California's AB 1921 would mean you actually own the games you buy

If I buy a physical, printed-on-paper-and-everything book, I have access to that book until the pages fall apart. If that book stops being printed, I can still read my copy. If the publisher of that book goes out of business, I can still read my book. I don’t have to check in with the publisher each time I want to crack the cover.

That’s not how video games work (anymore). Basically every game now needs an internet connection for updates and hotfixes (which is, I’d argue, a good thing). Games with an online component require servers (and internet access) and server support. But this causes a problem when a company decides to stop operating those servers or stop supporting those updates (EA, for example, shut down 20 games in 2025).

And that’s where questions of “do you really own a digital game?” arise.

Now, there’s a proposed law in California that seeks to fight that. Christopher Ward is a member of California’s Assembly representing the 78th District (the CA Assembly is the lower house of the California legislative branch — basically the state-level version of the House of Representatives). This year, he introduced Assembly Bill 1921 Protect our Games Act.

AB 1921 “requires companies selling server-connected video games to notify consumers before shutting down a game’s servers, rendering it inoperable. Upon ceasing support for a game, a company must provide (a) a means of accessing a playable version of the game or (b) a full refund to those who purchased it.”

In a more detailed analysis of the bill, the purpose is described as:

Digital games are increasingly distributed under licensing arrangements rather than as physical products that confer ownership of a self-contained copy. AB 2426 … requires sellers of digital goods to disclose to consumers that terms like “buy” and “purchase” confer a license rather than an unrestricted ownership interest, and that access to the digital good may be unilaterally revoked. This bill builds on that disclosure framework by requiring the digital game operator to provide notice and a remedy — a playable version, a patch, or a refund — when the operator ceases services necessary for the ordinary use of a game.

Under this bill (which is still only proposed, not an enacted law), if a developer or publisher decides to stop supporting a game, a couple things have to happen. First, they have to give users 60 days notice that the game is going away. Then, they have to either patch the game so it remains playable (or otherwise ensure there’s an, effectively, offline mode) or offer a refund. There are reasonable exceptions (free games, subscription-based games), but the goal is to allow a user to retain some semblance of ownership even after the publisher stops supporting the game. Which matters when one statistic shows that over 90% of games become unplayable when support stops.

Stop Killing Games — the organization I talked about in the PlayStation news a couple weeks ago — supports the law. The Entertainment Software Association, the trade association that organizes E3, opposes the bill. (Just for the record, the ESA also argues in favor of loot boxes and opposes any bill seeking to ban them.)

The ESA’s released a statement about AB 1921 that reads:

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 keeping old systems running instead of creating new games, features, and technology. In the end, this policy doesn't reflect how games actually work today. This bill sets strict rules that could ultimately mean fewer new and innovative experiences for players.

Except that’s … bullshit. As Stop Killing Games’s Moritz Katzner wrote on Reddit: “[The ESA] 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 people a paid game, it should not be able to destroy the game’s ordinary use later without notice or remedy.” As Eurogamer notes, this is the same fight Stop Killing Games is spearheading in European Parliament.

The ESA’s arguments about enforcement leading to less innovation and fewer new games sounds way too much like the same billionaire bootlicker bullshit water-carrying as saying taxing billionaires slows economic growth or hurts job creation. It doesn’t. And forcing a game publisher to allow a consumer to keep playing the game they already paid for isn’t going to break them.

It’s never been about innovation or new games — the constant layoffs, game cancellations, IP shenanigans, and general sleaziness of the industry proves that repeatedly. Something like AB 1921 would mean they’d have to give up a little control, and that’s the thing they’re actually angry about.