Recently, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), which represents the largest gaming companies in the United States, publicly criticized the Protect Our Games Act (AB 1921) being considered in California. The bill requires that when an online game ceases operations, publishers must choose one of three options: continue to provide support, launch an offline playable version, or refund fees to purchasers.
ESA President Stan Pierre-Louis said the proposal did not take into account the complexities of modern service-based games. He noted that mandating to keep games running could place a heavy financial burden on developers, especially smaller studios.
The association believes that such regulations could lead to higher game prices, as publishers need to anticipate the potential costs of server maintenance and refunds. The ESA also warned that independent developers may not be able to bear the additional obligations.
Industry insiders also singled out difficulties with licensing content. Many games use elements such as music, vehicles, actors, etc., which are based on limited-term licensing agreements. If the bill passes, companies will have to renew these agreements indefinitely or remove related content from already released games.
The ESA believes that such measures may reduce publishers' interest in developing large-scale online projects, because each game will effectively become a long-term obligation with unpredictable costs.
The bill has passed the California Lower House and now awaits a vote in the state Senate. At this stage, the ESA and other gaming industry representatives will fight to change the terms or block the bill entirely.