The debate over what happens when games go dark is getting louder on both sides.
The fight over what happens when live-service games shut down is escalating quickly. Earlier this week, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) publicly opposed California’s proposed Protect Our Games Act, arguing the legislation could hurt developers, increase costs, and limit innovation across the industry.
Less than 24 hours after ESA posted their statement, Stop Killing Games has issued a lengthy response defending the bill and urging lawmakers to vote in favour of it. The response was posted X (formerly Twitter) on 12 May, 2026:
At the centre of the debate is California Assembly Bill 1921, or AB 1921, introduced by state assemblyman Chris Ward. The proposed law would require publishers shutting down online-dependent paid games to either provide players with a playable version of the game, release a patch enabling continued use, or offer refunds.
The latest exchange arrives ahead of a hearing chaired by Buffy Wicks, with both sides now publicly lobbying lawmakers over the future of digital game ownership and preservation.
What is Stop Killing Games?
Originally launched in Europe as a response to Ubisoft’s shutdown of The Crew without an offline alternative, the Stop Killing Games initiative calls on lawmakers to require publishers to provide an “end-of-life” option for online games. This could take the form of an offline patch or modification that allows continued play even after official servers are taken down, without demanding perpetual live support from developers.
The movement has since gained significant traction, surpassing 1.3 million signatures across Europe and clearing the 1 million threshold required to trigger a formal response from the European Commission. That milestone has helped push the campaign beyond petitioning, with efforts now shifting into a more institutional phase, including the formation of formal NGO structures within the EU to advocate for legislation addressing the shutdown of always-online games.
Building on that momentum, Stop Killing Games has now expanded its focus to the United States, engaging directly with proposed legislation such as California’s AB 1921, positioning itself as part of a wider push to reshape how the industry handles the end-of-life of online games.
What is California’s AB 1921 or Protect Our Games Act?
AB 1921 also known as Protect Our Games Act, aims to create consumer protections for paid digital games that rely on publisher-controlled online systems such as authentication servers, launchers, or live-service infrastructure.
Under the current proposal, publishers ending support for a game would need to provide at least one of three options:
- A version of the game that functions without the publisher’s online services
- A patch or update enabling continued use
- A full refund
The bill does not require publishers to keep servers running forever, but instead focuses on ensuring players are not left with unusable purchases after support ends.
According to Stop Killing Games, the proposal creates “a fair end-of-life framework” for games that become inaccessible once operator-controlled systems are disabled. In its latest response, the organisation wrote: “When a consumer pays for a game, they reasonably expect to use the core features of that game as advertised at the time of purchase.”
The group also argued that the legislation is narrowly focused on preserving “ordinary use” rather than granting ownership of copyrighted assets or source code.
Why is the ESA opposing the Protect Our Games Act?
The ESA has strongly criticised the bill, calling it “fundamentally flawed” and warning that it could create major legal and technical problems for developers. In the statement opposing the proposal, the organisation said that “Assembly Bill 1921 could force developers to spend limited time and resources keeping old systems running instead of creating new games, features, and technology.”
The ESA argued that modern games rely heavily on evolving infrastructure, online authentication, anti-cheat systems, ongoing updates, and licensed content agreements that cannot realistically remain active indefinitely.
The trade body also challenged the core premise behind the legislation. “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.”
According to the ESA, some games cannot feasibly be converted into offline experiences due to how deeply integrated online systems are within their design.
The organisation further warned that AB 1921 could lead to “fewer games, higher costs and less innovation” if passed in its current form.
Why is Stop Killing Games firing back at ESA’s statement?
The organisation argued that AB 1921 does not require perpetual support for online games and instead provides developers with flexible end-of-life options.
“AB 1921 does not require perpetual server support, ongoing live operations, or maintenance of every online feature.”
The campaign also attempted to counter concerns surrounding licensed content and security systems. According to Stop Killing Games, publishers would still be able to remove future sales, replace licensed assets where necessary, and notify players that anti-cheat systems, moderation tools, cloud saves, or customer support are no longer officially supported.
The response compared game shutdowns to disabling a car after GPS support ends. “If the GPS service ends, the seller may stop providing maps or traffic updates, but should not be able to disable the car so it no longer drives.”
Stop Killing Games additionally stressed that the bill contains exemptions for subscription services, free-to-play titles, and games already sold in a permanent offline form. The latest letter was signed by Stop Killing Games founder Ross Scott alongside US lead Jonah Goldman and general director Moritz Katzner.
Could publishers be forced to refund shut down live-service games under AB 1921?
Refunds remain one of the most debated parts of AB 1921. Under the proposal, refunds would only become necessary if publishers fail to provide either a playable version of the game or an update enabling continued use.
Stop Killing Games argued that this safeguard is especially important for modern live-service titles where players may have purchased expansions, downloadable content, cosmetics, or other add-ons shortly before servers shut down. “A refund is not a penalty for ending support. It is the fallback remedy when an operator does not provide a playable version or enabling patch and the purchaser is deprived of ordinary use,” the organisation’s statement read.
Meanwhile, the ESA argued that mandatory refunds could create major financial burdens regardless of how long players had already used the game before support ended.
What happens next with the Protect Our Games Act?
AB 1921 continues moving through California’s legislative process as lawmakers prepare for further hearings later this week. The proposal has become one of the gaming industry’s most closely watched legal battles, especially as discussions around live-service shutdowns, digital ownership, and game preservation continue gaining momentum worldwide.
If passed, the bill could significantly change how publishers plan for the end-of-life stages of online games. For players, it could become one of the first major legal protections aimed at stopping purchased games from disappearing entirely once servers go offline.
