The Entertainment Software Association, stewards of the defunct E3 and mouthpiece for major publishers, is once again framing basic consumer protections as an assault on innovation. California's AB 1921, the Protect Our Games Act, requires publishers of server-dependent digital games sold after January 1, 2027, to provide 60 days' notice before ending online support, followed by an offline patch, alternative playable version, or full refund. Instead of engaging with the bill's narrow scope, the ESA recycles tired talking points about 'evolving technology' and 'licensed content' that could divert resources from new games.

Stop Killing Games, the campaign behind similar pushes in Europe, calls out the distortion. 'The industry wants people to think this is a demand for eternal server support... it isn't,' their general director Moritz Katzner told Eurogamer. The options—patch, preserve ordinary use, or refund—apply only prospectively, exempting free-to-play and subscriptions. The ESA's statement to outlets like ABC10 insists the bill 'doesn't reflect how games actually work today,' a line straight from every lobby playbook I've dissected.

X lit up with predictable backlash against the ESA. Moritz Katzner's post highlighting the opposition garnered over 2,700 likes, with users echoing that 'games are licensed' is code for 'we own your purchase.' The United Videogame Workers union endorsed the bill, and r/StopKillingGames threads frame it as essential fairness after shutdowns like The Crew. Publishers' fear of enforcement costs surfaces in committee notes, but players left holding unplayable discs see through the spin.

Amended as recently as April 2026 and pending in committee, AB 1921 tests whether Sacramento prioritizes buyers over lobby dollars. The ESA's resource-diversion scare tactic crumbles under scrutiny: this isn't about eternal uptime, it's about ending deliberate delisting without remedy.