In a formal statement of support for the bill sent to the California legislature, SKG wrote that “There is no other medium in which a product can be marketed and sold to a consumer and then be taken away without notice… As live service games grow in popularity for game developers and gamers, end-of-life processes are essential tools to ensure long-term access to the games consumers pay to enjoy.”
The Entertainment Software Association, which helps represent the interests of major game publishers, said publicly in the California Assembly last month that the bill misrepresents how modern game distribution actually works. “Consumers get a license to access and use the game, not an unrestricted ownership interest in the underlying work,” the ESA wrote. The group said the eventual shutdown of old or obsolete games is “a natural feature of modern software”, especially when that software requires maintenance of online infrastructure.
The ESA also said that the bill would impose unfair expectations on publishers regarding licensing rights to music or IP rights, which are often negotiated on a time-limited basis. They wrote, “The legal requirement to keep the game playable indefinitely could put publishers in an impossible position – forcing them to renegotiate licenses indefinitely or change the game in ways that may not be legally or technically possible.”
Last month, the Protect Our Games Act also received positive votes from the California Assembly’s Privacy and Consumer Protection and Judiciary committees. But the bill still faces significant hurdles in passing a majority in the full California Assembly and California Senate before being sent to California Governor Gavin Newsom for signature.
Nevertheless, current legislative progress in California is encouraging for the Stop Killing Games movement, which has lost a bit of its momentum in the UK following the UK Parliament debate on game protection last November.
<a href