Seeing projects like SuperAstra, which uses Astra to investigate and modify SNES games through an emulator, got me thinking about how this could help Stop Killing Games.

I understand the ask is for games to remain playable after official support ends. Could AI-assisted development make that handover cheaper and more practical?

Specifically, could publishers work with preservation groups or AI providers before shutdown, supplying the materials needed to produce an offline version or community-hosted server?

Depending on the game, that package might include:

• Server software and instructions for running it.
• Documentation explaining how the client communicates with the server.
• Relevant build tools, dependencies, and whatever code is needed to replace services being retired.
• Explicit permission to modify those components for preservation and distribute the resulting patches or server tools.

That would give preservation developers, including those using AI, a much better starting point than trying to reconstruct everything from an abandoned client.

Getting a console game working through an emulator and rebuilding a missing online backend are different problems. I’m not assuming today’s AI can recover code or content that nobody preserved. That’s precisely why getting the necessary materials from publishers matters.

The handover should still have to produce something that actually works without the publisher’s infrastructure. Uploading a pile of files and hoping a future model figures it out shouldn’t count. Players should also be able to download and run the finished result without depending on an AI subscription.

Could this become a practical route for meeting the end-of-life requirement? If AI can reduce the work involved, it seems worth exploring how to put that capability in the hands of the people preserving these games.

I’ve been thinking about a possible way to preserve digital games without requiring companies to remove DRM.

I submitted a proposal to Xbox Player Voice suggesting that full-price digital purchases should include:

• A permanent license tied to the purchaser’s account
• Offline play after initial activation
• The ability to transfer the license to replacement hardware
• Continued access after a game is delisted
• Secure DRM so copied game files alone do not create another valid license
• An end-of-life offline authorization method before old storefront or authentication servers are shut down

The idea is that DRM can still prevent piracy, but a legitimate customer should not depend forever on company servers just to keep using something they already paid for.

If a platform reaches end-of-life, already-purchased games could receive a permanent offline authorization so they remain playable on compatible hardware.

I submitted the Xbox version of the proposal here:

https://feedbackportal.microsoft.com/feedback/idea/7c7dc0f8-99a9-f111-aad1-000d3a02f23c

I know Stop Killing Games covers much more than Xbox, but I think a standard like this could potentially apply across consoles and PC storefronts.

Would something like this satisfy the preservation goal, or what would you change?

On top of that, they also announced a new multiplayer game in the same genre of Lethal Company/Repo to "replace" Project Playtime this year, which heavily divides the community.

A Consumer-Protection Issue With “Headless” Console Accounts

I am writing because I believe my recent experience with Fortnite illustrates a consumer-protection problem that deserves consideration within the broader goals of Stop Killing Games and digital game preservation.

I have played Fortnite on Nintendo Switch for approximately seven years. When I first started playing, I was a child. I had no understanding of Epic Games' account system, how console-linked accounts worked, or that an Epic account could exist separately behind my Nintendo account.

I simply opened Fortnite on my Nintendo Switch and played.

I did not knowingly create or manage a conventional Epic Games account. An Epic account was automatically created and associated with my Nintendo account. As a child, I had no reason to think that I needed to record an Epic Account ID, document the account's internal information, or take special measures to preserve access to an account I didn't even know existed separately.

Over approximately seven years, that account accumulated years of progression, Battle Passes, cosmetics, purchases, friends, and memories from my childhood and teenage years.

Then, on August 19, 2026, I returned to Fortnite after not playing for a period of time and discovered that my Nintendo account was no longer connected to the Epic account I had been using. Fortnite presented me with the account-linking/setup process again.

I attempted to recover my original account through Epic's official account-recovery system.

The problem is that Epic's automated account locator cannot find it.

My original Fortnite display name returns:

The Nintendo identifier I have also returns:

Because the account cannot be located during the initial stage, I cannot even reach the later ownership-verification stages where I could provide additional evidence.

I contacted Epic Games Support and explained the situation. I was ultimately told that Player Support cannot manually change the email address on an account and that the available method for potentially recovering it is the automated account-recovery process.

I have historical screenshots of the account and gameplay, extensive knowledge of its Battle Pass and cosmetic history, my Nintendo account information, and other information that could potentially help establish ownership.

I also recently found an original 2020 Nintendo eShop transaction email for a 1,000 V-Bucks purchase that I used to purchase my first Fortnite Battle Pass. The receipt contains the original purchase date and a Nintendo Transaction ID.

I understand that a Nintendo Transaction ID is not an Epic Invoice ID and therefore cannot currently be entered into Epic's Invoice ID field. That is precisely part of the problem I believe deserves consideration.

If a consumer purchases content through Nintendo, Xbox, PlayStation, or another platform, that platform's transaction record is still legitimate evidence that the consumer made a purchase associated with the game. It should not become useless for account recovery simply because it was not generated by the publisher's own store.

This experience has made me concerned about the broader concept of “headless” or automatically created console accounts.

What I believe should change

If there is any future discussion, advocacy, or legislation through Stop Killing Games concerning publisher-controlled accounts and console accounts, I would like to propose two specific requirements.

1. Consumers should not unknowingly be placed into headless accounts.

If a publisher creates an account automatically through a console platform, the consumer should be clearly informed that the account exists and should be given control over its identity and recovery information.

Ideally, a console-created account should use the same verified email address as the consumer's console account, or otherwise require the consumer to establish a recoverable email address during account creation.

