Amy: 0:03

Hello and welcome again to the Bench Report, where we discuss recent debates and briefings from the benches of the UK Parliament. A new topic every episode. You're listening to Amy and Ivan. Today we're looking at a huge digital rights issue that landed in Westminster Hall. It's all about what happens when the video games you've paid for just um vanish.

Ivan: 0:23

It started with an e-petition, 702074, and the response was enormous.

Amy: 0:29

Enormous is right. It got nearly 190,000 signatures. And this isn't just a UK problem, is it? We're seeing this conversation happening across the EU, the US, Canada.

Ivan: 0:39

Australia, too. It's a global concern. And for the UK, it's about a sector that contributes, what, 7.6 billion to the economy. So it's a serious business.

Amy: 0:47

so what's the fundamental conflict here?

Ivan: 0:49

It really comes down to a massive shift in technology. So many modern games are now live services. They need a constant connection to a company's servers to even work.

Amy: 0:58

Meaning you don't really own a standalone product anymore. You're paying for access.

Ivan: 1:02

You're paying for a license, and that license depends on a server that could be switched off at any time.

Amy: 1:06

And that's the part people are struggling with. I mean you invest money, sure, but also hundreds of hours. You build communities around these games.

Ivan: 1:14

And then one day a company decides it's no longer profitable, pulls the plug, and that entire investment, your time, your money, is just gone.

Amy: 1:22

There's a cultural cost to this as well, isn't there? I saw a really shocking statistic.

Ivan: 1:26

An estimated 87% of games released before 2010 are now considered critically endangered. Just lost.

Amy: 1:33

+ I remember one MP making the point that we would never dream of pulping every copy of Shakespeare. Why is our digital culture treated as so disposable?

Ivan: 1:42

That's the question. So moving from the philosophy to the law, what was the actual change being proposed in Parliament?

Amy: 1:48

aron

Ivan: 1:48

The argument was that consumers who've paid sometimes thousands of pounds shouldn't have their games made unplayable. The proposed fix was, well, a simple amendment to the Consumer Rights Act of 2015. A simple amendment, but with huge implications. I mean, the industry's pushback is that running these online games costs real money. Servers, staff, maintenance. It's an ongoing expense.

Amy: 2:10

Of course. But there are good examples of companies handling this responsibly.

Ivan: 2:14

Absolutely. Look at Ubisoft offering refunds when they shut down the crew. Or Valve, who released the source code for Team Fortress 2, so the community could preserve it themselves. That's best practice.

Amy: 2:25

So we have existing laws like the Consumer Rights Act and the newer Digital Markets Act from this year that already require traders to be clear about this stuff. Why did petitioners feel that wasn't enough?

Ivan: 2:37

Because the government's view is that these products are licensed, not sold. That changes everything. The law might demand clarity, but if a company is clear that the game will disappear eventually, you still have no power.

Amy: 2:50

And the minister outright rejected forcing companies to say create offline patches for discontinued games. What was the reasoning there beyond just the server costs?

Ivan: 2:59

They pointed to two main risks. First, they argued that forcing these strict end-of-life plans could stifle innovation. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

Amy: 3:06

That it might scare companies off from trying new things.

Ivan: 3:08

Exactly. And second, the legal and safety risks. If Parliament mandated an offline version, who guarantees it meets security standards? Especially under something as important as the Online Safety Act? The liability becomes a minefield.

Amy: 3:24

So a flat, no plans to amend existing consumer law. What was the compromise then? What actually came out of the debate?

Ivan: 3:31

The focus shifted from legal mandates to uh transparency. The government is now considering asking the Chartered Trading Standards Institute to develop new guidance for the industry.

Amy: 3:43

Guidance, not law.

Ivan: 3:44

Just guidance. The goal is to make sure you, the consumer, get crystal clear information at the point of sale about how long the game will be supported and what happens when it's not.

Amy: 3:53

Which brings us to the bigger picture here. This whole model of built-in obsolescence goes so far beyond video games.

Ivan: 3:59

It really does.

Amy: 4:00

Features in your car, your smart fridge, even your phone, they can already be disabled remotely by a company. So this gaming debate is really a test case for digital ownership itself. If this model isn't challenged now, what happens when it's not your game that stops working, but your washing machine? That's something for you to think about. As always, find us on social media at bench report UK. Get in touch with any topic important to you. Remember, politics is everyone's business. Take care.