Gaming Industry Lobby Group Publicly Opposes California's Stop Killing Games Bill Again as Bill Moves to State Senate

Key Highlights

• The ESA has formally opposed California's Protect Our Games Act (AB 1921).

• The bill has cleared the State Assembly and is heading to the Senate.

• AB 1921 would require publishers to provide:

  • A playable version of the game, or

  • A patch enabling continued use, or

  • A refund when a game becomes inaccessible.

• ESA CEO Stan Pierre-Louis argues the legislation misunderstands the costs and infrastructure required to support online games indefinitely.

• The ESA says the bill could divert resources away from developing new games and features.

• The organization also argues that digital games are licensed products rather than permanently owned goods.

• ESA members include Microsoft, Sony, Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Capcom, and Epic Games.

• Stop Killing Games supporters reject the ESA's claims, arguing the bill does not require publishers to keep servers running forever.

• SKG organizer Moritz Katzner stated: "The bill does not require perpetual server support. It does not require live operations forever."

The Entertainment Software Association has once again come out against California's Assembly Bill 1921, the Protect Our Games Act, as the legislation clears the State Assembly and heads to the Senate for a vote.

The bill, if passed, would require game publishers to provide players with a functional version of a game, a working patch, or a full refund when online services for that title are shut down.

What Is the ESA Saying This Time?

The ESA, whose membership includes major publishers like Microsoft, Sony, Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Capcom, and Epic Games, published a formal statement under the headline "Misguided California bill would harm video game makers, players." The piece was written by ESA President and CEO Stan Pierre-Louis, and it pulls no punches.

"A proposed California law is threatening the modern gameplay experience by misunderstanding how online services work," Pierre-Louis wrote. "Under AB1921, when a game publisher decides to shut down a “server-connected” digital game, developers would be forced to choose between keeping it running indefinitely, rebuilding the game to work without technical support or providing a full refund to everyone — no matter how long ago they played or how much time they spent in that particular game."

"This bill shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about how games are built and maintained today," Pierre-Louis continued.

"Behind every online game is an enormous, invisible infrastructure. There are large teams working to uncover bugs, push product patches and update game content. Moderators enforce codes of conduct to facilitate positive experiences for players. And servers, designed to accommodate millions of players, must be maintained."

"When a game's popularity fades, that infrastructure continues to run, for a fraction of the audience, at nearly the same cost," the statement reads. The group also points to licensed content as a major sticking point, arguing that time-limited deals for music, likenesses, and branding make indefinite operation legally complicated.

Pierre-Louis went further, framing the bill as a direct threat to the creative and commercial future of gaming. "This proposal essentially keeps games alive long after their natural lifecycle, draining resources and energy from creating what comes next. Every dollar spent on outdated systems is a dollar not spent on building a new one."

He also drew a comparison to other tech industries. "We don't expect innovators to continue supporting their very first car model, their original smartphone or an outdated operating system software, but this bill suggests that online video games should last forever. This comes at great expense to the original creators and is in direct conflict with the basic principles of America’s longstanding copyright laws."

"This bill may sound consumer friendly, but it ultimately hurts both players and creators. Many games today are live, connected experiences that depend on online communities and evolving content. Not to mention, nearly two thirds of video game software companies in the U.S. operate with less than 10 employees."

"You cannot demand “forever” from video game developers without hampering their ability to create new games that provide the kinds of experiences players love and have come to expect," Pierre-Louis concluded.

Has the ESA said this before?

Yes. Back when AB 1921 was still being debated in the State Assembly, the ESA made similar statements, presenting much the same argument. It warned that the bill could force developers to divert limited time and resources to maintaining old systems instead of creating new games, features, and technologies. The ESA also challenged the bill's underlying premise at that time, stating that "the bill is based on a false premise: that consumers 'own' digital games with permanent access. That is not how software works. Games are licensed, not sold as unrestricted property."

The ESA has a history of opposing game preservation efforts. In 2024, the organization opposed a DMCA exemption that would have allowed libraries and museums to offer remote access to games. An ESA spokesperson stated at a US Copyright Office hearing that there was no combination of limitations its members would support for remote access, citing concerns about recreational use rather than research. The Copyright Office sided with the ESA in that case.