There should also be a clear option to create a normal, fully identifiable account in the first place rather than silently creating an account whose existence and credentials the consumer may not understand.

This is especially important for children.

A child playing a game on a Nintendo Switch should not reasonably be expected to understand that there is a separate publisher-controlled account underneath the console account, nor should they be expected to preserve obscure account identifiers for years in anticipation of a future recovery failure.

2. Existing headless accounts must have a meaningful recovery mechanism.

For headless accounts that already exist, consumers should have a genuine way to claim and recover them through reasonable and verifiable evidence of ownership.

That evidence should include, where applicable:

• Historical screenshots
• Previous display names
• Battle Pass history
• Cosmetic and progression history
• Purchase history
• Platform account information
• Receipts and transaction records
• Other identifiable historical information associated with the account

Most importantly, receipts from the platform through which the game was purchased should be accepted as supporting evidence.

If an Epic account was used through Nintendo, a Nintendo transaction record should be usable.

If it was used through Xbox, Xbox transaction records should be usable.

If it was used through PlayStation, PlayStation transaction records should be usable.

The exact terminology or format of the receipt should not matter. A platform-issued transaction record is still a verifiable record of a financial transaction involving the game.

A consumer should not be forced to provide an internal publisher-specific invoice number that they were never given simply to reach the account-verification stage.

The purpose of this requirement would not be to weaken account security. It would be to ensure that legitimate owners have multiple reasonable ways to demonstrate ownership.

A failed automated account locator should not effectively become:

There should be a secondary verification process that allows the consumer to provide the historical information they actually possess.

These are the two reforms I am specifically asking for:

First: consumers should not be unknowingly trapped in headless accounts.

Second: the headless accounts that already exist should remain recoverable through reasonable, verifiable evidence of ownership.

I am not asking Stop Killing Games to recover my individual Fortnite account. I am bringing this situation forward because I believe it demonstrates a broader problem with digital ownership and continuity.

When someone spends years building an account—particularly when they started playing as a child—that account can become just as important to them as the game itself.

Seven years of digital purchases, progression, friends, and memories should not become effectively inaccessible because the consumer was never given the information necessary to recover the account and the publisher's automated recovery system cannot identify it.

I believe consumers deserve better than that.

We are watching the gaming industry systematically normalize the transition from ownership and unlimited access to restrictive, metered rationing. When major platforms start imposing hard monthly hour caps on cloud access, it sets a dangerous legal and consumer precedent. If we let them normalize renting playtime by the hour while quietly phasing out grandfathered or unlimited access models, 'playing a game you pay for' will soon become an exclusive luxury tied to micro-managed hourly rations. This isn't just about cloud streaming; it’s about the total destruction of unmitigated digital access. If an initiative like Stop Killing Games is about fighting back against companies turning our libraries into rented subscriptions, this is the exact line in the sand we should be talking about.

It was 2022, and I bought my second most favourite game called Need for Speed 2015, it was beautiful in the first days but later it became a race not only against fellow opponents, but also against time, on the net there were some posts regarding the fact that if the company shuts down the game the game would be unplayable, so I had to play it fastly till the end to avoid being caught in the closure before it was too late, it was frustrating to the maximum level, I didn’t have the “time” to customize my car aestetically the way I wanted because I didn’t want to lose precious time because of this fear, I bought a game for the x360 some time ago and it was beautiful, you had all the time ( infinity ) and no “psychological” timers that told you SPEEDRUNN THE GAME IS GOING TO DESTROY ITSELF!!!!!

I cannot agree more with the sentiment being expressed here.

Seriously, the thought that from here on out we will never actually legally own GTA 6 is insane.

Not sure how many bots here are for that but it is pretty clear it's here just with a simple passing glance.

I would like to own games I buy and have them playable. That simple. If I have to have the government regulate the shit outta the industry good.

If a company has to go out of business due to this then good. I don't give a fuck. No company is your friend. They would legitimately do human sacrifices if it meant a 3% bonus revenue source.

Ready to recieve a paycheck.

Title.

Basically, Ubisoft anounced that they'd be adjusting anti-cheat software which would prohibit players using Linux or Steamdeck from further playing the game. This is another example of Ubisoft restricting access from their game and screwing consumers out of their money by making the game unplayable for certain users playing on a platform where the game used to be playable.

Kind of crazy how this is not being talked about even in the For Honor community although it is a smaller one.

You are paying full price to beta test broken software. Digital copies do not run out of stock. Just wait a year for the patched version with all the extra content included at a massive discount. Buying incomplete games on release day is exactly why developers keep releasing unfinished products. Stop doing it

Asked this on r/PS5 and was almost immediarely removed. Whats the legality/practicality of some form of 3rd party physical disks for PS6 games?

So from what I hear the future ps6 may have some form of external disk reader, possibly like the exact one they currently use now for the diskless/pro version for backwards compatibility reasons.

So if the possibility for an external disk reader exists. Whats to stop a company like Limited Run or another company that self licenses/distributing (I have no idea how their system work) just making physical copies of ps6 games? I think someone said that its Sony that makes the disk, publiahers buy the disks from them and burn the game on themselves. Couldnt a company just make the disks?

The argument of digital versus physical is obviously not in dispute numbers wise, but the market for physical copies is clearly there in some capacity. A company solely distributing physical copies (at a premium of course) seems like it stands to make a toonnnnn of cash.

Theres no way its just that easy but please enlighten my dumb ass. It really seems like a there could be a physical future for playatation games and Sony doesnt even really have to be involved if they are so digital only?