GOG Boss: Mandating Live-Service Preservation Could Cut New Games — Anthem’s End Sparks Debate

This caught my attention because Anthem’s shutdown is a raw reminder that modern games-especially live-service titles-are fragile by design. GOG’s Maciej Gołębiewski brings a pragmatic voice to a heated preservation debate that matters to players, creators and the industry’s future.

GOG’s Maciej Gołębiewski: Forcing “Forever Online” Would Hurt Game Creation

• Key takeaway 1: Anthem’s server shutdown has reignited the preservation debate, but online-only games pose unique legal and technical challenges.
• Key takeaway 2: GOG’s MD argues that rigid mandates requiring indefinite upkeep could raise costs and deter new projects.
• Key takeaway 3: A practical industry solution needs clear end-of-life standards, funding models, and technical options for preservation without crushing creators.
• Key takeaway 4: Players and devs should push for balanced rules that protect access while recognizing the economics of live services.

{{INFO_TABLE_START}}
Publisher|EA (BioWare)
Release Date|Shutdown: Jan 12 (as reported)
Category|Live-service multiplayer
Platform|PC / online
{{INFO_TABLE_END}}

Main analysis – why Gołębiewski’s caveat matters

When Maciej Gołębiewski told Eurogamer that we should be having a broad industry conversation about “what an end-of-life cycle looks like in games,” he was pointing at a tension that too often gets framed as simple good vs. bad. Preservation advocates are right to be frustrated: when a service shuts off, work and community are erased. But live-service games aren’t built like single-player titles that can be copied and archived; they rely on online systems, persistent servers, licences, and constantly updated backend code.

Gołębiewski’s central warning—well-intentioned regulation could shrink the creative pipeline—is grounded in economics. Mandating 10- or 20-year upkeep turns a finite production cost into an open-ended liability. Smaller studios and experimental projects could be the first casualties. That doesn’t justify letting games vanish without recourse, but it reframes the problem: preservation policy needs to be designed with incentives and supports, not just hard mandates.

Where policy and practice can meet

There are several practical approaches that would protect players and respect creators’ constraints. First, require clear end-of-life transparency: publish reasonable timelines and what will remain accessible (single-player portions, story archives, mods). Second, provide funded pathways for long-tail preservation—public archives, industry levies, or escrowed server images that can be hosted by third parties when publishers shut down services. Third, standardize technical handover formats to avoid vendor lock-in and make server emulation feasible where licensing allows.

None of these is free or trivial, but they avoid the blunt instrument of forcing indefinite commercial operation. Gołębiewski’s point—that heavy-handed rules could make investors and studios rethink whether a new live-service project is worth the risk—is worth taking seriously in policy discussions.

Context and precedent

Anthem’s shutdown (servers pulled as of Jan 12) and earlier delistings like The Crew have already pushed the industry into this conversation. Ubisoft’s CEO has been blunt—services can be discontinued—illustrating the publisher-side reality. Meanwhile, grassroots groups like Stop Killing Games have turned consumer frustration into political pressure. The debate isn’t just theoretical anymore; it’s shaping how publishers think about live services, long-term costs, and the company reputations at stake.

What this means for players

Players should expect clearer disclosures when buying live-service titles: how long will servers be supported, what parts of the experience survive, and what refund or transfer options exist. Advocate for preservation funds and transparent lifecycles, but also recognize that polished single-player ports, official offline modes, or community-driven emulation require investment and cooperation from rights-holders.

TL;DR

GOG’s Maciej Gołębiewski welcomes renewed preservation debate but warns that rigid laws forcing live services to run forever could make publishers and studios back away from creating new games. Anthem’s closure highlights the problem; the solution lies in balanced rules: transparency, preservation funding, and technical standards that protect players without killing innovation.

My takeaway: this conversation should be collaborative—not adversarial. Preservation matters, but so does a healthy pipeline of creative projects. Smart policy will protect both.