Sami MäättäThe Stop Killing Games directive
Published Updated . Tags: English, Gaming, European Union, Legislation.
Now that Stop Killing Games the petition has gotten a million signatures, it will move into whatever the next phase of these petitions is in the EU. But it is certain that it will move forward.
Update 3.7.2025: It's still highly encourage to sign the petition if you haven't! Many of the signatures might be invalid, so it is good to have a solid buffer of accepted signatures.
I don't have much knowledge or experience on how EU does directives in general, but through my work I have seen the effects of the European Accessibility Act (EAA for short), which was a directive as well - which I think the Stop Killing Games initiative will turn into as well.
I'm mostly focusing on concerns that people and companies might have about the implementation of the initiative.
Directives
Firstly it's important to understand that a directive merely "directs" the legislation a EU member state has to form and enforce. This can mean that the states have a lot of freedom when it comes to forming the legislation. Of course, for most effect the directive should be clear in what it aims to do, so that the states can form uniform legislation for the whole EU market area.
That is also the biggest strength of these kinds of directives: They first and foremost affect the kinds of services and products the EU market accepts. These services and products must adhere to the legislation that enterst these markets - and the EU is a sizable market where companies want to be able to sell their products.
European Accessibility Act (EAA)
The directive "European Accessibility Act" came into force on 17th of April 2019 (europa.eu). The legislation complying with the EAA came into effect 28th of June 2025. The EU member states had six years to form the legislation and means to monitor its implementation. (Spoilers: Not all member states are there yet.)
The EAA greatly affected the industry I'm working in: Accessible publishing. It states that the EU member states have to define legislation such that the publishers have to publish accessible ebooks. This means that people with disabilities, that affect their reading of printed books, would be able to use ebooks without hindrances.
Or as the directive defines 'persons with disabilities':
"-- persons who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others;"
This places a lot of responsibility on the publishers. Any ebook that enters the EU market after the 28th of June 2025 should be accessible and its accessibility information (metadata) should be visible to the consumer through whatever e-commerce platform they use to buy the ebooks.
Might be needless to say, but this can and has scared publishers:
- What kind of know-how will they need to comply with the law?
- How do they make accessible ebooks?
- How do they provide the information of the accessibility on the ebook?
- What if the changes prove to be expensive?
- What if they are a small publisher that doesn't have the skills or the resources to comply with the law?
- What if the ebook they make isn't possible to make accessible? This might be a result of a highly experimental book and reading experience.
Exceptions
The concerns I mentioned at the beginning are partly dealt with the exceptions that the Stop Killing Games (later SKG) directive would maybe (most likely, probably) have.
Note that this is only from my experience with the EAA and what it is about. I think it's likely that similar 'general exceptions' will make their way into the SKG directive. Also depending on the game publishing lobbying, there could more or different kinds of exceptions. Road to the actual directive will be long.
Let's get into some of the exceptions present in the EAA.
Disproportional burden
Something that might be said about games:
"We don't have the resources to have our games be playable after our own support."
The EAA directly talks about this kind of situation and gives way for the publishers to claim "disproportional burden":
"For reasons of proportionality, accessibility requirements should only apply to the extent that they do not impose a disproportionate burden on the economic operator concerned, --"
The reasons to claim disproportional burden would be varied, and in the book publishing space, it always requires an explanation to a governing body.
Fundamental alteration
This is something I have seen propped up as a short coming of the Stop Killing Games initiative:
"What about games that wouldn't have a realistic possibility to provide end-of-life plans? This will limit the kinds of games people and companies make!"
This is something that a publisher might say:
"Our ebook is an experience that can't be made into an accessible ebook. What about now?"
This is handled by the clause on "fundamental alteration":
"For reasons of proportionality, accessibility requirements should only apply to the extent that -- that they do not require a significant change in the products and services which would result in their fundamental alteration in the light of this Directive."
This might mean that the game experience would be somehow fundamentally altered, because of making it possible to keep going by the community or some other party, that it would not be same experience anymore. It is difficult to say what kind of situation would qualify as a "fundamental alteration" - and I don't know how applicable this particular clause would be for games.
Limited resources of independent game developers
Independent game developers (later "indie developers") work with limited resources when it comes to money and people. It might be likely that some obligations of the SKG directive could prove too expensive for indie developers to implement.
In the EAA, exceptions are made for microenterprises. A microenterprise doesn't need to comply with the accessibility requirements. A microenterprise is defined as
"-- an enterprise which employs fewer than 10 persons and which has an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 2 million or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 2 million;"
I believe many indie developers would fit this description and be exempted from the responsibilities. Although it is highly encouraged that every actor that wants to enter the EU markets should comply with the directive and its respective legislation. It might be that game distributors (for example Steam) would want to only sell games that adhere to the directive's legislation, so they would require all actors to publish these kinds of games.
That is, if the distributors are part of the directive.
EAA's shortcoming: the backlist
One of EAA' shortcomings is the backlist of ebooks. These are the ebooks that already exist and not accessible. They continue being in the EU market and the directive didn't specify what should be done about the existing ebooks.
This has led to varying interpretations of the directive and implementations of the legislation:
"For example: France have allowed for a 5-year grace period. Countries such as Sweden opted to exclude backlist titles from their legislation, however, more recent Swedish legislation appears to suggest the excluded content is web-based PDF documents and may not encompass all backlist ebooks. Other regions such as Finland and Denmark believe that the Directive applies equally to existing and newly published titles and are implementing legislation and issuing guidance to support that approach."
Source: EAA Backlist Confusion – Looking at Regional Differences (Inclusive Publishing)
Would the existing games need to retrofitted to comply with the SKG directive? Short answer: No. It is specifically stated in the SKG initiative's FAQ that is not the aim of the initiative:
"For existing video games, it's possible that some being sold cannot have an "end of life" plan as they were created with necessary software that the publisher doesn't have permission to redistribute. Games like these would need to be either retired or grandfathered in before new law went into effect. For the European Citizens' Initiative in particular, even if passed, its effects would not be retroactive. So while it may not be possible to prevent some existing games from being destroyed, if the law were to change, future games could be designed with "end of life" plans and stop this trend."
I believe similar kind of confusion will be averted when the directive wouldn't be retroactive and there wouldn't be a "backlist" of games.
Bonus: Digital Rights Management?
The EAA actually enforces one clause about the digital rights management ("DRM"). Usually this is to ensure that a buyer of an ebook won't be able to distribute the ebook freely to others.
Unfortunately DRMs tend to negatively affect the reading experience and potentially block an accessible reading experience. That is why there is the following clause on ebook:
"(vi) ensuring that digital rights management measures do not block accessibility features."
Might the SKG directive be a way to affect invasive DRMs in games? There are plenty of examples of DRM software requiring
- root access to your computer
- slowing or blocking your gaming.