They’re in a tizzy again. We’d use a cruder expression to describe the ESA’s latest whining.
Stop Killing Games has come a long way in a very short time, evolving from a seemingly doomed consumer campaign just two years ago into an initiative that has made it to a presentation before the European Parliament and has garnered the involvement of international civil society organizations. Despite these successes, the initiative continues to face resistance from the gaming industry, which is once again warning consumers to be careful what they wish for. In April, Stop Killing Games supported the Protect Our Games Act (AB 1921), which would require game developers to notify owners in advance of upcoming server shutdowns and provide a version of the game that can be played offline, patch the existing game so that servers are no longer necessary, or offer a full refund if passed by the California legislature. The bill sparked a strong reaction from the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the lobbying group representing the U.S. gaming industry.
“Many games depend on evolving technology, licensed content, and online systems that change over time. Assembly Bill 1921 could force developers to spend limited time and resources maintaining outdated systems instead of creating new games, features, and technology. Ultimately, this policy doesn’t reflect how games work today. This bill sets strict rules that could ultimately mean fewer new and innovative experiences for players,” the ESA said.
We’re not sure if this is accurate. In the case of The Crew (the game that started this process), fans breathed new life into the game despite Ubisoft’s efforts to permanently shut it down. There are already examples of game studios that ensure their games live on even after the servers are shut down. Most of these studios don’t have the resources of the major publishers represented by the ESA. For example, in 2024, Lunarch Studios made its multiplayer puzzle game, Islands of Insight, offline-compatible, allowing fans to continue playing after the servers were shut down. In 2025, 1047 Games introduced peer-to-peer support to the original Splitgate after deciding to shut down its servers. Even Ubisoft found a way to make this happen by introducing an offline mode to The Crew 2. Such efforts require resources, but are they enough to prevent the creation of new games and technologies?
The ESA’s statement sparked a response from Stop Killing Games on Reddit. The organizer, Moritz Katzner, pointed out that the bill does not require game servers to be maintained indefinitely. Rather, it simply states that publishers cannot sell and then ban games without consumers having any real recourse. “AB 1921 is narrow. It applies to paid games going forward and gives companies options: preserve ordinary use, patch the game, or refund the purchaser. The industry wants people to think this is a demand for eternal server support with endless costs and complications. It isn’t. It’s much simpler. If a company sells a paid game, it shouldn’t be able to destroy its ordinary use later without notice or remedy,” Katzner wrote.
The ESA has also lobbied against other initiatives aimed at preserving access to video games in the past. For example, in 2024, the organization’s lawyers opposed a provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that would have allowed libraries and museums to provide remote access to video games. At a hearing before the U.S. Copyright Office, an ESA spokesperson stated that the organization currently does not believe there is a combination of restrictions that ESA members would support to enable remote access, citing the risk that too many people might request access to games for entertainment rather than research purposes. The Copyright Office sided with the ESA against representatives of the Software Preservation Network, which supports the exception.
The ESA’s statement regarding Stop Killing Games is not unprecedented, nor is it limited to American lobbying groups. In 2025, Video Games Europe – essentially the European version of the ESA – issued a similar warning. They stated that Stop Killing Games’ demands could expose players to dangerous community content and limit developers’ choices because creating these games would become too expensive. (Not that they aren’t already…)
Source: PCGamer, Legiscan, ABC10
