The games industry’s self-induced traumatic brain injury – Cory Doctorow – Medium

Report on the Impermanence of Digital Media and its Conflict with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

The prevailing business practice within the video game industry involves the deliberate discontinuation of games, rendering them inaccessible to consumers who have purchased them. This phenomenon, termed “killing games,” creates a state of perpetual cultural amnesia that directly conflicts with several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This report analyzes the issue through the lens of sustainable development, focusing on the preservation of cultural heritage, responsible production and consumption, and the need for just institutional frameworks.

The Challenge to Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Communities (SDG 11)

The practice of rendering digital games obsolete poses a direct threat to the protection and safeguarding of the world’s cultural heritage, a core target of SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

The Technological and Corporate Paradox

Digital media presents a paradox where technological advancements in storage and emulation, which should ensure permanence, are actively undermined by corporate strategies.

• Technological Capability: Advances in data storage and emulation technologies have made the long-term preservation of digital artifacts more feasible and affordable than ever.
• Corporate Obstruction: Game publishers frequently employ measures that counteract these capabilities, including:
  1. Aggressive implementation of Digital Rights Management (DRM) that prevents games from running without server authentication.
  2. Decommissioning online servers essential for gameplay, effectively disabling the product.
  3. Legal action against fan-led preservation efforts and emulation projects.

Erosion of Cultural Heritage

Video games represent a significant and influential art form of the 21st century. Allowing them to be systematically erased is equivalent to destroying other forms of cultural expression. This practice undermines SDG Target 11.4, which calls for strengthening efforts to protect cultural heritage. The industry’s focus on new platforms and titles creates “little cultural apocalypses,” erasing history and preventing future generations from studying, enjoying, and learning from these important cultural works.

Conflict with Sustainable Economic and Industrial Models

The “killing games” model is fundamentally at odds with the principles of sustainable economic growth, responsible consumption, and resilient innovation as outlined in SDGs 8, 9, and 12.

Irresponsible Consumption and Production Patterns (SDG 12)

The business model of selling a product and later revoking access is an irresponsible production pattern. It promotes a disposable digital culture, undermining the principles of product longevity and consumer rights central to SDG 12. This approach treats cultural products not as lasting assets but as transient services, creating digital waste and fostering unsustainable consumer expectations.

Barriers to Innovation and Infrastructure (SDG 9)

By actively working to make older products incompatible with new systems and legally challenging preservation technologies, the industry stifles innovation. This approach contradicts the aims of SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), which seeks to build resilient infrastructure and foster inclusive and sustainable industrialization. A sustainable digital ecosystem would support interoperability and the preservation of past works, not create barriers to them.

Implications for Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG 8)

The erasure of games devalues the creative labor of developers, artists, and writers whose work is made inaccessible. A sustainable economic model, in line with SDG 8, should promote long-term value creation and respect for creative work, rather than a cycle of planned obsolescence that dismisses past contributions.

Pathways Toward a Sustainable Digital Future

Addressing this challenge requires a multi-faceted approach centered on education, justice, and the development of strong institutions.

Advocacy for Justice and Strong Institutions (SDG 16)

Consumer-led movements like “Stop Killing Games” are critical for achieving SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). These initiatives advocate for robust legal and regulatory frameworks to protect consumers and cultural heritage.

• Legislative Action: The proposal to integrate game preservation rights into the EU’s “Digital Fairness” Act is a key tactical goal. Such legislation would create a more just and accountable system, ensuring that consumers are not unfairly deprived of products they have purchased.
• Institutional Responsibility: Stronger regulations are needed to hold corporations accountable for the long-term viability of their products, aligning industry practices with public interest and cultural preservation mandates.

Preservation for Quality Education (SDG 4)

The preservation of video games is essential for future research and education, aligning with SDG 4 (Quality Education). An accessible archive of games allows for the study of digital art, narrative development, and technological history. Erasing this history deprives future students, researchers, and artists of invaluable educational resources.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on video game preservation connects to several Sustainable Development Goals by highlighting the importance of safeguarding digital cultural heritage, promoting fair consumer practices, and ensuring long-term access to information and technology.

1. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   This goal is relevant because it includes the protection of cultural heritage. The article’s central theme is the preservation of video games, which are a significant part of modern digital culture. The author describes the loss of games when platforms vanish as “little cultural apocalypses,” directly framing the issue as a loss of cultural heritage that SDG 11 aims to prevent.

2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

   This goal is addressed through the discussion of legal and institutional frameworks needed to protect consumer rights and cultural works. The article mentions the “Stop Killing Games” consumer movement and its effort to influence legislation like the EU “Digital Fairness” Act. This reflects the goal of building effective, accountable, and transparent institutions that ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, such as the right to access and use purchased media.

3. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

   The article discusses the technological infrastructure required for digital preservation. It mentions the evolution of storage media, the development of emulators (like MAME), and API reimplementations (like WINE) that make older games accessible on modern hardware. This relates to building resilient and sustainable infrastructure and promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialization by ensuring that technological history is not lost.

4. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   This goal is connected through the critique of the games industry’s business practices. The article describes publishers “killing games” by shutting down servers or using “Digital Rights Management” (DRM) to make them inaccessible. This practice is an example of an irresponsible production model where consumers purchase a product that is later taken away. The push for preservation is also a push for more responsible and sustainable corporate behavior and consumer rights.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

• Target 11.4: Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage.

  This is the most direct target. The entire article is a call to action to safeguard the cultural heritage embodied in video games. The author laments that the “ground is crumbling under your feet” for game developers and that the industry is “erasing its own past.” Efforts like the Internet Archive, Good Old Games, and the “Stop Killing Games” movement are presented as attempts to achieve this target in the digital realm.

• Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.

  This target is relevant to the fight against corporate practices that restrict access to legally purchased games. The article highlights how DRM and server shutdowns prevent players from accessing their games, thus limiting their fundamental freedoms as consumers. The proposed EU “Digital Fairness” Act is cited as a legislative tool to ensure this public access and protect consumer rights, aligning directly with the goal of creating strong legal frameworks.

• Target 9.c: Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in least developed countries.

  While the article doesn’t focus on developing countries, the first part of this target—increasing access to ICT—is highly relevant. The development and use of emulators and other preservation technologies, as described in the article, are practical methods for increasing and maintaining access to a significant part of our technological and cultural history, ensuring that older digital works remain usable.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article implies several indicators that could be used to measure progress:

• Indicator for Target 11.4: The number and percentage of historically significant video games preserved and accessible to the public.

  The article doesn’t provide a specific number but implies this metric through its discussion of both success and failure. The work of the Internet Archive, which “holds more than a trillion pages,” and companies like Good Old Games that “licensing and reviving the games people love” represent positive progress. Conversely, the “endless series of ‘little cultural apocalypses'” where games are lost represents a negative trend against this indicator.

• Indicator for Target 16.10: The existence and enforcement of national and international legislation protecting consumer rights for digital goods and supporting cultural preservation.

  The article explicitly points to the EU “Digital Fairness” Act as a potential policy that would serve as a key indicator of progress. The success of the “Stop Killing Games” movement in getting “games preservation built into” this act would be a measurable outcome. The prevalence of restrictive DRM and the frequency of publishers “killing” games would be negative indicators showing a lack of progress.

• Indicator for Target 9.c: The availability and advancement of technologies that enable access to obsolete digital formats.

  The article mentions specific technologies that serve as indicators of progress in this area. It states that “Between emulators (MAME) and API reimplementations (WINE), a gigantic amount of gaming history has been brought back and preserved.” The continued development, maintenance, and legal protection of such tools would be a clear indicator of progress toward ensuring long-term access to our digital heritage.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: doctorow.medium.com