That this House has considered e-petition 702074 relating to consumer law and videogames.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to the petitioner and to the nearly 190,000 people who signed the petition, demonstrating not only strong public concern but the enormous cultural relevance of video games to people across the country. It is not just a domestic issue; similar campaigns are ongoing in the EU, the United States, Canada and Australia. This is a global conversation, and the United Kingdom must not be left behind.
I come to this debate not only as a Member of Parliament but as a lifelong gamer. From my childhood through to university, games have been a constant: sometimes a way to switch off, sometimes a means to connect with others and sometimes a way to challenge myself. Even today, when I get the odd quiet evening, I can still be found planning new trade networks on “Victoria II”, optimising traffic flow in “Cities: Skylines” or returning to the timeless brilliance of the “Oddworld” series. For many of us, gaming is personal. It is not just simply entertainment; it is a memory, an identity and a community. That is why today’s debate matters. The video game industry contributes £7.6 billion to the UK economy and supports more than 75,000 jobs. We are home to world-leading studios, cutting-edge research and some of the most talented creative minds anywhere on earth. We should value the industry not only for its economic output but as a cultural powerhouse shaping stories, art, music and technology.
Is my hon. Friend aware of the Cambridge-based Ninja Theory’s work with neuroscientist Professor Paul Fletcher on the game “Hellblade”? It gives a really powerful insight into psychosis, and shows how game developers can work effectively with gamers for real social purpose.
This is the thing about gaming: it is not just about the creative arts; it is also about science and technology. Cambridge bats above its average not just within the UK but on the global stage. I am very proud, as an East Anglian MP, to have my hon. Friend’s constituency next door providing this for the future.
The nature of games has changed. Many modern titles are live services, constantly updated, server-dependent and with ongoing operational costs. That is not inherently a bad thing—live services have created vibrant global communities—but it has changed what it means to own a game. Gamers still feel the deep sense of personal possession, because they invest more than money; they invest time, effort, imagination and friendship. When a game shuts down without clear notice, that investment is lost and a shared world disappears. The Video Game History Foundation estimates that 87% of games released before 2010 are now critically endangered.
I received an email from a constituent explaining how his beloved video games have been rendered unplayable when the company decides to end server support. We do not accept our mobile phones being switched off whenever a company wants us to buy its new model, so why should we allow thousands of pounds’ worth of games to be made unplayable, just because new games have been introduced? Does my hon. Friend agree that, when we buy a video game, we own it to play it whenever we want, and we need regulation to ensure that? It is not an unreasonable ask of the multi-million pound companies producing these games.
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. What is it to own a video game? What is it to keep the background services running? Is it an interactive process going forward with multiple users, or is it just a single-access game?
When a game shuts down, it is not just a consumer issue but a cultural one. This debate is not just about keeping games playable; it is about preserving our cultural heritage. The National Videogame Museum in Sheffield already does fantastic work to document, curate and celebrate this history, but we need to support institutions like it further. I urge the Government to explore funding, partnerships and sector support to ensure that we maintain a library full of significant games—not necessarily the full playable versions, but assets, scripts, soundtracks and design documents. We would never dream of pulping every copy of Shakespeare, and we should not think any differently about video games.
We have seen what is possible when communities are empowered. When “Doom” was released decades ago, it sparked an entire ecosystem of mods, creativity and eventually genre-defining innovation. We also see it with ROM-hacking communities, especially around older titles such as “Super Mario World”. I am the first to admit that I cannot play “Kaizo Mario World” for toffee—those levels are punishing. But I do enjoy watching streamers such as BarbarousKing both creating the “Grand Poo World Trilogy”—this is the first time that Hansard has had to write that down—and playing it live. That highlights yet another modern element of gaming culture—streaming. Platforms such as Twitch have turned gameplay into performance art, commentary and community. People gather to cheer, learn, laugh and share. This, too, is culture, and it deserves to be safeguarded.
I want to be absolutely clear that this debate is not anti-industry. Running online games costs real money. Servers, hardware, maintenance contracts, security and teams of engineers all cost money. Requiring developers to define end-of-life strategies up front could stifle innovation and create unintended risks. But gamers deserve clarity. If a game is likely to go offline, they should be told that.
In my constituency, as in many other areas, increasingly residents are finding that the video games that they thought they owned simply stop working when the online support ends, or that ownership is limited by the terms and conditions of the licence, which is deeply frustrating for consumers who have paid money in good faith. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government should ensure that existing consumer protections keep pace with these changes, so that people are not left out of pocket when the digital services that they rely on are switched off, often without warning?
When we look at consumer law, we have to take into account the vast progress that has been made in some sectors. It would be helpful if the Minister was able to look into that issue in the future.
My hon. Friend is making a great speech. On amending the law, what is required is a simple amendment to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, to ensure that when a game requires online support, developers must allow the purchaser to continue receiving that support.
That is another really practical implementation that could go ahead, and I thank my hon. Friend for suggesting it.
