Anthem's End: What the Sunsetting of Live Service Games Means for Players and Preservation

Electronic Arts and BioWare have announced the impending shutdown of their online multiplayer game, Anthem. Effective January 12, 2026, the game will become obsolete as its servers go offline. BioWare confirmed this in their announcement, stating, “Anthem was designed to be an online-only title so once the servers go offline, the game will no longer be playable.” This move follows the game's removal from EA Play's playlist on August 15, 2025. While players can no longer purchase in-game currency, they have until the server shutdown date to spend any existing balance. Importantly, BioWare has stated that developers working on Anthem will not face layoffs as a direct result of the game's conclusion.

The news of Anthem's sunsetting arrives during a period of significant change and challenge within the video game industry, which has already seen widespread layoffs and project cancellations. It also intensifies a growing debate among players and consumer groups regarding the necessity of “end of life” plans for live service games. This debate centers on the fundamental question of what happens to a digital product, often purchased with the expectation of ongoing access, when its required infrastructure is permanently removed by the publisher.

The Troubled Flight of Anthem

Anthem's journey from conception to its announced end has been fraught with difficulties. Its development spanned nearly seven years, marked by significant internal struggles and redirections. When it finally launched in 2019, it was met with a largely negative reception from critics. Reviews frequently highlighted its uneven execution, numerous bugs, and repetitive gameplay loops. Despite its ambitious premise and impressive visual design, the core experience was often described as tedious and lacking depth.

In response to the critical and commercial disappointment, BioWare and EA initially planned a substantial overhaul of the game, internally referred to as Anthem Next. This ambitious project aimed to address the core criticisms and rebuild the game into a more compelling experience. However, in 2021, BioWare announced the cancellation of the Anthem Next project. The studio cited challenges exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic as a factor in their decision, stating a need to shift focus to other ongoing projects, including the next installments in the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series. Despite the cancellation of the planned overhaul, the live service for Anthem continued to operate, albeit with minimal new content or significant updates.

Player Investment and the Call for Preservation

The decision to shut down Anthem's servers has sparked frustration among its remaining player base. On platforms like EA's official forums, players are voicing their disappointment and advocating for alternative solutions, particularly an “offline mode.” Such a mode would theoretically allow players to access at least some portion of the game's content, perhaps the single-player story elements or free-roam exploration, without needing a connection to EA's servers. The sentiment is clear: players feel that having purchased a game, they should retain the ability to play it, regardless of the publisher's decision to cease support.

One player articulated this frustration, writing, “To shut down and completely remove a game people have put money into (especially without refunds) is a worrying and dangerous precedent. If you bought a game you should be able to play it.” Another highlighted the broader implications for the industry: “letting games like Anthem disappear completely also sends a dangerous message: that live-service games are disposable, no matter how much time or money players invested.” This investment isn't just financial; it includes the time spent playing, progressing characters, collecting gear, and engaging with the game's world and community. For many, the prospect of this investment simply vanishing is unacceptable.

The issue of games disappearing is not new. Titles can become inaccessible for various reasons, including licensing issues, the loss of original source code, or the decay and obsolescence of physical media and the hardware required to play them. However, the case of online-only live service games like Anthem presents a distinct problem: the game is rendered unplayable not due to external factors or physical degradation, but by a deliberate decision from the publisher to remove the essential online infrastructure.

Stop Killing Games: A Movement for Digital Longevity

This specific form of digital obsolescence is the primary target of the consumer movement known as Stop Killing Games (SKG). Originating in the European Union, SKG argues that the practice of selling games “effectively as goods—with no stated expiration date—but designed to be completely unplayable as soon as support from the publisher ends” is detrimental to consumers and actively hinders game preservation. The campaign's website asserts that this practice “is not only detrimental to customers but makes preservation effectively impossible.”

While Stop Killing Games will not be able to prevent Anthem's shutdown in early 2026 due to the timeline of their advocacy efforts, founder Ross Scott sees the situation as a prime example of the problem they are trying to solve. He states that Anthem's sunsetting is “exactly the sort we're trying to prevent,” with the ultimate goal being to “break the cycle so this doesn't keep happening for future games.”

For Scott and other proponents of SKG, the destruction of a video game through server shutdown is viewed as a significant cultural loss. They draw parallels to the destruction of other forms of media, such as books, albums, or films. While acknowledging that video games may be a less recognized medium in some cultural contexts, they argue that games “still deserve to have basic protections against the complete and willful destruction of many of its works.” The core demand of the movement is for companies to implement backup plans or alternative access methods that would allow games to remain playable even after official server support ends.

Scott points to Anthem specifically, noting that despite its negative reviews, it represents a substantial investment in production value and has a segment of players who still wish to engage with it. The fact that he, as someone interested in game preservation, will now never have the opportunity to play it highlights the finality and cultural impact of such shutdowns.

The Technical and Commercial Realities

Implementing solutions like offline modes or enabling private servers is, however, easier said than done. Video games, particularly modern online titles, are incredibly complex pieces of software. They are dynamic, constantly updated, and often rely heavily on server-side processing for everything from player movement synchronization to complex calculations and content delivery. Unlike static media, games are interactive and evolve over time, making preservation a unique challenge.

Online games are particularly tricky because their core functionality is tied to the publisher's server infrastructure. However, SKG points to historical examples where multiplayer online games have survived the shutdown of official company servers through the efforts of dedicated player communities who reverse-engineer the network protocols and host private servers. This demonstrates that, in some cases, technical solutions for continued play are possible, even if complex and legally ambiguous.

