A California bill aimed at preserving online video games after official support ends has narrowly failed to advance in the state Senate, after the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) argued that community-run servers amount to piracy.
Assembly Bill 1921, known as the Protect Our Games Act and backed by the Stop Killing Games campaign, fell short by a single vote in committee. The measure received three votes in favour and four against, while another four committee members abstained. The bill was granted reconsideration, meaning it could still return for another vote.
The legislation would require publishers of server-dependent games to provide players with at least 60 days’ notice before shutting down online services. Companies would then need to either release a playable offline version, provide a patch allowing continued play, enable community hosting, or offer refunds.
During the committee hearing, ESA Vice President of State Government Affairs Jennifer Gibbons argued that private and community servers are illegal and constitute piracy. She claimed such servers are not affiliated with publishers and do not maintain the same trust and safety standards as official services.
The remarks quickly drew criticism because several major publishers already provide official software that allows players to host their own multiplayer servers.
Mojang, owned by Microsoft, distributes dedicated server software for Minecraft directly through its official website, allowing players to host multiplayer worlds themselves. Valve similarly provides SteamCMD and dedicated server tools for hundreds of games, while titles including Palworld, Valheim, ARK: Survival Ascended and Counter-Strike 2 also support officially licensed community-hosted servers.
Critics argue that these publisher-authorized servers differ fundamentally from unauthorized projects that recreate proprietary online infrastructure through reverse engineering.
Gibbons cited the US Trade Representative’s Notorious Markets reports, which have previously identified some private servers as hubs for copyright infringement. However, those reports primarily referred to unofficial World of Warcraft servers that recreated Blizzard’s subscription-based online service without authorization.
Supporters of AB 1921 countered that the proposed legislation would not require publishers to permit reverse-engineered servers. Instead, they argue companies could comply simply by releasing official server software where feasible, following a model already used by games such as Minecraft.
Assembly member Chris Ward, who introduced the bill, pointed to community servers as one possible way to keep games accessible after publishers discontinue official support.
The debate comes amid growing concerns over digital ownership and long-term game preservation. California recently passed AB 2426, a separate law requiring digital storefronts to inform customers that digital game purchases generally provide a licence rather than permanent ownership.
Concerns over digital access have intensified in recent months following several high-profile cases in which players temporarily or permanently lost access to purchased digital content because of licensing changes or online authentication requirements.
The ESA also referred to two ongoing legal cases involving private game servers during the hearing but did not identify the lawsuits in either its oral testimony or written submission.
The narrow committee defeat represents another setback for the growing Stop Killing Games movement, which argues that consumers should retain access to games they have purchased even after publishers discontinue official online services.
Related articles:
At a time when public debate is increasingly polarized and superficial, Hungarian Conservative remains committed to depth, intellectual honesty, and independent conservative thought.
Producing high-quality journalism requires resources. Your contribution helps us expand our coverage, reach new audiences, and keep our content accessible.
Please consider supporting our mission.
