Stop Killing Games Plans US Expansion With New State Bills and Federal Push After California Setback

The Stop Killing Games campaign is not slowing down, even after its first big legislative push in California hit a wall.

Organizers behind the movement have confirmed plans to bring similar consumer protection bills to other US states, and they are also eyeing federal-level legislation. This comes right after a tough Senate committee vote in California that stalled the Protect Our Games Act for now.

According to the campaigners, this fight was never meant to stay confined to one state. "We are not limiting this to California. We intend to introduce versions of this in other state legislatures, and we are seriously looking at the federal level," a campaigner wrote, responding directly to the recent Senate committee vote and the ESA's comments on community servers.

So how did this all start?

Stop Killing Games began back in 2024. YouTuber Ross Scott, known for his Accursed Farms channel, kicked things off after Ubisoft shut down the servers for The Crew. That game was released in 2014 and was mostly a single-player racing title, but it still needed a constant online connection just to run. Once the servers went dark in April 2024, the game became completely unplayable. Didn't matter if you bought it years ago at full price; it just stopped working.

Scott turned this into a bigger conversation about consumer rights. His argument is simple. Publishers sell games as products, but they still hold the power to kill them remotely by pulling server support. Often, there's no offline mode, no way to host your own servers, nothing. SKG isn't asking publishers to support games forever or give up their copyrights. They just want basic end-of-life options like offline patches, private server tools, or refunds.

What happened in Europe first?

The movement actually launched in Europe before crossing over to the US. The European Citizens Initiative gave campaigners a real shot, since gathering one million verified signatures across member states forces the European Commission to at least consider the issue formally. The "Stop Destroying Videogames" initiative ended up pulling in around 1.29 million signatures, well past the threshold.

Despite that strong showing and public hearings, the European Commission rejected binding legislation in June 2026. Their reasoning pointed to existing consumer laws, intellectual property worries, security concerns, and the cost burden on developers. It was disappointing news for supporters, though not entirely shocking. SKG had backup plans ready, including pushing amendments through the ongoing Digital Fairness Act and setting up an official NGO in the EU for continued advocacy work.

Why did SKG turn to the US next?

By late 2025 and early 2026, SKG had built an American NGO presence, allowing for more organized lobbying with state lawmakers. California made sense as a starting point. The state has a long history of strong consumer protection laws, and policies there tend to ripple out nationally.

That led to Assemblymember Chris Ward introducing AB 1921, also called the Protect Our Games Act, back in February 2026. SKG helped with drafting advice.

The proposed legislation focused on paid "digital" games sold or re-released on or after January 1, 2028. Free-to-play titles and subscription-based services were excluded.

Under the proposal, publishers would have been required to give players at least 60 days' notice before shutting down services needed for a game's ordinary use. Companies would then need to provide an offline playable version, release a functional patch, or offer full refunds.

What went wrong in the Senate?

The bill actually did well early on. It passed through several Assembly committees and cleared the full Assembly with a 43-16 vote in late May 2026, a genuinely big win for the movement. But things slowed down in the Senate. On June 29, 2026, the committee vote landed at 4-3 in favor, with a few abstentions, which wasn't enough to move forward.

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) opposed the bill from the start, arguing that full refunds would be unfair to publishers since many players enjoy games for years, sometimes over a decade, before shutdown, making refunds ignore the value already received. One remark that drew significant criticism was the claim that community-run servers for games like Minecraft are “illegal” and “piracy.”

Supporters strongly rejected these arguments and saw the abstentions as a missed opportunity. Still, the bill got reconsideration, so it isn't dead yet.

What comes next for the movement?

SKG isn't backing down. Plans are already in motion to bring back a stronger version of the bill in California next session, with more lobbying and developer backing this time. Beyond that, other states are officially on the radar, and a federal push is being seriously discussed.

The bigger picture here is about digital ownership. As more games lean into always online systems, SKG wants to make sure players don't lose access to what they paid for. This fight is far from over, and it looks like it's only expanding from here.