Horizons. However, unlike those games, Nintendo made it clear from the start about the level of support Splatoon 3 would receive.

Over the course of two years playing Splatoon 3, I found those times incredibly significant and memorable. The anticipation of keeping the game enjoyable for such a length made me eager to savor every moment of it. And when it received an update for Switch 2, introducing fresh weapons even beyond the initial two-year period, it was a delightful bonus that added to my experience.

In contrast to Mortal Kombat 1’s initial claims of years worth of content, the announcement of its “Definitive Edition” raised eyebrows due to its relatively brief span of content, approximately two years, which includes 12 new characters and an expansion on the storyline. This is roughly equivalent to the support offered to the previous game, Mortal Kombat 11, and fell just short in terms of time. This has sparked dissatisfaction among fans.

To those disgruntled MK1 fans, the idea that the game was dead may have come too soon. The “fairness” of a video game‘s end-life support is often influenced by the balance between developers’ openness and consumers’ assumptions. Perhaps NetherRealm Studios could have been more transparent about MK1’s lifespan, but maybe fans were asking for too muchhow many more characters did they really need? However, any disparity in this developer-player dynamic can escalate into a public relations crisis.

Despite video games offering plenty of gaming experience, modern business structures keep players craving for more content. These games require continuous updates, enhancements, and revisions to stay relevant; otherwise, they’re considered outdated or “dead.” However, concerns are raised that online games are becoming excessively large, driven by fear of missing out (FOMO), and demanding as if they were second jobs.

To avoid falling into the trap of overpromising or underdelivering on a live game, developers might choose from the outset to explicitly state that their service will provide approximately three years of fresh content. While this information might initially be disappointing, I believe that by focusing their efforts and ensuring quality, they can make those three years truly meaningful and memorable for players.

Developers can maintain their focus by having a clear objective and then transitioning to the next task once achieved. This approach allows players to set realistic expectations, understanding they have a tangible and robust end product to anticipate without committing an open-ended period of time. Although this method may not please investors, it’s still a viable option that companies should not dismiss outright.

While both Splatoon 3 and Mortal Kombat 1 can currently be played online, the tricky discussions arise when these online services are ultimately discontinued.

As a dedicated gamer, I’ve found myself pondering over the closure of live-service games, like The Crew, where digital licenses are no longer valid. This isn’t just about legal or financial implications, but it’s also sparked intense discussions online. But from a personal perspective, what does the permanent end of a game truly symbolize? It’s not just about losing access to a virtual world, but perhaps a deeper question about the essence of our digital experiences and their lasting impact on us as gamers.

Although Guillemot’s argument may seem straightforward and accurate, it fails to touch upon a key point raised by Stop Killing Games: the importance of preservation and expanded end-of-life choices for video games. When a game becomes entirely unplayable in any format, it essentially meets its demise.

It’s not surprising that ways to avoid closure exist: for instance, going offline like in the game Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League or setting up personal servers similar to Knockout City are feasible strategies. However, these options require effort, resources, and dedication to put into practice, and developers often warn us that they aren’t simple tasks to complete.

The gaming industry needs to reconsider the trajectory they’re on, as they have conditioned players to crave constant content. Any lapse or imperfection could lead to a downfall. It’s important to envision a future where Fortnite concerts are no longer common and Destiny 2 has reached its conclusion. Game developers should address the broader question of game lifespans, finding ways to make the end of a game acceptable for players, before it’s too late. The concept of “eternal” content is becoming scarce.

Read More

2025-07-24 19:09