One of the Stop Killing Games movement’s most important American initiatives has hit a wall in California. Assembly Bill 1921, known as the Protect Our Games Act, had already passed the State Assembly, but it failed to secure the affirmative votes needed in a key Senate committee. The proposal has not disappeared completely because reconsideration was granted, yet this is still a major setback for a movement fighting to stop paid games from becoming permanently unusable when their servers are shut down.
Stop Killing Games is not asking publishers to keep every online game server running forever, nor does it expect companies to fund old infrastructure indefinitely. Its core demand is much simpler: when players have paid for a game, publishers should not be able to render it completely unusable later without offering a meaningful alternative. An offline version, a patch that makes the game playable without the original infrastructure, documentation for private or community servers, or a refund could all satisfy that principle.
The issue became especially sensitive because more and more digital games can disappear overnight even after players have bought them. The shutdown of The Crew became the movement’s defining symbol, while the January closure of Anthem showed again how little control customers have when a server-dependent title loses its infrastructure. Anthem did not receive an official offline version, leaving players without a working product after the servers were switched off.
California’s proposal was introduced in February by Assemblymember Chris Ward after a San Diego constituent complained that games he had previously purchased were disappearing from his own library. AB 1921 passed the State Assembly in late May by 43 votes to 16, which was already a significant breakthrough for a consumer-rights issue often dismissed as an online player campaign. Under the Senate amendment, the rules would apply to paid digital games first sold or re-released on or after January 1, 2028, meaning the bill would not retroactively rewrite the terms of the entire existing market. Publishers would have to give customers at least 60 days’ notice before shutting down essential services, explain the date, affected features, and known security risks, then provide a viable alternative, necessary documentation, or a refund.
More yes votes still were not enough
The bill reached California’s Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on June 29. Four senators voted to advance it, three voted against it, and four did not cast a vote. At first glance, that result looks strange because the yes votes outnumbered the no votes, but the measure needed an absolute majority to move forward and failed to reach it.
A Stop Killing Games representative therefore stressed that an abstention or a missing vote is not neutral in a committee setting. In practical terms, it has the same effect as a rejection because the proposal stops without enough affirmative votes. The movement openly called the outcome a defeat, though not a final one: California’s official record shows that the committee unanimously granted reconsideration, so AB 1921 could theoretically come before the same members again. For the moment, however, it has no certain path to the next stage, and the California breakthrough that looked genuinely close only weeks ago has suddenly moved much further away.
The organizers say the campaign will not stop. For the next session, they want to return with local lobbyists, stronger funding, support from developers and consumer organizations, and a broader political strategy, while also examining comparable legislation in other U.S. states. A federal initiative has been mentioned as well, although there is no concrete federal bill yet.
The industry argued the cost would be too high
The proposal’s strongest opponent was the Entertainment Software Association, which represents many of the largest companies in the U.S. video game industry. The ESA argued that the law would overlook how expensive and technically complicated it can be to convert online games for offline use or make them function independently of their original infrastructure. It pointed to continuing security concerns, time-limited music and brand licences, server-maintenance costs, and the financial burden that new obligations could place on smaller studios. Stop Killing Games disputes that interpretation, arguing that AB 1921 would not require perpetual server operation but would give publishers multiple options, making it misleading to portray the bill as a demand to keep every online game alive forever.
California became one of the movement’s most important targets for a reason. A large share of the United States’ game industry is concentrated around Los Angeles, Santa Monica, San Francisco, and Silicon Valley, where companies and studios connected to Activision Blizzard, EA, Riot Games, and Naughty Dog maintain major operations. A consumer-protection law adopted there would not be merely a local issue. It could become a precedent capable of pressuring other states and overseas markets.
European developments have not given Stop Killing Games much momentum either. On June 16, the European Commission said it was not currently proposing a new binding EU rule requiring publishers to leave games playable after commercial support ends. Instead, the Commission pointed to dialogue with consumers and the industry, along with the possible development of a voluntary code of conduct by the end of 2026. Supporters of the movement still want to bring their demands into the debate around the upcoming Digital Fairness Act, but that remains a political objective rather than an announced European Union legislative plan.
The California vote is therefore a genuinely painful defeat because AB 1921 was the first serious American attempt to impose concrete consumer-protection obligations around the end of life of paid, server-dependent games. The central question has not gone away, though: when someone buys a digital game, are they purchasing a product they should continue to access, or merely a temporary service that the publisher can end whenever it chooses? For Stop Killing Games, that remains the point even after this setback.
Source: California Legislative Information, VGC, Entertainment Software Association, European Commission, 3DJuegos