If a game is likely to go offline, gamers should be told, and where possible, offline modes should be provided. When closures are unavoidable, there should be clear notice periods and, where appropriate, refunds. Where a game has no commercial future, studios should be encouraged or supported to preserve assets for cultural history.
Some companies are already showing leadership in this regard. Ubisoft offered refunds when “The Crew” was shut down and Valve released the “Team Fortress 2” source code to help to ensure its long-term preservation, so responsible practice is possible. What we need now is a collaborative code of practice developed jointly by industry, consumer groups, preservation experts and Government—not heavy-handed law, but clear expectations. We must also recognise that independent developers cannot realistically archive every unsuccessful project.
The hon. Member is making an excellent case. I represent the city of Dundee, otherwise known as the gaming capital of Europe. Given that we are the city that created “Lemmings” and “Grand Theft Auto”, and that we have the world’s first university degree in computing gaming, it should come as no surprise that the highest number of signatories for this petition came from Dundee. By not amending the law to protect the future for consumers and for those who create the games, we are putting our courses—for example, our degrees—and the jobs of those who work domestically in computer games, both in Scotland and in the rest of the UK, at risk.
This is the one time that I am quite jealous of the hon. Member’s constituency because, as he suggested, it is the constituency that has laid the golden egg. The cultural relevance of GTA is never-ending: when the next title in the series is released it will be bigger than any movie that has been released in the United Kingdom, if not the world, for many years.
I ask the Minister to work with studios and consumer groups to establish clear expectations around shutdowns and access, to support cultural institutions such as the National Videogame Museum and to help develop an industry-led framework to preserve our gaming heritage for future generations.
Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows he cannot intervene, having not been here at the start of Mr Goldsborough’s contribution. That is a House rule.
On that note, Mr Mundell, as I was about to finish: this is about fairness, responsibility, creativity and protecting a cultural legacy of which the United Kingdom should be proud.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell.
There have been a number of instances in this place where I have had to come out: first as LGBT, then as Parliament’s biggest Swiftie, and today as a gamer. I have been playing computer games since I was a little kid. I remember waking up every morning before going to school to plug in the internet to download the latest bits for “The Sims”. It has been a staple of my life. As the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) highlighted, there are myriad reasons why people game—whether to switch off, unwind or make friends. It is a never-ending world of wonder for people who get into gaming, and I count myself as one of them.
The issue is what happens when a developer goes bust, shuts down or is gobbled up in a merger? In those instances, it is not clear who bears the responsibility of hosting or running servers for online gaming. Most of the games I play are not online, but I understand from those who play them that we already see servers going offline or timing out.
We only have to look at the recent gaming industry landscape: Electronic Arts has been bought up by a conglomerate, which includes Saudi Arabia and others, in a £55 billion deal. The acquisition will take it off the stock market and into private equity. We have also seen measures taken to replace developers with artificial intelligence. That puts a question mark on how long term and sustainable gaming on such platforms will be for consumers.
What I would like to see—and I am sure many Members across the House will also invite the Minister to do this—is clearer, more tangible responsibility from Government and protections for consumers.
It is simply a matter of justice that if someone has paid for a product, either physical or digital, they should be able to use it for as long as they like. The fact that a company goes bust should not make any difference to that.
I completely agree. There has been a change in the way that people have been gaming—a silent, creeping approach over the years. When I started playing games, most of them were on CDs, which are now a thing of the past—we do not see those anymore, do we? There is a particular divergence between PC gaming, where it is easier to host servers remotely or privately, and consoles, where that is a little harder. I do not necessarily expect the Government to get into the weeds of that, but setting out some clear principles that gamers can expect would be a welcome first step.
I thank the constituents who got in touch with me to raise this important matter and everyone who signed the petition, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for their excellent speeches.
For millions across the UK, video games are more than just entertainment. They are a creative outlet, a way to unwind and a means of connecting with other gamers across the world. As a cornerstone of our creative industries, the UK is one of the largest video game markets in the world, with sales reaching nearly £4.3 billion in 2024. From Harry Potter and James Bond to British premiership football, some of the most popular games worldwide are rooted in British culture. I am delighted that this Labour Government are backing the sector’s continued growth, investing £40 million in start-up video game studios and expanding creative industry tax reliefs to incentivise further innovation and investment.
The Welsh Labour Government are also championing our creative industries through their dedicated economic development agency Creative Wales, which supports creatives across the country, including the brilliant Goldborough Studio, an independent game developer based in Lawrenny in my constituency of Mid and South Pembrokeshire.
Some of my constituents are concerned that consumer rights in this space have not kept up with advancing technology, leaving gamers in danger of losing out. As Members have set out already, the publishers of online video games can, at their discretion, shut down the servers that keep the games running. When that happens the games become unplayable, leaving consumers who have paid for them without access to the digital worlds in which they have invested their time, imagination and money.