Stop Killing Games launched in 2024 and has pursued its goals through public awareness campaigns and political petitions. A significant milestone was reached with a petition aimed at the UK government, which garnered over 1 million signatures. Petitions reaching this threshold are typically considered for debate in Parliament, signaling a potential for government intervention or regulatory discussion, although Parliament has yet to formally respond to the SKG petition.

The movement also hoped to influence the European Commission to introduce consumer protection legislation specifically addressing game preservation and access after server shutdowns. This advocacy prompted a direct response from Video Games Europe (VGE), an organization representing the video game industry in the region.

The Industry's Perspective: Commercial Viability vs. Preservation

Video Games Europe's statement provided insight into the industry's perspective on server shutdowns and the demands of movements like SKG. VGE stated that “the decision to discontinue online services is multi-faceted, never taken lightly, and must be an option for companies when an online experience is no longer commercially viable.” This highlights the economic reality for publishers: maintaining servers and supporting online infrastructure for games with dwindling player bases incurs ongoing costs that may eventually outweigh any remaining revenue or strategic value.

VGE also raised concerns about the feasibility and potential risks associated with forcing companies to enable offline modes or private server options. They claimed that moving games to private servers could leave players’ data vulnerable and hinder companies' ability to “combat unsafe community content” or remove illegal content. The centralized control offered by official servers allows publishers to moderate player behavior and content, a capability that would be lost or complicated in a decentralized private server model.

Furthermore, VGE argued that “many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.” This point underscores the technical debt and development cost that would be involved in retrofitting an online-only game with a robust offline mode or designing future games with such requirements from the outset. The industry suggests that mandating these features could stifle innovation and make certain types of online-focused experiences economically unviable to develop.

The cost of developing and purchasing video games has reached unprecedented levels. Live service games, in particular, are often marketed and sold on the promise of continuous updates, evolving content, and long-term support. Players invest in these games with the expectation of a persistent, dynamic experience that will last for years. The tension arises when the commercial reality for the publisher dictates the end of that support, potentially rendering the player's investment worthless in terms of future playability.

Ross Scott of SKG commented on VGE's response, noting, “I do commend [Video Games Europe’s] honesty on how they view customers playing old games as an industry problem because they see that as competing with new ones.” This perspective suggests that from a business standpoint, publishers may see little incentive, and potentially a disincentive, in facilitating continued access to older titles that might divert players' time and money away from newer releases. Scott concludes, “We're obviously opposed to those views and feel customers should enjoy whatever it is they paid for.”

Beyond Live Services: Broader Preservation Challenges

While the focus on live service games is critical due to the direct link between server status and playability, it's important to remember that video game preservation faces numerous challenges across the medium. The article mentions other reasons games disappear, such as licensing issues that prevent digital storefronts from selling titles or require them to be delisted (as seen with games like Spec Ops: The Line, which disappeared from digital stores due to expiring licenses). The physical decay of older media formats, like cartridges or optical discs, and the increasing difficulty of maintaining or emulating original hardware also pose significant hurdles for accessing classic games.

Furthermore, the complexity of modern game development means that source code can be lost or become dependent on proprietary tools and middleware that are no longer supported or available. Without the original code and development environment, porting or even understanding how a game functions can be incredibly difficult, if not impossible.

The live service model exacerbates these issues by introducing a single point of failure: the server infrastructure controlled by the publisher. When that infrastructure is removed, the game ceases to exist in a playable form for the vast majority of players, regardless of whether they own a physical or digital copy.

Finding a Path Forward

The debate between consumer rights advocates like Stop Killing Games and industry representatives like Video Games Europe highlights a fundamental conflict in the digital age: the nature of ownership versus licensing, and the balance between a company's commercial interests and the cultural value and consumer expectations surrounding digital products. As live service games continue to be a dominant model in the industry, the question of their longevity and accessibility after official support ends will only become more pressing.

Potential solutions could involve various approaches, each with its own technical, legal, and economic complexities:

• **Mandatory Offline Modes:** Requiring developers to include a functional offline mode for single-player or core content, even if multiplayer features are lost. This would need to be considered early in development.
• **Source Code Escrow:** Publishers could be required to place game source code and necessary tools in escrow, to be released to a trusted preservation body or the public domain if servers are shut down.
• **Facilitating Private Servers:** Publishers could release server software or documentation to allow communities to host games themselves, potentially under specific terms to address concerns about moderation and data security.
• **Legal or Regulatory Frameworks:** Governments could introduce legislation defining consumer rights regarding digital game access and preservation, potentially mandating certain end-of-life provisions.
• **Industry-Led Initiatives:** Publishers could voluntarily establish standards or collaborative efforts for preserving games, perhaps through partnerships with museums or archives.

Each of these options presents challenges. Mandatory features could increase development costs. Releasing source code raises intellectual property concerns. Private servers require technical expertise from communities and raise moderation issues. Legislation can be slow and difficult to craft effectively for rapidly evolving technology. Voluntary initiatives depend on corporate willingness and may not cover all titles.

The case of Anthem serves as a stark reminder of the ephemeral nature of online-only games. As the January 2026 shutdown date approaches, players who invested time and money into the game face the reality of losing access permanently. The efforts of groups like Stop Killing Games represent a growing demand from consumers for greater transparency, longevity, and preservation strategies for the digital media they purchase.

The future of live service games and their place in cultural history hinges on finding a balance between the commercial models that fund their creation and the legitimate desire of players and archivists to ensure these experiences are not simply erased when they are no longer profitable to maintain. The debate sparked by games like Anthem is crucial for shaping expectations and potentially influencing policy regarding the digital artifacts of our time.