The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) is officially pushing back against new California legislation that targets how developers manage the shutdown of online titles. The proposed law, Assembly Bill 1921, seeks to mandate specific protocols for when live-service games cease operations, but industry leaders warn it could cause significant harm to game studios.
The Details of Assembly Bill 1921
Introduced by Democratic Assemblymember Chris Ward, the legislation aims to protect consumers from losing access to digital purchases when servers go dark. Under the terms of the bill, developers would be subject to several strict requirements:
- Advance Notice: Developers must communicate specific information to current and prospective purchasers at least 60 days before services are terminated.
- Post-Shutdown Options: Once a server closure occurs, studios would be required to provide one of the following for the title:
- An alternate offline version of the game.
- A dedicated patch or update to enable solo play.
- A full refund for the purchased game.
Why the ESA Opposes Offline Versions of Live-Service Games
The controversy surrounding offline versions of live-service games stems from the technical and financial complexity of maintaining game code after official support ends. The ESA argues that forcing developers to provide patches or offline builds would create an undue burden on the industry.
The bill's objectives largely mirror those of the Stop Killing Games movement, a growing preservation campaign dedicated to preventing "dead" software. This legislative push follows several high-profile industry setbacks, most notably the rapid shutdowns and delisting of titles like Concord and Highguard.
While proponents argue these measures are essential for digital preservation, critics within the ESA suggest that such mandates could negatively impact the development lifecycle and the long-term viability of live-service models.