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, digital content must be as described by the seller. If the game is sold without clear information about its support, lifespan or potential server shutdowns, consumers are entitled to a repair, a replacement or a refund. A recent example is “Concord”, a game released for PlayStation 5 and Windows in August 2024. Following a disappointing launch, Sony Interactive Entertainment made a commercial decision to shut it down. To its credit, Sony refunded all purchases, but that is not always the case.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for securing this important debate. As we are all making declarations, I should say I am a self-confessed fan of survival horror games. Does my hon. Friend agree that the evolution of video games over the years to include an online component has created a cultural product that is unfamiliar to us in other territories, which therefore presents potential problems in terms of the longevity of the online component as opposed to a game’s stand-alone playability? For example, would one expect to be able to revisit a concert 10 years after it had taken place, rather than simply playing the album of that music again?
I agree with my hon. Friend about the extent to which games have a cultural identity, and that to take them down erases a cultural and artistic heritage that is vital to society and to the wider industry as well. As campaigners have rightly argued, if every copy of a book, film or song were destroyed, we would see it as a cultural tragedy. We should view the loss of video games in the same light, so I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention. Does the Minister agree that video games are a vital part of our creative and cultural landscape? Will she commit to exploring how we can better protect consumers and preserve access to digital works even after commercial support ends?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for securing this important debate, which shines a light on the growing disconnect between video game consumers and the companies that profit from them. The e-petition received nearly 190,000 signatures nationwide, and Colchester ranked among the top 20 constituencies for signatures. I thank those who signed it for standing up for fairness and for their digital rights. I should say that I am not a gamer—I feel rather in the minority—but, as a parent of gamers, I have made a solid financial contribution to the gaming industry over the years.
Colchester has a thriving video game industry of its own, based around the Innovation Centre, Knowledge Gateway at the University of Essex. The university offers a very respected BSc in game technology. The city also has a fantastic creative digital learning charity called Signals, which offers superb short courses to school pupils—very good for half-term recreation, as I recall—in animation, coding and other skills that underpin the industry.
I cannot resist saying that Colchester has another claim to fame in this space: it was recreated in “Assassin’s Creed Valhalla”, in which players are able to roam around our Roman and Anglo Saxon heritage. I do not know whether any other constituency can match that. It is another testament to our city’s huge cultural importance, and reminds us that games are more than entertainment, as Members have said. They combine rich and complex design, art, graphics and music.
What happens when that rich content is deleted? When publishers shut down servers or revoke access, consumers lose something that they have paid for, often with very little warning or recourse. That is not just inconvenient but fundamentally unfair. Other forms of cultural production—film, books, music and so on—live on, but we have allowed a situation to develop in the gaming industry whereby games are sold to consumers to play, but it is never quite clear when it is game over.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on opening the debate so aptly.
When I was elected last July, I did not imagine that one of my contributions in Westminster Hall would be on the subject of video games. It was not on my bingo card—or, more aptly, it was not in my inventory—but here we are. I am glad we are here, because although video games may not often feature in parliamentary debate, the issues raised affect far more than the gaming industry, juggernaut though it is. They go to the heart of consumer law, ownership rights and the path we are on in a digital age.
It is worth noting that I speak as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on consumer protection, so my arguments will primarily focus on that dimension. It is also worth saying that video games in their own right have been part of the public discourse many times since their widespread adoption as an entertainment medium. Like everyone, I have heard the common questions about their merits, their impact on young people and whether they cause brain rot or inspire violence. Although I would argue that they do not do those things—certainly not the last two—this debate is not about whether video games are good or bad. It is about something much more fundamental. It is about whether, when someone buys something, they should have the right to keep it.
I will be clear about my ask here. I am not demanding that publishers keep servers running forever. Campaigners are not asking for indefinite technical support. We are not asking companies to keep pouring resources into a game that they have finished with. What we are asking is fairly simple: that publishers should not be able to deliberately disable every copy of a game that consumers have already purchased, leaving them with nothing. I will talk first about the end of support, and what that means in this context.
Normally, end of support means that if something goes wrong, the customer is on their own. That is fair enough—it is perfectly reasonable depending on the context. An iPhone that someone bought 14 years ago no longer receives updates from Apple, but can still be unlocked and take calls. An old toaster can still toast bread, even if it does not have smart sensors and a touchscreen. A decades-old printer no longer receives updates from the company that made it, but it still prints documents.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for mentioning “Grand Theft Auto”; the main developer for the new version, “Grand Theft Auto VI”, is Rockstar Leeds. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) and I both have many constituents who work there.
On obsolescence, many people create private servers and play the games there. I am a big fan of “Assassin’s Creed”, and many of its versions have been made obsolete by Ubisoft, but the people involved can keep the private servers going if there is an end-of-service patch that allows it to carry on, so in effect there is not that built-in obsolescence. It is a very simple thing to do and should be part of consumer protection.
