The fight to stop publishers from bricking your games and shutting down servers just got a powerful new enemy

Daniel Sims

Posts: 2,466   +74
Staff
Recap: A California bill that would require game publishers to keep titles playable after server shutdowns has become the American front of a broader consumer-rights movement. After gaining support in the European Parliament and throwing its weight behind the California bill, the pro-game-preservation group Stop Killing Games is now facing resistance from the game industry's most powerful lobbying group.

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has come out against California bill AB 1921, a state bill that would compel developers to offer remedies before deactivating servers for online games. Stop Killing Games has been fighting this battle for the last couple of years and was quick to condemn the ESA's position.

Under AB 1921, developers would be required to notify paying customers at least 60 days before shutting down servers, stop selling affected titles during that window, and provide either refunds or a path to continued play – whether through offline modes, private dedicated servers, or similar alternatives.

Free-to-play and subscription-based games would be exempt. The bill applies only to one-time-purchase titles released after January 1, 2027.

The Industry is lobbying against Stop Killing Games! (again)
by u/Mr_Presidentle in StopKillingGames

In comments released publicly and to ABC10 news, the ESA argued that AB 1921 misunderstands how modern games are built, calling the technical demands for perpetual gameplay unworkable and warning the bill would result in fewer games and reduced innovation. The association also pointed to an existing California ruling establishing that buyers of digital games hold licenses, not ownership.

SKG pushed back along familiar lines – similar to its rebuttal of Video Games Europe last year – clarifying that the bill doesn't require publishers to run official servers indefinitely, only that games remain in some functional state once service ends.

The ESA further argued that expiring licenses sometimes prevent publishers from selling older titles, but SKG countered that future sales restrictions shouldn't affect customers who already bought the game. Forza Horizon 4 illustrates the distinction: when expiring vehicle licenses forced Microsoft to delist it in 2024, existing owners retained full access to download and play it.

The push for AB 1921 comes on the heels of SKG's appearance before the European Parliament last month, where the campaign – backed by more than one million verified signatures across Europe – made the case for similar legislation. The EU is now weighing its own version of the rules.

SKG was founded in 2024 by YouTuber Ross Scott, prompted by Ubisoft's decision to shut down servers for The Crew, making the game unplayable for more than 12 million people who purchased physical and digital copies. Ubisoft at the time suggested customers should get used to "not owning games" and that "nothing is eternal," but now faces a lawsuit over the shutdown and has since committed to including offline modes in future titles.

Permalink to story:

 
Sounds like the bill would stifle online multiplayer games that are neither free to play or subscription based.

2016 Overwatch, for example, would have been forced to be free to play slop (like it has opted into today) with this bill.

I think the bill needs revising to exempt games which don't have a soloplay component. Otherwise the industry will be forced to shove slop in multiplayer games whether devs want to or not.
 
Sounds like the bill would stifle online multiplayer games that are neither free to play or subscription based.

2016 Overwatch, for example, would have been forced to be free to play slop (like it has opted into today) with this bill.

I think the bill needs revising to exempt games which don't have a soloplay component. Otherwise the industry will be forced to shove slop in multiplayer games whether devs want to or not.

Or Blizzard could simply implement the ability for anyone to self-host their own servers, similar to the way other team-based hero shooters like Team Fortress 2 already work.
 
Sounds like the bill would stifle online multiplayer games that are neither free to play or subscription based.

2016 Overwatch, for example, would have been forced to be free to play slop (like it has opted into today) with this bill.

I think the bill needs revising to exempt games which don't have a soloplay component. Otherwise the industry will be forced to shove slop in multiplayer games whether devs want to or not.
Or they could have private servers ready to go once the official servers shut down. Assuming it's built into the plan for the game, it shouldn't be that difficult to implement.
 
The ESA arguing this would cause "fewer games and reduced innovation" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. What they mean is it would cause fewer live-service games designed to extract subscription revenue until the numbers no longer pencil out, at which point they delete the product you paid for. That's not innovation I'm particularly attached to protecting.
 
