California's latest attempt to regulate digital game ownership has drawn a warning from the Entertainment Software Association, setting up another fight between the games industry lobby and preservation advocates.
Assembly Bill 1921, currently moving through California's legislature, would apply to paid digital games available for purchase on or after January 1, 2027. If a game operator stops providing services necessary for the ordinary use of a game, the bill would require 60 days of notice to purchasers and prospective purchasers.
Once those services end, the operator would also have to provide one of three remedies: a version of the game that can be used independently of services controlled by the operator, a patch or update that enables continued use or a refund equal to the full purchase price.
ESA says the bill could divert development resources
The ESA, the US trade body formerly behind E3, argues that the proposal does not reflect how modern games are made and maintained. In a statement given to ABC10, the group said the rules could pull resources away from new work.
"Many games depend on evolving technology, licensed content, and online systems that change over time. Assembly Bill 1921 could force developers to spend limited time and resources keeping old systems running instead of creating new games, features, and technology. In the end, this policy doesn't reflect how games actually work today. This bill sets strict rules that could ultimately mean fewer new and innovative experiences for players," the ESA said.
The current bill text includes several limits. It would not cover subscription services that only sell access for the length of a subscription, free games or games sold in a form the seller cannot later revoke, including games made available for permanent offline download to external storage.
Assemblymember Chris Ward, who introduced the bill, framed the proposal as a fairness measure for customers who pay significant prices for digital products. ABC10 quoted Ward as saying buyers should not see a $40, $70 or $100 license disappear from their screen soon after purchase.
Stop Killing Games says the fight is about end-of-life protections
Stop Killing Games, the consumer movement campaigning against games becoming unusable after shutdowns, has rejected the idea that AB 1921 is asking publishers to keep servers running forever.
"The industry wants people to think this is a demand for eternal server support, with endless costs and complications. It isn't. It's much simpler: If a company sells people a paid game, it should not be able to destroy the game's ordinary use later without notice or remedy," Stop Killing Games general director Moritz Katzner wrote in a Reddit post quoted in the report.
The California bill follows a wider argument over what players actually receive when they buy a digital game. California already moved on digital storefront language with a law requiring clearer disclosure when customers are buying a license rather than unrestricted ownership of digital media.
AB 1921 has not become law. The bill still faces hearings and votes, but the ESA's opposition shows how quickly end-of-service rules can turn from a preservation campaign into a major industry policy fight. If it advances, publishers selling paid digital games in California could face a clearer legal obligation to plan for shutdowns before those games reach the end of service.