When the boundary review took place a few years ago, I was very disappointed that Rockstar Leeds was not drawn into my constituency, so I am very jealous of that. However, I do have constituents who work there and I agree entirely with my hon. Friend’s point—it is as though he has read on a few pages in my speech. People absolutely can have private servers that take care of the issue. It does not require the developer to keep things running or to put their own resources endlessly into a game to keep it alive. Consumers can do that themselves.
As I was saying, the publisher should have a duty to ensure that a game purchased and owned by a consumer remains playable in some way. That is not about burdening publishers or Government overreach. It is about ensuring that publishers do not have the right deliberately to disable products that people have already paid for. I suspect that if we were talking about mobile phones or any of the other things I listed earlier, this debate would resonate even more strongly, but the principle is the same. If we do not act now, the use of this model and the erosion of ownership rights may spread to other areas. History is littered with examples of Governments acting too late and finding out that what could have been fixed early, with minimal effort, has grown into a much larger problem. The warning signs are there in this industry and to act now would be far less painful than to wait until the practice has become entrenched.
As we know, consumers are noticing. Campaigns have started. We are here today because nearly 200,000 people in the UK signed a petition demanding action on this specific issue. The Stop Killing Games campaign, a consumer movement started by YouTuber Ross Scott, has shone a light on this issue, not just here in the UK but across Europe and beyond. The European citizens’ initiative on the issue received more than 1.4 million signatures. This is not a niche concern among a few people; a growing movement of consumers feel that their rights are being undermined.
My office has corresponded with Ross, and I am very grateful for the information he gave me ahead of the debate. He really is a champion of these issues. I have also done my own research, and would like to go through some examples, the first of which is “The Crew”. The game was released in 2014 and on average cost consumers between 40 and 60 quid. It sold about 12 million copies, but in 2024 it was shut down, with no way for people to play it. To its credit, Ubisoft offered refunds to recent purchasers, but certainly not to the original ones. Although largely an online game, it had a single-player component that was unplayable when the servers went down.
One of my constituents has written to me about feeling misled when the industry uses the word “buy” for video games that can later disappear from their digital library. Does the hon. Member agree that we need transparency, so that consumers know exactly what they are paying for at the point of purchase? We need clarity that “buy” means “buy”, and not “borrow until it is revoked”.
I could not agree more. That goes back to my earlier point: the fix in this area could be as simple as there being more transparency. When a consumer purchases a game, it should be crystal clear that the publisher could deactivate it at any point. However, I want to go further—we need to retain something and ensure that publishers make the game playable for consumers long after they have pulled support from it.
Going back to “The Crew”, the game did not need to be shut down. Ubisoft could have patched in offline play or allowed private servers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) said earlier. Going forward, the ask from many consumers is simple: if the industry plans to kill a game, it should ensure that consumers have a reasonable option to continue using their products for a single-player experience or on private servers.
I promised one of my Leeds South West and Morley constituents that I would raise the fact that they, like other gamers, have waited years for certain games, including the remake of “Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic”, which I am told is one of the greatest games of all time. Saber Interactive plans to release the final version of that game at some point in the future, but let us imagine how devastated those gamers would be if Saber released it only to pull it a year later.
We are not talking about a small, powerless industry; we are talking about publishers that generated a combined total of $455 billion in revenue last year accounting for all types of gaming. By most industry measures, the global video games sector is now larger than the film and music industries combined. Analysts at Forbes say that gaming is now the dominant entertainment industry, so the costs of ensuring long-term playability are negligible when compared with the budgets of these major publishers. We are talking about tens of thousands of pounds—or sometimes nothing at all—set against budgets in the tens and hundreds of millions, and revenue in the billions.
To be clear: this is not just about video games. Our greatest fan across the Atlantic, Elon Musk, has already shown us with Tesla that features in cars can be remotely disabled even after the original buyer has paid for them. The technology already exists to remotely modify products in a way that the consumer may not have been reliably informed about at purchase. What is stopping the progression of those modifications to render purchases totally and utterly unusable? Do we really want to wait until our phones, fridges and cars are affected before we act in this small way, in what is a relatively small area?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the 236 constituents from my constituency for signing this petition and, in particular, Haydn Shaw for spending quite a lot of time with me last month to explain the impact that this situation has on him and other gamers. I have to admit that it is not my specialist subject.
Video games are a vital part of modern British culture. Many parents think that their sons and daughters are locked away in their bedrooms playing alone, but for me, it turned out that my son Isaac was having great fun with people all around the world. Every time I heard a noise, it was him jumping off the sofa as he experienced the immersive video games he was playing. He was maintaining friendships after he went off to university, proving that video games can bring people together even when they are a long distance apart.
The artists, coders and designers who create such life-like images and develop such intricate stories for us to enjoy through our phones, computers and games consoles bring joy to millions and allow many of us to experience places, times through history—I recommend Colchester, as the original Roman capital of Britain, in “Age of Empires”—and alternative realities. My local college is now offering e-sports as a technical course, and Bournemouth University offers a degree in games design, which provides routes into other specialist fields that can unlock cutting-edge technology for the military. Virtual reality is providing new ways for medics to learn, and in Bournemouth children have been taught road safety skills through gaming headsets, thanks to the creativity and imagination of those in the sector.
