Stop Killing Games Responds to Celia Pontin Claim

Stop Killing Games has hit back hard at a recent comment by Celia Pontin, a video-game policy expert working for Flux Digital Policy, after she suggested the campaign’s demands had little chance of success because meeting players’ requests would be “too complicated.” The campaign organizers say the argument is being used to avoid a real discussion, and they dispute Pontin’s claims on both legal and practical grounds.

Quick facts

Stop Killing Games responds to “too complicated” claim

The campaign says its proposals do not violate intellectual property rights.
They argue the European Commission reached the same conclusion after reviewing the issue.
Stop Killing Games questions Pontin’s objectivity, citing her professional ties to major industry companies.
They say the podcast where Pontin spoke is sponsored by Sony and that the host openly supports big gaming firms.
Organizers criticize the lack of specific reasons explaining why the demands would be “complicated.”

In their response, the campaign directly challenges the idea that players’ requests would be legally impossible or structurally unworkable. Stop Killing Games insists that, contrary to Pontin’s remarks, their demands do not infringe intellectual property rights—pointing to an assessment made by the European Commission during its review of the matter.

The group also argues that Pontin should not be treated as a fully neutral expert. They highlight her professional connections to major companies in the gaming industry and add that the podcast episode in question was sponsored by Sony. Stop Killing Games further claims the podcast host has explicitly voiced support for the biggest gaming businesses, and says audiences should be aware of those relationships when evaluating the statements.

“Too complicated” criticized as a debate-stopper

Beyond the legal dispute, Stop Killing Games takes issue with the reasoning style behind the “complicated” claim. The organizers say Pontin did not provide detailed explanations for why fulfilling players’ demands would be difficult, calling the phrase a common tactic used to dodge substantive debate.

They also accuse the campaign’s opponents of failing to engage directly with the gaming community. Stop Killing Games alleges that instead of holding open, community-facing dialogue, interested parties meet with regulators such as the European Commission and attend invitation-only events, while publishing misleading articles—without speaking directly to players.

For the campaign, the core complaint is a mismatch between how they believe public discussion should work and how it is said to be playing out in practice. They frame their push as an attempt to open a public conversation about the industry, and argue that the current approach relies too heavily on vague barriers rather than answering clear questions.