The government has given a key update in response to a massive campaign to stop publishers 'killing' games which have been sold. A huge petition on the Parliament website was backed by 190,000 people and said that it was not fair on consumers that a few years after being bought a game should stop working because the publisher no longer supports it.

The massive response meant that the issue was this week debated in Parliament, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been forced to give an update on what is being done, with many MPs speaking out over the issue. The petition said: "The government should update consumer law to prohibit publishers from disabling video games (and related game assets / features) they have already sold without recourse for customers to retain or repair them. We seek this as a statutory consumer right.

"Most video games sold can work indefinitely, but some have design elements that render the product non-functional at a time which the publisher controls, with no date provided at sale. We see this as a form of planned obsolescence, as customers can be deprived of their purchase and cannot retain or repair the game. We think this practice is hostile to consumers, entirely preventable, and have concerns existing laws do not address the problem. Thus, we believe government intervention is needed."

Labour MP Ben Goldsborough told the debate: "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."

Labour MP Warinder Juss said: "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?"

Yasmin Qureshi of Labour added: "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."

Henry Tufnell said: "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."

And Mark Seward added: "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." He said the practice of opting to stop players from playing certain games could be unfair, as owners were not clearly told it could be the case when they bought the game.

Tory Joe Robertson said that in their response to the petition, the DfCMS had indicated that it has "'no plans to amend existing consumer law on disabling video games' but he suggested that 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'.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Stephanie Peacock said that there were plans in motion to involve trading standards in the issue, but added it did not want to impose conditions which could 'damage' the video games industry which contributes £7.6 billion and tens of thousands of jobs to the economy. She added that handing over operating games to third parties, as suggested by some, after the publisher no longer wants to keep the game running, could lead to serious online safety issues.

She said: "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."