What Do the Bill's Supporters Say?

The bill's author, Assemblymember Chris Ward of San Diego, has consistently pushed back on the ESA's framing. Ward has argued that when California consumers pay a significant fee to purchase or register a digital game, they should be able to draw a line on what they can reasonably expect to receive.

The Stop Killing Games campaign, which publicly announced its support for the bill in April, has also addressed the ESA's objections head-on. SKG organizer Moritz Katzner has been particularly direct in calling out what he sees as "misrepresentation" of the bill's scope.

"AB 1921 is narrow. It applies to paid games going forward and gives companies options: preserve ordinary use, patch the game, or refund the purchaser," Katzner wrote earlier. He reiterated that position following the ESA's latest statement, writing on Reddit on June 10 that the newest criticism repeats a familiar claim.

"The newest claim is the same one again: AB 1921 / the Protect Our Games Act supposedly says online games should 'last forever,' or would force publishers to keep servers, infrastructure, and online services running indefinitely. That is false. Not 'we disagree on policy' false. Not 'there are complicated edge cases' false. Just false."

Katzner was firm about what the bill actually demands. "The bill does not require perpetual server support. It does not require live operations forever. It does not require matchmaking, moderation, cloud saves, anti-cheat, live events, customer support, or every online feature to stay online until the heat death of the universe. NO FOREVER!"

"The bill says that if a company sells a paid digital game, and ordinary use of that game depends on services the company controls, then the company needs an end-of-life plan when those services are shut down." That plan, he clarified, can take one of three forms: a playable version of the game, a patch or update that enables continued ordinary use, or a refund.

"Lobbying is straightforward: you have a lot of board members, so it is easier to oppose as hard as possible. We understand why you are doing the work and why you are trying to convince lawmakers of a mirage. But be mindful that this behavior damages trust in your member organizations’ reputations, and with it the community’s trust in them as providers of goods."

On the licensing argument, Katzner pointed directly to Forza Horizon 4, a game Microsoft pulled from sale due to licensing complications but which remains playable for those who own it.

"Why don’t we sit down together and work toward a serious, constructive solution? If it would help to clarify what is in the bill, we can schedule a call and walk through it together. We could also go to Mr. Ward’s office together if that would be helpful, hes is likely going to appreciate to be able to reslove this directly and publicly, instead of using opinion pieces," Katzner added.

What Does AB 1921 Actually Require?

The bill's provisions are fairly specific. Operators must give buyers 60 days' advance notice before shutting down services, including in-game notifications and announcements on their official website. That notice must include the exact shutdown date, a complete list of services and features that will stop, any known security risks arising from the service closure, and clear information on how a player can continue using the game or obtain a refund.

On the day services end, operators must provide at least one of the following: a fully offline-functional version of the game, a patch enabling independent operation, or a full refund at the original purchase price. After services have ended, publishers are also prohibited from continuing to sell any version of the game that still requires their servers to function.

The bill does carve out important exceptions. Subscription services are exempt. Free-to-play titles are excluded. Games permanently made available for offline download at the time of purchase are also not covered. The bill applies specifically to digital games first sold or substantially re-released in California after January 1, 2027, and would be enforced by the California Attorney General or district attorneys.

What Happens Next for the Bill?

With the Assembly vote cleared, AB 1921 now moves to the California State Senate, where it needs a minimum of 21 votes to pass. From there, the bill would go to the Governor, who would have 12 days to sign it into law, let it pass without a signature, or veto it.

Ward and SKG organizers have specifically called on gamers, not just industry representatives, to make their voices heard during this stage. California residents can find their State Senator at findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov and submit their support for the bill directly.

The bill has a long road ahead, but clearing the Assembly is a meaningful step.

Meanwhile, a broader debate is playing out on the other side of the Atlantic. The European Commission is set to respond to the Stop Killing Games European Citizens Initiative (ECI), signed by nearly 1.3 million people, on June 16. A group of 45 Members of the European Parliament recently sent a direct letter to the Commission urging action on the petition. Those MEPs also referenced developments in California, arguing that the EU should not lag behind on consumer protections in the digital market but instead take the lead.