The ESA arguing this would cause "fewer games and reduced innovation" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. What they mean is it would cause fewer live-service games designed to extract subscription revenue until the numbers no longer pencil out, at which point they delete the product you paid for. That's not innovation I'm particularly attached to protecting.
Free to play and subscription games are already exempt.
 
Or Blizzard could simply implement the ability for anyone to self-host their own servers, similar to the way other team-based hero shooters like Team Fortress 2 already work.
Don't have to if it's a free to play or subscription gamre.
The bill in its current form further incentivises the business models ruining online multiplayer gaming.
 
Don't have to if it's a free to play or subscription gamre.
The bill in its current form further incentivises the business models ruining online multiplayer gaming.
Which online game would be affected by this?
I mean - there aren't alot of subscription based games left out there.
As for the pay to play games, how hard is it to allow local coop?
And the ruling that you buy a license is such a stupid ruling. You buy a game, you pay quite alot of money for said game, it should be yours to do with as you please, and it shouldn't stop working just because you and other players opt out of buying in-game stuff like "car skins"
 
Sounds like the bill would stifle online multiplayer games that are neither free to play or subscription based.

2016 Overwatch, for example, would have been forced to be free to play slop (like it has opted into today) with this bill.

I think the bill needs revising to exempt games which don't have a soloplay component. Otherwise the industry will be forced to shove slop in multiplayer games whether devs want to or not.
You sound more like a corporate wig than a gamer...developers always have ways to incorporate offline play. It's a simple as few lines of code.
 
Sounds like the bill would stifle online multiplayer games that are neither free to play or subscription based.

2016 Overwatch, for example, would have been forced to be free to play slop (like it has opted into today) with this bill.

I think the bill needs revising to exempt games which don't have a soloplay component. Otherwise the industry will be forced to shove slop in multiplayer games whether devs want to or not.

Remember when games let you set up local servers? Just allow that again, and the problem *goes away*.
 
You sound more like a corporate wig than a gamer...developers always have ways to incorporate offline play. It's a simple as few lines of code.

"A few lines of code"!?!
Tell me you know nothing about software development, without saying you know nothing about software development.
 
Let's be realistic. They can not be expected to support a game for ever. Running servers and keeping the whole thing "secure" is not cheap.
As for letting us run our own servers. Giving the public direct access to the server software would open up a whole nother can of worms.

The real problem is that companies continue selling a product until the last minute, then pull the plug. Leaving you without the product you just paid for.

What we need is a guarantee that they will support their products for xxx years/months AFTER the last sale.
 
"A few lines of code"!?!
Tell me you know nothing about software development, without saying you know nothing about software development.
Here you are arguing the point...while we have Microsoft developers assessing a game leak, identifying how to stop the problem and how through a few lines of code ban thousands of players, all the process accomplished in just 6 hours...and you are arguing that with years of ahead of preparation a video game studio can't give a game an offline mode?...Then you need a reality check.
 
It's real simple, we live in an age where RoI is king. How many enhanced, and/or updated games are currently being forced on us? Many at the current or close to current pricing? How many games are part of a series or the developers hope the current one will be popular enough to go that route?

Publishers see old IP as either potential revenue sometime in the future, or alternatively an impediment to moving the player base on to the latest and greatest. The idea of releasing the game or source code to the people who made the game popular so that the community can support the game means a loss of control. And in my experience many executives see loss of control as emasculating.
 
"A few lines of code"!?!
Tell me you know nothing about software development, without saying you know nothing about software development.

- The devs made a whole *** game, they can make a whole *** game with some hooks to allow offline play when they finally decide to pull the plug.
 
Here you are arguing the point...while we have Microsoft developers assessing a game leak, identifying how to stop the problem and how through a few lines of code ban thousands of players, all the process accomplished in just 6 hours...and you are arguing that with years of ahead of preparation a video game studio can't give a game an offline mode?...Then you need a reality check.
Yeah? It seems my statement stands.

You strayed from the point. You stated it could be done with "a few lines of code." Now you are talking about "years."

