California’s Protect Our Games Act has failed to move forward after a Senate committee vote, pausing one of the most closely watched video game preservation bills in the United States.
The bill, officially AB 1921, was introduced by Assemblymember Chris Ward and focused on a growing concern in gaming: players paying for digital games that can later become unplayable when publishers shut down servers. This issue has become more visible as more games depend on online services, even when players believe they are buying long-term access.
AB 1921 would have applied to digital games first available for purchase or rereleased on or after Jan. 1, 2028. Because it was a California bill, the legal protections would have applied to companies selling covered digital games to California consumers, though companies could have chosen to use similar policies outside the state. Under the proposal, a digital game operator would have been required to give purchasers and prospective purchasers 60 days’ notice before ending services needed for the “ordinary use” of a game. The notice would have needed to explain the shutdown date, which services and features would end, any known security risks, and how players could keep using the game or receive a refund.
The bill also would have required operators to provide at least one path forward once those services ended. Options included an alternate version of the game, an offline patch or update, a refund, documentation for private or community servers, or server software that would allow the game to continue functioning without ongoing company-controlled services.
The proposal had already cleared several steps before hitting the Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee. It passed the Assembly on May 27 with a 43-16 vote, then passed the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection Committee on June 22. But on June 29, the next committee vote failed 4-3, with four members not voting. Because a bill needs enough yes votes to advance, abstentions had the same practical effect as stopping it.
Video Games Chronicle reported that Stop Killing Games, the consumer movement tied to the campaign, plans to keep pushing after the failed vote. The group said the California attempt came with limited funding and no major lobbying operation, but that future attempts could include more in-person lobbying and versions of the proposal in other states.
The Entertainment Software Association pushed back against the bill, arguing that it misunderstood how online games are built and maintained. The ESA said private servers raise intellectual property and player safety concerns and previously argued that forcing companies to maintain or rebuild older games could impose high costs on developers and publishers.
Even though the Protect Our Games Act failed to pass this committee step, the issue is not gone. Digital ownership remains a major concern for players who want confidence that paid games will not disappear when official servers shut down. The bill may be stalled for now, but the debate around game preservation is still gaining attention.
0 Comments