What Happens To Multiplayer Games When Servers Go Dark

GOG has spent years bringing old games back from technical obscurity. I have played many of those releases, cleaned up and adjusted to run on modern systems without extra layers or restrictions. That work built its reputation. Now GOG is facing a different problem. The shutdown of Anthem’s servers has renewed debate over whether multiplayer games can, or should, be preserved once their infrastructure is removed. The discussion has moved beyond nostalgia and into policy, cost, and ownership, and GOG has placed itself at the center of it.

Anthem went offline this week after EA switched off its servers. Without those servers, the game cannot be accessed at all. Years of development and years of player time effectively disappeared. I saw the reaction ripple across forums and preservation circles, not because Anthem is widely loved, but because its disappearance was absolute. There is no offline mode, no private access, and no supported way to revisit it.

GOG’s managing director, Maciej Gołębiewski, addressed this directly when asked whether a company known for restoring games could ever bring something like Anthem back. His answer avoided simple solutions and focused on structural barriers.

“Game preservation is a very complicated riddle. I'll just skim through the top-level riddles. There's the IP and ownership riddle, there is the technical aspect of it, and there's the third riddle of how to make the resurrection commercially viable, because no one can do it for goodwill because this is not how salaries are being paid.”— Maciej Gołębiewski

That framing matters. GOG’s catalog has mostly involved single-player or locally playable titles where the original code can be adapted without running live services. Multiplayer games built entirely around server-side systems present a different challenge. Even if the code exists, it may depend on infrastructure that was never designed to be handed to players or third parties.

“Resurrecting and bringing back multiplayer titles is something that's very complex, something that's very difficult, but it's very visibly becoming a matter of discussion among gamers, among regulators and publishers as well.”— Maciej Gołębiewski

The timing of this conversation is not accidental. Consumer-led campaigns such as Stop Killing Games and Stop Destroying Games have pushed the issue into regulatory spaces. Ubisoft’s decision to shut down The Crew is widely cited as the moment that galvanized the movement. The argument is not about forcing publishers to support games forever, but about preventing complete erasure once support ends.

Gołębiewski framed the question in terms of balance rather than obligation.

“There is a broader discussion to be had within the industry of what does an end-of-life cycle look like in games – what is a fair end-of-life cycle for a game?”— Maciej Gołębiewski

He pointed out the creative cost of permanent shutdowns. Developers who spent years building a game may lose any ability to access their own work. Players who invested time and money lose access entirely. At the same time, he warned against rigid rules that could discourage new projects.

“If we put too many barriers on game creators and what the end-of-life cycle looks like, we might get fewer games.”— Maciej Gołębiewski

This tension runs through every attempt at regulation. Mandating long-term upkeep requires funding. Funding requires revenue. Anthem was shut down because it no longer justified server costs. Any restoration effort would face the same economics. GOG would need to absorb ongoing expenses or charge players for access to a game that failed to sustain an audience the first time.

Some recent games have tested partial solutions. Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League added an offline mode after active development ended. Online co-op remains, but the game no longer depends entirely on live service infrastructure. Anthem, by contrast, was designed as a purely multiplayer experience. Without servers, there is no game.

One theoretical option is private servers hosted by players. Reports suggest Anthem supported this internally near launch. Making that option public would require EA to release or license server code, something publishers have historically avoided. Intellectual property concerns, security risks, and brand control all stand in the way.

From GOG’s perspective, the problem is not technical curiosity but scope. Its business was built on restoring titles that had already proven cultural value and long-term demand. Anthem does not fit that profile. Gołębiewski acknowledged this indirectly by questioning why a preservation service would take on a game few consider a classic. The broader issue, however, remains unresolved. Live service games are now a major part of the industry, and their disappearance leaves gaps in the historical record.

This debate arrives as GOG itself enters a period of transition. The company recently separated from CD Projekt, allowing it to operate independently after years under the same corporate umbrella. That change has been framed internally as an opportunity rather than a rupture. GOG will continue to focus on DRM-free releases and restoration, but its leadership has signaled interest in expanding into publishing independent games.

That shift has fueled discussion about GOG as a publisher, not just a storefront or archive. Publishing brings different responsibilities, including long-term access decisions that mirror the very issues raised by Anthem’s shutdown. The company is no longer only commenting on preservation from the outside.

The separation has also been described as part of GOG's new era, one defined by clearer priorities and fewer competing internal demands. CD Projekt can concentrate on making large-scale games. GOG can focus on distribution, preservation, and selective publishing without being tied to blockbuster development cycles.

Public attention has also returned to GOG’s founders during this moment. Discussions around platform independence often reference long-standing positions, including Michał Kiciński critics windows because “it's really poor OS”, a view that aligns with GOG’s emphasis on alternative access models and reduced reliance on closed ecosystems. These statements predate the current debate but inform how GOG frames control, ownership, and longevity in software.

Industry observers have noted Michał Kiciński secures full ownership of GOG as a defining factor in its independence. Full control simplifies strategic decisions but also concentrates responsibility. If GOG pushes for stronger preservation standards, it will do so under its own name and risk profile.

None of this produces an immediate answer to what should happen when multiplayer games reach the end of their lives. Gołębiewski admitted as much.

“I don't have the perfect answer yet, but it's good that the discussion is taking place.”— Maciej Gołębiewski

That may be the most concrete outcome so far. Anthem’s disappearance has forced a practical question into public view. GOG has acknowledged the limits of its current model while engaging with the debate rather than deflecting it. Whether that leads to new preservation methods, regulatory frameworks, or simply clearer expectations for players remains open. What is clear is that live service games have changed what preservation means, and companies like GOG can no longer avoid that reality.