You are also ignoring the fact that Microsoft already had a system in place to ban users. It was not developed in 6 hours. As for their "fix," all they really did was bring the hammer down on offenders to discourage others from following.

They would either have to merge large portions of the server code into the game code or, more likely, add the server to your game download and change the remote host to the new local host. Either way watch your instillation size balloon... Adding the server to your install would be the "simple" way, but would be frankly *****ic.
 
- The devs made a whole *** game, they can make a whole *** game with some hooks to allow offline play when they finally decide to pull the plug.

Can, but won't. Essentially, the entire server would have to be added to your install. Do you really think they want you to have their server? That's a security and IP nightmare!
 
Yeah? It seems my statement stands.

You strayed from the point. You stated it could be done with "a few lines of code." Now you are talking about "years."

You are also ignoring the fact that Microsoft already had a system in place to ban users. It was not developed in 6 hours. As for their "fix," all they really did was bring the hammer down on offenders to discourage others from following.

They would either have to merge large portions of the server code into the game code or, more likely, add the server to your game download and change the remote host to the new local host. Either way watch your instillation size balloon... Adding the server to your install would be the "simple" way, but would be frankly *****ic.

As others have pointed out, games used to allow this, it really can’t be that hard.

Also, Minecraft is a thing, and if I recall correctly, some private servers are ****ing massive. So game sizes also really shouldn’t be an issue.

You also don’t have to force people do download the components necessary for self hosting / LAN, that could be a voluntary patch.

You’re also entirely ignoring ‘offline play only’ which developers are also bricking when turning off servers, often due to something as simple as a ‘check server connection’ in the loading process…
 
The past several Call of Duty games are probably prime targets of legislation like this.

Sure, Warzone is a totally separate free-to-play app, but they still sell the regular COD games for $70 every year with campaigns that require constant internet. The multiplayer modes even still have bots.
 
Let's be realistic. They can not be expected to support a game for ever. Running servers and keeping the whole thing "secure" is not cheap.
As for letting us run our own servers. Giving the public direct access to the server software would open up a whole nother can of worms.

The real problem is that companies continue selling a product until the last minute, then pull the plug. Leaving you without the product you just paid for.

What we need is a guarantee that they will support their products for xxx years/months AFTER the last sale.
But they don't have to release the public version of the server software until they are shutting down the official servers. They can keep it secure as long as they are running it and then all bets are off.
 
Can, but won't. Essentially, the entire server would have to be added to your install. Do you really think they want you to have their server? That's a security and IP nightmare!

-You're being intentionally obtuse here. For some reason there is always one on every stop killing games thread in Reddit, and now there is one here. Hmmmm...

Stop killing games just means don't prevent games from working, not require that they work like they did out of the box. Even being able to launch an MP game and run around an empty world would qualify.

There are no games out there that keep the majority or even a lot of their assets server side. Allowing a game to function without needing to "phone home" to a server is trivially easy compared to the initial cost of building the whole game and network code.

If the game has a hardcore following, modders would then be able to do the work of allowing folks to join private servers etc.
 
Let's be realistic. They can not be expected to support a game for ever. Running servers and keeping the whole thing "secure" is not cheap.
As for letting us run our own servers. Giving the public direct access to the server software would open up a whole nother can of worms.

The real problem is that companies continue selling a product until the last minute, then pull the plug. Leaving you without the product you just paid for.

What we need is a guarantee that they will support their products for xxx years/months AFTER the last sale.

To your last point, institute something like that and watch the companies introduce "dynamic" pricing and artificial scarcity: "You want the game before we remove it from storefronts? How about a 200% price increase for your troubles."

It would be FOMO taken to the extreme. Companies, knowing that certain games would have long-term demand from consumers, would simply continue to increase prices over time, knowing that under that legal paradigm, the last sale would cost them significantly more in long-term support than the first. Add in the degree of artificial scarcity they could implement (such as limited number of purchases/download per set period of time) and it would be a disaster.
 
Back