When a game shuts down, it can feel like losing a favourite book or film forever. When a business is gobbled up, like a scene out of “Pac-Man”—that probably gives away a little about my early gaming experience—the purchaser’s rights should be maintained. A purchaser should expect transparency and fairness when making their purchase: clear, accessible information about whether a game requires online connectivity, relies on servers or is time-limited. As Alex told me, it is important that buyers know what the end of life looks like, or even whether there is going to be an end of life. The law already requires that such material information should not be hidden or omitted, but in reality, according to players like Haydn, it is very difficult to find this information, and many are led to feel misled or short-changed.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to the Members who have spoken passionately about this issue, in particular the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), who led the debate, and to the people who signed the petition.
Video games are a significant part of the entertainment and creative industries and give pleasure to millions. As we have heard, they have a cultural relevance today that was perhaps not seen in previous generations. The lazy stereotype of a sector dominated by teenagers is far from reality: research has found that one in six adults in the UK regularly plays video games. If we include under-18s, there are currently 40 million gamers across the UK. Franchises such as “Call of Duty”, “FIFA” and “Assassin’s Creed” attract millions of players and have production values and graphics that earlier generations of gamers could barely dream of.
The UK can be proud of its video games industry, which is the largest in Europe. “Grand Theft Auto” and “Tomb Raider” are just two of the most significant examples to come out of the UK games creative industry. Some estimates suggest that the UK games market could reach £8 billion by 2027, which would be more than the UK film industry today.
That is why the previous Conservative Government took measures to support the video games industry and created the £13.4 million UK games fund, which supported the acceleration of growth in the UK games sector between 2022 and 2025. An independent 2025 review of the UK games fund estimated that overall,
“the current three-year iteration of the UKGF will generate in the range of £30m to £58m in productivity benefits for the UK economy due to salary uplifts for supported video game developers.”
The previous Government also set up the right economic environment to create the conditions for growth, including the announcement in the spring 2023 Budget that video games expenditure credit would be introduced from 1 January last year. VGEC is calculated directly from qualifying expenditure and has a credit rate of 34%, which provides a greater benefit than the earlier video games tax relief.
In my speech, I talked about the recent buy-out of EA. Part of the investment by the consortium is taking on large amounts of debt. Profitable games such as “FIFA” and other titles will now have to find money to service that debt. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that equity companies and capital buying up games might hinder the market?
The hon. Member makes a perfectly valid point with which I sympathise. It is certainly true that there are a number of different games providers and some are backed by large amounts of money and debt. We have to distinguish clearly between the variety of games providers out there; I will go on to say something about the smaller providers, but the principles that underlie this issue seem clear.
It is incumbent on games companies to make it absolutely clear to consumers when there is the possibility that their games may become unplayable after a period of years. I hope that the video games industry will be happy to accept that responsibility by using clear consumer messaging; I would certainly expect the two industry trade associations to ensure that that happens as a matter of course. As I noted, however, we must also bear in mind the cost to video game publishers of continuing the software; this could become an unfair burden, especially on games producers that are comparatively small, independent businesses, which are all already facing increased costs. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure the industry generally that she is battling for the interests of the creative industries as a consideration in the forthcoming Budget that the Chancellor is in the process of writing?
The Government also have responsibility for evaluating whether the protections in place for consumers are both effective and sufficient—we cannot simply assume that they are. Consumers are predominantly protected by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The CRA ensures that if software on sale is not supported by the provider, that should be made clear—on product webpages and on physical packaging and labelling, for example. Does the Minister believe that existing labelling and consumer information are sufficient? As I said, we cannot simply assume that because the law and regulations exist.
We have had recent experiences in other fields—Oasis tickets and Ticketmaster, for example—where the Competition and Markets Authority found that consumers were not given sufficient information. If the number of games being disabled or deactivated is increasing, perhaps it is time to consider whether the existing information is suitable. If digital content does not meet the CRA’s quality rights, the consumer is entitled to a repair or replacement or, if that is not possible, money back up to 100% of the cost of the digital content. Those rights apply to intangible digital content, such as a PC game, as well as tangible content, such as a physical copy of the game. Has the Minister made an assessment of how successful consumers are at seeking redress from video publishers?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing this important debate, everyone who signed the petition raising this important issue, and all the contributors to the debate. It has been really interesting and thought provoking to hear the different perspectives and experiences. Some of the figures shared during the debate really brought to life the importance of the sector. It contributes £7.6 billion and tens of thousands of jobs to the economy, and, as the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) mentioned, millions of gamers up and down the country enjoy gaming daily.
