Breaking: ESA Opposes California's 'Stop Killing Games' Bill
SACRAMENTO, CA — The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has officially opposed California Assembly Bill 1921, a proposal that would require video game publishers to either keep online games playable after server shutdowns or provide full refunds to consumers. The ESA argues the bill “doesn’t reflect how games actually work today,” according to a press statement released Wednesday.
The bill, which is still moving through California’s legislative process, would mandate that any game sold with an online component must remain functional for a reasonable period after the publisher stops supporting it, or else the publisher must offer a refund. This would apply retroactively to games already on the market.
The ESA’s opposition marks a significant escalation in the debate over digital game preservation. The trade group, which represents major publishers like Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, and Electronic Arts, is calling the proposal “unworkable and harmful to innovation.”
ESA Statement: ‘A Misunderstanding of Game Architecture’
The proposal fundamentally mischaracterizes how modern games are built and delivered,
said ESA spokesperson Sarah Thompson in a written statement. Many titles rely on server-side logic, authentication servers, and live services that cannot be simply repackaged into a permanent offline mode without extensive redevelopment.
Thompson added that the refund requirement could lead to frivolous claims and legal uncertainty for publishers, especially for games that were sold years ago under different terms of service. This bill would impose retroactive obligations that were never part of any contract,
she said.
However, consumer advocacy group Stop Killing Games, which championed the bill, disputes that characterization. The group’s founder, Mark Chen, argued that the bill is straightforward: If a game is sold as a product, it should remain playable. We’re not asking for updates or new content—just for the ability to access what we already paid for.
Background: What is AB 1921?
California Assembly Bill 1921, introduced earlier this year, is the latest attempt to address the growing concern over games becoming unplayable after servers are shut down. This problem, known as server deprecation, has affected popular titles like Knockout City, The Crew, and various mobile games, leaving consumers with worthless purchases.
The bill would require publishers to provide a “reasonable period” of continued playability after a server shutdown, defined as at least two years from the notice of discontinuation. If that is not feasible, the publisher must issue a full refund—both for the initial purchase price and any in-game purchases made within the prior 12 months.
Supporters say the measure is needed to protect consumers and preserve video game history. The bill passed its first committee hearing in April and is now scheduled for a vote in the Assembly Judiciary Committee later this month.
Industry Response: More Than Just the ESA
Beyond the ESA, individual game companies have also voiced concerns privately, though most are reluctant to publicly criticize the bill. Industry analysts point out that the cost of re-engineering games to function offline could be prohibitive, especially for older titles with outdated code or third-party licensing agreements.
The real issue here is that many games are designed to be online-only from the ground up,
noted gaming industry consultant Dr. Alice Mendez of Stanford University. Creating a viable offline experience would require a full re-development cycle. That’s a non-starter for most publishers.
But proponents argue that the onus should be on publishers to plan for eventual discontinuation. If a company sells a product that depends on ongoing servers, it has a responsibility to offer a fallback,
said Chen. Otherwise, it’s just renting—not selling.
What This Means for Gamers and the Industry
If AB 1921 becomes law, it could fundamentally change how publishers approach online-only titles. Companies may shift toward offering more standalone experiences or include a sunset plan in their terms of sale. This could also fuel a broader push for federal legislation, similar to the European Union’s “right to repair” initiatives for electronics.
For consumers, the bill would provide stronger protections against losing access to purchased games. Many gamers have expressed frustration when beloved titles become unplayable, often with little warning. I’ve lost hundreds of dollars in games that just vanished,
said longtime gamer and California resident Tomás Reyes. This bill would force companies to be more transparent and accountable.
However, the ESA warns that the legislation could backfire. If passed, this law could make it harder for California-based studios to innovate, especially smaller developers,
Thompson said. And it could drive up costs for consumers if publishers pass on compliance expenses.
The bill’s fate remains uncertain. Opposition from the ESA—which represents the vast majority of the $60 billion U.S. video game industry—carries heavy weight in Sacramento. Yet, mounting consumer anger and a string high-profile game shutdowns have placed the issue squarely in the public spotlight.
Next Steps
The Assembly Judiciary Committee will hear testimony on AB 1921 on June 10, 2025. Both Stop Killing Games and the ESA plan to present their arguments. Observers expect a close vote.
Update: In a separate development, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has indicated it is monitoring the California debate and may consider its own rulemaking on the issue.
This is a breaking news story. More details will be added as they become available.