Game industry lobby group that argued against preservation efforts from libraries is now pushing back on Stop Killing Games, saying it could prevent 'new games, features, and technology'

The Paradox of Preservation: Industry Lobbyists Clash with Consumer Rights

The Stop Killing Games movement has evolved rapidly from a grassroots consumer campaign into a significant political force, securing presentations before the European Parliament and garnering support from international NGOs by 2026. Yet, despite these legislative victories, the initiative faces intense resistance from the gaming industry itself. Industry groups are once again warning consumers to be cautious about their demands, arguing that preservation efforts will stifle innovation.

In April, Stop Killing Games endorsed AB 1921, known as the Protect Our Games Act. This pending California legislation would require game developers to notify owners in advance of server shutdowns. Crucially, it mandates that companies either provide an offline version of the game, patch it to remove online dependencies, or issue a full refund.

The ESA’s Warning: Innovation vs. Obligation

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the primary lobbying group for the US game industry, responded with strong opposition. In statements to ABC10, the ESA argued that the bill misunderstands how modern games function.

"Many games depend on evolving technology, licensed content, and online systems that change over time," the ESA stated. "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 association contends that strict preservation rules will ultimately reduce the number of innovative experiences available to players. However, this argument overlooks successful precedents where preservation did not halt development:

• The Crew: Despite Ubisoft’s initial resistance, fans successfully revived the game, proving that community-driven preservation is viable.
• Islands of Insight: Lunarch Studios made their multiplayer puzzle game offline-capable in 2024, ensuring playability after server closure.
• Splitgate: In 2025, 1047 Games implemented peer-to-peer support for the original title after withdrawing server access.
• The Crew 2: Ubisoft eventually released an offline mode, earning significant goodwill from the player base.

While these efforts require resources, there is little evidence to suggest they would "torpedo" the creation of new technologies.

Misrepresenting the Legislation

The ESA’s alarmist tone prompted a direct rebuttal from Stop Killing Games organizer Moritz Katzner on Reddit. Katzner clarified that the bill does not demand eternal server maintenance but rather prohibits companies from selling games and then disabling them without remedy.

"AB 1921 is narrow," Katzner explained. "It applies to paid games going forward and gives companies options: preserve ordinary use, patch the game, or refund the purchaser."

The core argument is simple: if a company sells a paid product, it should not be able to destroy its functionality without notice or compensation. The industry’s narrative of "endless costs and complications" is a misrepresentation of a bill designed to ensure consumer protection and game preservation.

A Pattern of Anti-Preservation Stance

The ESA’s current stance is consistent with its historical opposition to access rights. In 2024, the organization’s lawyers actively fought against a DMCA allowance that would have permitted libraries and museums to provide remote access to games.

During a US Copyright Office hearing, an ESA spokesperson stated, "I don’t think there is at the moment any combination of limitations that ESA members would support to provide remote access," citing fears that excessive requests for entertainment use would overwhelm the system. The Copyright Office ultimately sided with the ESA over the Software Preservation Network.

Global Resistance to Consumer Rights

This resistance is not limited to the United States. In 2025, Video Games Europe, the EU equivalent of the ESA, issued similar warnings against Stop Killing Games. The group argued that the campaign’s demands could expose gamers to "unsafe community content" and curtail developer choice by making games "prohibitively expensive to create."

As the debate intensifies, the conflict remains clear: industry lobbyists prioritize operational flexibility and cost management, while consumer advocates fight for the right to own and preserve the games they have purchased.