The Government recognise that gaming makes a huge economic contribution and that it is a cultural powerhouse, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) spoke about the wider benefits of gaming. I am aware of the “Power of Play” report, which gives an insight into the social purpose of gaming. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) spoke about the vital importance of our creative landscape, and I will address his points on ownership and consumer rights throughout my speech, but I will answer his questions with a simple yes—it is important that we have effective advice and information. I am delighted to be a champion for the creative industries. I am indeed standing in for the Minister of State. This is not my policy area, but it is an area shared between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Business and Trade.
At DCMS, we are very pleased to be championing video games across Government. The Government take their role in supporting video games, both as an industry and as an art form, very seriously. We are all aware of the economic power and potential for growth in the sector. That was highlighted in the creative industries sector plan and is why we have committed £30 million investment through our games growth package. Gaming’s place in culture is equally important, and that has really featured in the debate. For more than 40 years, video games have been entertaining audiences of all ages, and today, the vast majority of young people will grow up playing video games and making memories that they will carry with them throughout their lives. Video games, much like films and music, have become cultural touchstones.
I thank all Members who took part in the debate and all the petitioners. Were the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) present, I could have said that every part of the United Kingdom was represented in the Chamber today—but we nearly got there. That shows the benefits of the video game industry to our economy and to our culture.
I was heartened by the Minister’s closing remarks about action to put consumers back at the heart of the process. This is an evolving situation; the video game industry is changing on a daily basis. Ensuring that consumers are at the heart of how the video game industry works in future is a heartening step to hear about. As I said, this issue will not go away. I hope that the Minister and her Department will work closely with all Members who have spoken today to secure the best outcome, which we all want.
I hope that a game out there has the hon. Member for Strangford as a character.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 702074 relating to consumer law and videogames.
Sitting adjourned.
Members will agree that if publishers fail to make the lifespan of a game clear at the point of sale, they must be held accountable, which is why I welcome the strengthened consumer protections in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which came into force earlier this year. The legislation rightly requires traders to provide clear, timely and accurate information to consumers, including in respect of the longevity and functionality of digital products.
More broadly, my constituent Stewart Coombes raised an important cultural point. Video games are unique creative works that blend music, design, storytelling and interactivity in ways that no other medium can. They allow players to inhabit imagined worlds and engage with complex narratives.
The Stop Killing Games movement highlights the growing frustration among players who see their purchases vanish. It is clear that digital ownership must be respected, and that publishers should look to provide routes for players to retain or repair games even if the official service support for products ends. I welcome the Government’s willingness to monitor the issue, not least because current laws such as the Consumer Rights Act clearly do not offer adequate consumer protections against digital obsolescence. I ask the Minister to review statutory protections in digital ownership and protect gamers in Colchester and elsewhere.
What we are seeing with games is different. It is as if someone bought that printer, and then one day the manufacturer sent out a signal that deliberately stopped it from working at all, claiming it had reached the end of support. That is not support ending; it is obsolescence, which has an entirely different meaning.
Another example, which Ross gave me, is “LawBreakers” —a game that I imagine would have been popular with certain Members of the previous Parliament. It survived for a year before it was shut down in 2018. In the case of “Babylon’s Fall”, there were no refunds, despite the game being unplayable less than a year after launch. It may not have been the best game, but the principle still stands. It was made, sold and then pulled, with no refunds.
Just this summer, it was announced that “Anthem” will no longer be playable from January next year—only a few months away. As of December 2023, it had sold 5 million copies and made more than $100 million in digital revenue. An additional $3.5 million had been spent on in-game purchases. All that money is now gone. Meanwhile, other games, such as “Guild Wars”, have been running for more than 20 years and are still going strong. The point is clear, even though the industry is not. There is no standard, no transparency, and no certainty for consumers.
In response to the petition, the Government have said that they have
“no plans to amend…consumer law”.
Although I respect the Government’s position, I cannot help but observe that what is happening in this space could be perceived as a breach of consumer protection under unfair trading regulations. Those regulations prohibit traders from hiding information that consumers need in order to make an informed choice, yet when consumers buy a game today, they are almost never told how long it will remain functional. Consumers are sold a one-time purchase, but the publisher reserves the right to terminate it at any time for any reason.
My ask today is simple: I urge the Government to revisit this issue and meaningfully engage with the asks of the petition. It is not too late to change the law or issue guidance in some way on what should happen with games that go offline. If we fail to act, the future consequences for consumers, especially in the age of digital ownership, could be significant. This is about putting people first—a proud tradition of the Labour party, of which I am a proud member—and ensuring that consumer rights are protected not just today, but in the future. It is very clear that when consumers buy something, it should be theirs to keep, not just until the seller decides otherwise.
The UK already has strong consumer protections, which require that products, including digital products, are as described, that products are of satisfactory quality and that sellers must not omit material information. However, those protections are not well understood or well enforced, and they need to be kept under constant review as technology evolves so that consumers can exercise their rights.
