The proposed Californian consumer protection law AB 1921, a digital game-focused law which would ensure either offline versions of games or refunds at end-of-service would be available, is causing some arguments in the industry.
On the one hand we now have the video game trade body Entertainment Software Association (ESA) – best known as the owner of game show E3 – coming out in opposition of the bill as it feels it’ll hurt game creators. All the while, consumer rights movement Stop Killing Games argues it isn’t as expensive a proposal as the ESA would like you to believe.
Here’s a bit of nostalgia for you, a brilliant trailer from E3 2017!Watch on YouTube
The proposition, which has not gone into effect pending hearings and voting, would require companies to communicate to digital game owners 60 days before the cessation of online services.
In addition, an alternative version of the game would have to be provided to these consumers once an online service ends; a patch or update would have to be issued to make the game playable thereafter; or a refund would have to be offered per the current version of the bill.
In a statement provided to ABC10, the ESA pushed back on the bill’s proposed changes. “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. 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.”
Californian assembly member Chris Ward, who introduced the bill, has disagreed, saying: “We’re really for California consumers trying to be able to draw that line about the anticipation of what they got when they signed up for something at a significant cost to themselves, I might add, and the ability of the industry to be able to make sure that that’s there. It’s a fairness question.”
In response to the ESA’s opposition, the Stop Killing Games movement chipped in. “This is the same fight as in Europe: a grassroots consumer movement asking for basic end-of-life protections, versus the industry lobby trying to preserve the right to sell games that can later be rendered useless while preserving control,” wrote Stop Killing Games general director Moritz Katzner.
“AB 1921 is narrow. It applies to paid games going forward and gives companies options: preserve ordinary use, patch the game, or refund the purchaser. The industry wants people to think this is a demand for eternal server support, with endless costs and complications. It isn’t. It’s much simpler: If a company sells people a paid game, it should not be able to destroy the game’s ordinary use later without notice or remedy.”
The Stop Killing Games movement has also recently pushed back against age verification laws, arguing they make the preservation of certain games far untenable.
