Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

The California legislature has approved the ‘Protect Our Games Act,’ a bill that seeks to prevent game publishers from shutting down online games without prior notice, marking a significant step in consumer protection for digital game access.

The bill, supported by the Stop Killing Games movement, has received positive votes from the California Assembly’s Privacy and Consumer Protection and Judiciary committees. It aims to require publishers to maintain online access to games for a specified period or under certain conditions, challenging current industry practices where games are often shut down due to obsolescence or licensing issues.

Major game industry groups, including the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), have publicly opposed the bill, arguing that it misrepresents how modern game distribution and licensing work. The ESA states that consumers only receive a license to access games, not ownership, and that shutting down outdated games is a natural part of software lifecycle management. They warn that the bill could impose unreasonable licensing expectations on publishers, especially regarding music and intellectual property rights that are often negotiated on limited terms.

Why It Matters

This legislation could reshape how online games are managed and preserved, potentially setting a precedent for consumer rights in digital entertainment. If enacted, it might force publishers to alter their business models, impacting revenue and licensing strategies. The bill’s progress indicates growing legislative interest in digital rights and game preservation, which could influence industry practices nationwide.

Background

The movement to protect online game access has gained momentum in California, with the ‘Protect Our Games Act’ representing a legislative effort to address concerns about game shutdowns. Industry representatives have historically argued that software naturally becomes obsolete and that licensing constraints make indefinite access impractical. The bill’s recent committee approvals mark a notable development after previous debates and stalled efforts in other regions, such as the UK.

“There is no other medium in which a product can be marketed and sold to a consumer and then ripped away without notice… end-of-life procedures are essential tools to ensure prolonged access to the games consumers pay to enjoy.”

— SKG (Supporter of the bill)

“Consumers receive a license to access and use a game, not an unrestricted ownership interest in the underlying work. The shutdown of outdated or obsolete games is a natural feature of modern software.”

— Entertainment Software Association (ESA)

What Remains Unclear

It remains unclear how the bill will be received in the full California Assembly and Senate, and whether industry opposition will influence its passage. Details about specific enforcement mechanisms or how publishers might comply with new requirements are still emerging. The potential legal and economic impacts are also not yet fully defined.

What’s Next

The bill is expected to be debated and voted on by the full California Assembly and Senate in the coming months. If approved, it will proceed to Governor Gavin Newsom for signing. Industry groups are likely to continue lobbying against it, and legal challenges could also arise.

Key Questions

What exactly does the bill require from game publishers?

The bill proposes that publishers maintain online access to games for a certain period or under specific conditions, preventing sudden shutdowns without notice.

Could this bill affect how game licensing works?

Yes, it could require publishers to renegotiate licenses or alter their licensing strategies to comply with new access requirements.

Will this bill impact all online games?

The bill’s scope and specific applicability are still being defined, but it primarily targets online multiplayer and persistent online services.

What are the potential industry concerns about this legislation?

Industry groups argue it could impose unreasonable obligations, disrupt licensing agreements, and lead to legal complications and financial burdens.