ESA warns California games bill would burden developers and players

• The ESA has opposed California's proposed Protect Our Games Act.
• AB 1921 would require publishers to maintain, rebuild or refund server-connected games when they shut down.
• The bill would apply to new games and remastered or re-released titles.
• ESA president Stan Pierre-Louis said the proposal misunderstands how online games operate.

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has criticised California Assembly Bill 1921, arguing that the proposed legislation would create significant challenges for game developers and ultimately harm players.

In an opinion piece, ESA president and CEO Stan Pierre-Louis said the bill, known as the Protect Our Games Act, misunderstands how modern online games are built, maintained and eventually retired. 

Pierre-Louis noted that the bill would require publishers shutting down a server-connected digital game to either continue supporting the title indefinitely, rebuild it to function without technical support, or provide refunds to all players regardless of when they purchased or played the game.

The legislation would apply to both new games and existing titles that are remastered or re-released.

Cost-related concerns 

Pierre-Louis argued that online games rely on extensive infrastructure, including servers, moderation teams, bug fixes, content updates and technical maintenance. He said these costs remain significant even after player numbers decline.

“When a game’s popularity fades, that infrastructure continues to run, for a fraction of the audience, at nearly the same cost," said Pierre-Louis. “Additionally, many of today’s popular games include licensed music, likeness rights and branding that might be time-limited. 

“A legal requirement to keep games playable indefinitely will put game publishers in an impossible situation where they are either renegotiating licenses in perpetuity or altering games to change the creator’s original intent and gameplay experience."

Pierre-Louis went on to say that the proposal would divert resources away from developing new games, increase costs for companies and consumers, and discourage investment in ambitious online experiences. 

“This bill may sound consumer-friendly, but it ultimately hurts both players and creators. Many games today are live, connected experiences that depend on online communities and evolving content. Not to mention, nearly two-thirds of video game software companies in the US operate with less than 10 employees," Pierre-Louis continued.

“You cannot demand “forever” from video game developers without hampering their ability to create new games that provide the kinds of experiences players love and have come to expect."