California Game Preservation Bill Stalls After Senate Committee Vote

California’s Protect Our Games Act has failed to advance from a key Senate committee, slowing one of the most significant United States legislative efforts to protect access to paid video games after publishers shut down essential online services.

Assembly Bill 1921 received 4 supporting votes and 3 opposing votes during a June 29 hearing before the California Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee. Another 4 members did not record a vote. Although more senators supported the proposal than opposed it, the bill required a majority of the 11 member committee to continue toward the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The official California legislative record lists the result as failed passage with reconsideration granted. This means AB 1921 did not advance during the hearing, but the committee preserved a procedural route for another vote. The proposal is therefore stalled and facing a difficult path rather than being conclusively removed from the legislative session.

AB 1921 had previously passed the California State Assembly by 43 votes to 16 on May 27. It then cleared the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection Committee by 6 votes to 2 before reaching the committee where it stalled. The bill never received a vote from the full California Senate.

Introduced by Assembly Member Christopher Ward, the Protect Our Games Act was designed to cover paid digital games first released or rereleased for purchase from January 1, 2028. Publishers and other operators controlling essential servers, authentication, digital rights management, or required updates would have needed to notify customers 60 days before withdrawing services required for ordinary use.

The proposal was broader than simply requiring every game to receive an offline mode. When support ended, an operator could satisfy the proposed law by providing an independent version, issuing a patch, delivering private server documentation, releasing usable server software, or offering a refund based on the game’s highest listed price during the previous 12 months.

Subscription services and games provided without payment were excluded. Games that customers could already permanently download and use without publisher controlled services were also outside the bill’s main requirements. Enforcement would have been handled through civil actions brought by California’s Attorney General or district attorneys rather than individual private lawsuits.

The legislation was strongly supported by Stop Killing Games, the consumer campaign created after Ubisoft ended online services for The Crew. Because the original game required central servers even for much of its single player content, the shutdown made purchased copies unusable and helped turn game preservation into a wider consumer rights issue.

Ubisoft later committed to preservation options for The Crew 2 and The Crew Motorfest, but the original game remains officially unavailable. Stop Killing Games argues that publishers should not be required to operate expensive infrastructure forever, but should prepare an end of life plan that leaves purchased games in a reasonably functional state.

Following the failed committee vote, the campaign said the result would not end its work and announced plans to return with greater funding, direct lobbying, developer support, and potential legislation in other states or at the federal level.

“We are not stopping. Not even close.”
— Stop Killing Games

The group also noted that AB 1921 had progressed through the complete State Assembly and reached a Senate committee despite relying heavily on volunteers. Its representatives described the vote as a setback, but also as proof that game preservation can become a viable legislative issue in the United States.

The Entertainment Software Association opposed the proposal, arguing that online games depend on costly infrastructure, moderation, security work, licensing agreements, and continued technical support. The trade organization warned that requiring games to remain playable could force publishers to renegotiate music, branding, likeness, or other licensed content after commercial support ends.

“You cannot demand forever from video game developers.”
— Entertainment Software Association

However, the final Senate version of AB 1921 did not require publishers to maintain official servers forever. It offered several alternatives, including offline patches, community server tools, independent server software, or refunds. This difference became a central part of the disagreement between preservation campaigners and industry representatives.

The debate also connects with wider concerns surrounding digital ownership. California already requires clearer disclosures when stores sell digital products that are technically provided through revocable licenses. Similar uncertainty recently surrounded PlayStation digital game authentication.

AB 1921 attempted to address a real weakness in the modern gaming market. Consumers can pay full price for a product without receiving any guarantee that its central features will remain accessible once the publisher decides that operating the required infrastructure is no longer commercially worthwhile.

The bill was not perfect. Refund calculations, licensed content, security risks, server software requirements, and the meaning of ordinary use would all require careful legal and technical definitions. Smaller studios could also face additional planning and development costs if preservation architecture had to be created from the beginning of production.

However, the principle behind the proposal remains reasonable. Publishers should not need to operate every server forever, but customers should receive clear information about how long an online dependent purchase may remain functional and what will happen when official support ends.

The reconsideration status means this legislative effort may not be completely finished. Even should AB 1921 fail to return, its progress through the Assembly shows that game preservation is moving beyond community campaigns and entering formal consumer policy discussions.

Should publishers be required to provide offline access, community server tools, or refunds when a paid game becomes permanently unusable?