We all understand that the ongoing support for titles that are no longer popular or have been superseded will eventually need to end, but to stop those that have been purchased being playable feels like the pages of a book that was once bought but is now out of print going blank after a period of time—sort of like writing in invisible ink—or the sound of a song that is no longer sold in record shops going silent.
There is an additional concern in relation to the creativity behind games—the creativity of the designers and coders for whom those games are their CV. Although control over the intellectual property has moved from designer to owner, creatives are concerned that content disappearing means not only that their work is being lost, but that it never existed in the first place.
Another issue to which my constituents have alerted me is the action of console operators in disabling their devices when counterfeit games are used, often innocently. Let us imagine that someone buys a second-hand game from a specialist retailer, charity shop or online marketplace only to find out that it is not genuine. They might expect the game to be disabled when they play it, and they would be within their rights to take that up with the seller, but the console companies are locking down the whole console so that it cannot be used for anything else. Unless they get permission from that console company, their games console, which might have cost them £500, is completely unplayable.
As we move to digital systems for music, games, literature, film and photos, it must be time to consider the risks to intellectual property in other sectors. The best way forward is not heavy-handed regulation but constructive dialogue between Government, players and developers to strengthen clarity for consumers, encourage responsible preservation and respect intellectual property. The goal needs to be a balance of protecting consumers and creators while sustaining an industry that contributes so much.
My constituent Philip said that he has an old gaming PC running Windows 7, which is now unsupported but still functioning. He asks what would happen if that issue was to extend to other types of software. As has just been mentioned, what would happen if future software companies decided to end support for something we use on a wider scale, whether in our companies or homes, or even in Government?
I ask the Minister not only to provide clarity for Members and our constituents, but to think about the issues of consumer protection, intellectual property, obsolescence and the classic David and Goliath battle so beautifully captured in the video game “DvG: Conquering Giants”. The individual must be buying something that they are buying.
Turning to the issue raised by the petition, the Stop Killing Games campaign did a tremendous job of raising awareness of video games publishers disabling, discontinuing or removing access to parts, or in some cases the entirety, of their games. Some Members in this Chamber have a favourite video game, some of which we have heard about, and they in particular will understand just how frustrating and disappointing it would be not to be able to play that game again. In a perfect world, everyone would have access to their favourite games forever, but this is not a perfect world.
We need to strike a balance between consumer interests and the burdens on some video games producers. We need to tread carefully, and in particular avoid introducing changes that would increase the cost to successful video games companies of supporting older games with a declining number of players. That money might otherwise be spent on developing newer, better games. However, we have heard anecdotal evidence today of games being withdrawn without obvious reason, despite seeming to generate considerable profits and have a considerable number of consumers.
Consumer protection rights, which the last Government put into primary legislation, prohibit commercial practices that omit or hide information that the average consumer needs to make an informed choice, and prohibits traders from providing material in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner. As with the CRA right to redress, does the Minister believe that the existing route—via Citizens Advice, trading standards, and, where appropriate, the CMA—is an appropriate avenue for consumers? Can the Minister update us on how many consumers have achieved compensation via those routes?
The Government have already confirmed that they have
“no plans to amend existing consumer law on disabling video games.”
That may be a proportionate approach on the basis of what we currently know. However, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 will give Ministers the power to add, amend or remove a description of a commercial practice that is, in all circumstances, considered unfair. Will the Minister be willing to use those powers in the case of video games, if the evidence suggests that the industry’s commercial practices fall short? Will the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that the disabling of games is monitored to determine whether it is increasing? Can she confirm that the CMA will look at the existing information requirements for consumers to identify whether it is adequate?
All said, the previous Government recognised the importance of the sector. I hope the Minister ensures that, while she considers whether more can be done to address this issue, any new measures do not stifle growth. Consumers must be protected, but we have a great UK video games sector. The Opposition want to see it go from strength to strength.
With that in mind, the Government recognise the strength of feeling behind the campaign that led to the debate. The petition attracted nearly 190,000 signatures. Similar campaigns, including a European Citizens’ Initiative, reached over a million signatures. There has been significant interest across the world. Indeed, this is a global conversation. The passion behind the campaign demonstrates that the core underlying principle is a valid one: gamers should have confidence in the right to access the games that they have paid to play.
At the same time, the Government also recognise the concerns from the video gaming industry about some of the campaign’s asks. Online video games are often dynamic, interactive services—not static products—and maintaining online services requires substantial investment over years or even decades. Games are more complex than ever before to develop and maintain, with the largest exceeding the budget of a modern Hollywood blockbuster. That can make it extremely challenging to implement plans for video games after formal support for them has ended and risks creating harmful unintended consequences for gamers, as well as for video game companies.
A number of Members have made points about ownership. It is important to note that games have always been licensed to consumers rather than sold outright. In the 1980s, tearing the wrapping on a box to a games cartridge was the way that gamers agreed to licensing terms. Today, that happens when we click “accept” when buying a game on a digital storefront. Licensing video games is not, as some have suggested, a new and unfair business practice.
