In February, US Democratic Assembly member Chris Ward introduced Bill 1921 to the California courts, in an attempt to improve protections for consumers purchasing online games. Since then, the bill has been amended twice, with the current goal being to provide better warning to consumers in the event of planned game shutdowns, and to force companies to either provide an offline alternative to players, or to deliver full refunds.
Even with these amendments, and the bill’s seeming potential to improve game preservation and consumer rights, it appears it’s facing significant pushback.
As reported by GameSpot, the bill was even recently opposed by the Entertainment Software Organisation, a US-based trade body that works to ‘expand and protect the innovative and creative marketplace for the video game industry.’
US bill to improve video game protections opposed – quick links
What Bill 1921 proposes for online games preservation
As detailed, the bill proposed by Ward attempts to provide better protection for consumers when online games are suddenly shut down:
‘This bill, with regard to digital games available for purchase on or after January 1, 2027, and subject to certain exceptions, would require a digital game operator to communicate specified information to purchasers and prospective purchasers of a digital game 60 days before the operator ceases to provide services necessary for the ordinary use of the game, and, beginning on the date an operator ceases to provide services necessary for the ordinary use of the game, require the operator to provide the purchaser with an alternate version of, a patch or update to, or a refund for, the game, as provided, and prohibit the operator from selling, leasing, or otherwise distributing a version of the game that cannot be used by a purchaser independent of services controlled by the operator.’
In simpler terms, the bill asks for game companies to provide at least 60 days of notice to consumers before a purchased game shuts down. It also proposes that these companies provide either a patch or update that will allow for offline play, or that they be required to refund players who purchased the game. It also seeks to stop game companies from distributing a version of the game that can no longer be played.
It appears the bill has been developed in response to recent developments within the live service online games genre, with a handful of notable titles – Concord, Highguard – being launched, then swiftly shuttered, leaving some purchasers out of pocket.
While refunds have been proactively offered in some cases, the bill attempts to legislate a requirement for refunds to be delivered, or for companies to provide alternative options for continued play.
Why the ESA opposes the proposed online games bill
In a statement provided to US news website ABC 10, the ESA has opposed the bill citing concerns about undue pressure and requirements on game studios, and outlining that teams already take consumers into account when making hard decisions about server shutdowns.
‘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,’ the ESA said.
‘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.’
As Ward outlined in further statements, the bill simply aims to ensure consumers get ‘what they signed up for’ and ‘the ability of the industry to be able to make sure that that’s there.’ Per Ward, it’s a question of fairness in purchasing.
For now, the proposed bill has not become part of California law, but it remains in discussion. Should it pass, it will likely have various knock-on impacts for the global games industry, and what it means to ‘purchase’ online games as a consumer.
