from the baby-steps dept

Stop Killing Games Gets Its First American Legislative Effort Out Of Committee in California

I’ve written quite a bit about the Stop Killing Games movement, in no small part because I think it’s way more important than most people think. Preserving cultural output is both important and, frankly, a key part of the bargain that is supposed to be copyright law. The fact that we offer video game publishers copyright protections, which are supposed to come with an eventual appearance in the public domain, only to watch as game servers are shut down and gaming source codes are not preserved such that it all just goes away breaks that bargain completely. The Stop Killing Games movement is designed to get government to enforce that bargain with some basic rules around what publishers can and can’t do, and primarily to eliminate this disappearance of culture.

But it’s largely been a European effort thus far. That’s why I think it’s worth noting that the movement is now starting to gain traction in America as well. In California, where the Protect Our Games Act is seeking to add some of the same protections for consumers, and was constructed under the advice of Stop Killing Games.

California’s Protect Our Games Act, as currently written, would require digital game publishers who cut off support for an online game to either provide a full refund to players or offer an updated version of the game “that enables its continued use independent of services controlled by the operator.” The act would also require publishers to notify players 60 days before the cessation of “services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game.”

As currently amended, the act would not apply to completely free games and games offered “solely for the duration of [a] subscription. Any other game offered for sale in California on or after January 1, 2027, would be subject to the law if it passes.

And here’s the meat of the bill’s language itself:

1. (A) 60 days before a digital game operator ceases to provide services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game, the operator shall communicate all of the following information to purchasers and prospective purchasers of the digital game:

(i) The date on which services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game will cease.

(ii) Any services that will no longer be provided by the operator.

(iii) Any game features that will no longer be available to the purchaser.

(iv) Any known security risks that may result from the cessation of services.

(v) How the purchaser can continue to use the digital game, or obtain a refund, pursuant to paragraph (2).

(B) A digital game operator shall communicate the information required by subparagraph (A) by doing both of the following:

(i) Notifying purchasers directly through the operator’s digital game.

(ii) Posting the information publicly on the operator’s internet website.

(2) Beginning on the date a digital game operator ceases to provide services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game, the operator shall provide the purchaser with one or more of the following:

(A) A version of the digital game that can be used by the purchaser independent of services controlled by the operator.

(B) A patch or update to the purchaser’s version of the digital game that enables its continued use independent of services controlled by the operator.

(C) A refund in an amount equal to the full purchase price paid for the digital game by the purchaser.

What this is really saying is that game publishers moving forward would either have to find a way to allow those who bought the game to keep playing it as intended when they don’t want to support it with backend requirements any longer, or else offer a refund. And I remain in a place where it’s very hard to argue with any of this. Publishers can talk all they want about how they aren’t selling games, but merely a license to play those games for some indeterminate period of time that is solely at the discretion of the publisher.

As Stop Killing Games mentions commenting on the California Bill, there is no other place in commerce where such an insanely anti-consumer scenario is allowed to exist.

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 ripped away without notice… As live service games rise in popularity for game developers and gamers alike, end-of-life procedures are essential tools to ensure prolonged access to the games consumers pay to enjoy.”

The ESA, which is lobbying hard against the bill, responded with nothing beyond the exact license-focused reasoning I mentioned above.

The Entertainment Software Association, which helps represent the interests of major game publishers, publicly told the California Assembly last month that the bill misrepresents how modern game distribution actually works. “Consumers receive a license to access and use a game, not an unrestricted ownership interest in the underlying work,” the ESA wrote. The eventual shutdown of outdated or obsolete games is “a natural feature of modern software,” the group added, especially when that software requires online infrastructure maintenance.

My response to that is simple: then modern software shouldn’t fucking get copyright protection. If that’s the route the ESA really wants to go in, then let’s do it.

That’s true north on this entire question and the one thing that lobbyists like the ESA never, ever comment upon. Copyrighted works are supposed to end up in the public domain. If a publisher actively keeps that from ever happening by essentially making a product that is unusable without its backend support, but plans to stop that backend support, then that publisher is breaking the copyright bargain.

And while I am a fan of all of these incremental preservation efforts, the copyright fight is the real fight.