However, the video game industry has changed a lot over recent decades in ways that directly impact the way that these licences are sold under law. First, video game development today is more complex, and it is done at a much greater scale than 40 years ago. Secondly, the format of video games has shifted from physical to digital. As a result, the approach to protecting intellectual property has changed, including the “always online” functionality—the most relevant to this debate—which requires games to maintain a constant connection to an online server. For gamers used to dusting off their Nintendo 64 to play “Mario Kart” whenever they like—or in my case, “Crash Bandicoot” on the PlayStation—without the need for an internet connection, that can be frustrating, but it is a legitimate practice that businesses are entitled to adopt, so it is essential that consumers understand what they are paying for. Existing legislation is clear that consumers are entitled to information that enables them to make informed purchasing decisions confidently.
Under existing UK legislation, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that digital content must be of satisfactory quality, fit for a particular purpose and described by the seller. It also requires that the terms and conditions applied by a trader to a product that they sell must not be unfair, and must be prominent and transparent. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 requires information to consumers to be clear and correct, and prohibits commercial practices that, through false or misleading information, cause the average consumer to make a different choice.
Points and questions about this issue were made by a number of Members, including the hon. Members for Dundee Central (Chris Law), for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). Points were made about consumer law and ownership. UK law is very clear: it requires information to consumers to be clear and correct. The Government are clear that the law works, but companies might need to communicate better. In response to a specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley, I should say that it is particularly important in cases where projects fail or games have to be pulled shortly after launch that the information provided to consumers is clear and timely.
Furthermore, I understand that campaigners argue that rather than just providing clear information, games should be able to be enjoyed offline after developer support has ended, either through an update or a patch, or by handing over service to the gaming community to enable continued online play—in other words, mandating the inclusion of end-of-life plans for always online video games. The Government are sympathetic to the concerns raised, but we also recognise the challenges of delivering such aims from the perspective of the video game industry.
First, such a change would have negative technical impacts on video game development. It is true that there are some games for which it would be relatively simple to patch an offline mode after its initial release. However, for games whose systems have been specifically designed for an online experience, this would not be possible without major redevelopment. Requiring an end-of-life plan for all games would fundamentally change how games are developed and distributed. Although that may well be the desired outcome for some campaigners, it is not right to say that the solutions would be simple or inexpensive, particularly for smaller studios. If they proved to be too risky or burdensome, they could discourage the innovation that is the beating heart of this art form.
Secondly, the approach carries commercial and legal risks. If an end-of-life plan involves handing online servers over to consumers, it is not clear who would be responsible for regulatory compliance or for payments to third parties that provide core services. It could also result in reputational harm for video game businesses that no longer officially support their games if illegal or harmful activity took place. The campaign is clear in its statement that it would not ask studios to pay to support games indefinitely. However, it is hard to see solutions to these issues that do not involve significant time, personnel and monetary investment.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly from the perspective of gamers, there are the safety and security impacts to consider. Under the Online Safety Act 2023, video game companies are responsible for controlling exposure to harmful content in their games. Removing official moderation from servers or enabling community-hosted servers increases the risk that users, including children, could be exposed to such content. Security threats could also be more likely if player data is no longer protected on official servers. Although the Government are, of course, supportive of businesses that are able to implement end-of-life plans voluntarily, we do not think that a blanket requirement is proportionate or in the interests of businesses or consumers. Our role is to ensure that those selling and purchasing games are clear about their obligations and protections under UK consumer law.
I will touch briefly on the subject of video game preservation, which is an important issue for the gaming community, and one that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk rightly spoke about. The Government recognise the cultural value of games and actively support initiatives that promote and support that, whether through cultural institutions such as the National Videogame Museum and London’s Science Museum, digital distribution platforms, or individual video game companies donating their games and hardware to preservation organisations.
We recognise that preserving games can be uniquely complex, in particular when they rely on specific hardware or software to function as intended. We welcome ongoing discussions between the industry, national museums, libraries and archives about developing standards for game preservation. We encourage video game developers and publishers to continue considering preservation efforts when developing, releasing and supporting their games.
In the Government response to the petition, we pledged to monitor the issue and to consider the relevant work of the Competition and Markets Authority on consumer rights and consumer detriment. We do not think that mandating end-of-life plans is proportionate or enforceable, but we recognise the concerns of gamers about whether information on what they are purchasing is always sufficiently clear. With that in mind, DCMS, as the lead Department for video game policy, and DBT, as the lead Department for consumer protection, have engaged the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. The institute maintains the Business Companion guide to businesses on complying with consumer law, including in relation to digital content. Following this debate, our two Departments will consider the case for asking the institute to develop guidance to help businesses to ensure that the information provided to video game consumers accurately reflects existing consumer protections.
It is vital to take into account the rights of consumers, while continuing to support the growth of our world-leading video game industry, with its benefits to the wider economy. I again thank all Members who spoke this afternoon, and everyone who signed and engaged with the petition to enable this debate to take place.