Earlier this month, Stop Killing Games, the campaign group seeking to prevent online games being rendered unplayable when publishers shut down their servers, threw their support behind a Californian bill aiming to put a requirement that studios either take action to keep games running after server shutterings or provide full refunds into law. As said bill – dubbed AB 1921 – continues to meander through the lawmaking process, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) have come out in opposition of it, arguing the proposal “doesn’t reflect how games actually work today”.

As it’s currently worded, the bill submitted by Californian state assemblyman Chris Ward would require publishers to offer players one or more of the following options upon shutting an online game’s servers down. A version of the game that can work independently of the publisher’s online services, an update or patch that delivers the same thing, or the option of a full refund.

In the same vein to arguments against getting similar measures put into law outside of the US, the ESA argue passing the Californian bill in this form would have negative consequences for developers and players. “Many games depend on evolving technology, licensed content, and online systems that change over time,” the body said in a statement to Californian local news outlet ABC10. “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.”

Cue the Stop Killing Games lot counter-lobbying. They’ve penned a letter to Buffy Wicks, the Californian state assembly rep set to chair a hearing on the bill this week, to put across their views as to why the bill should be passed into law. Stop Killing Games argue the legislation would create “a fair end-of-life framework” by making publishers provide at least one of the three options cited earlier, while also being “carefully scoped” to avoid giving players any ownership rights to copyrighted works or the ability to commercially exploit games they haven’t made themselves.

So, the sort of standard attempts at persuasion from both sides of the coin that you’d expect with any proposed law that’s still being bashed into shape prior to judgement of whether it should be set in legally-binding stone. Either way, forcing politicians at any level to consider the issue is a net positive in theory from the perspective of regular players, regardless of the outcome. We’ll continue to keep an eye on this Californian bill and the Stop Killing Games-backed citizens initiative that’s currently making its way through the debate halls of European lawmakers.