Stop Killing Games has rapidly evolved from a grassroots consumer initiative two years ago to a significant player on the international stage, with presentations at the European Parliament and collaborations with global NGOs anticipated by 2026. Despite these advancements, the organization faces resistance from within the gaming industry, which has issued cautionary messages to consumers, suggesting they tread carefully in their desires for change.
Legislative Developments
In April, Stop Killing Games publicly endorsed the Protect Our Games Act, formally known as AB 1921. This proposed legislation, currently navigating the California legislature, aims to require game developers to inform consumers ahead of any server shutdowns. It also mandates that companies either provide an offline version of the game, patch existing titles to eliminate the need for online services, or issue full refunds to affected players.
Recent reports highlight a growing trend among smaller game studios that are taking proactive measures to ensure their titles remain playable even after official servers are decommissioned. For instance, Lunarch Studios adapted its multiplayer puzzle game, Islands of Insight, to function offline in 2024, allowing fans to continue enjoying the game post-server closure. Similarly, 1047 Games introduced peer-to-peer support for the original Splitgate after shutting down its servers in 2025. Even Ubisoft, a major player in the industry, managed to implement an offline mode for The Crew 2, garnering positive feedback from gamers.
Industry Reactions
The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has voiced strong opposition to the proposed bill, framing it as a potential burden on game developers. In a response on Reddit, Stop Killing Games organizer Moritz Katzner clarified that the legislation does not demand perpetual server maintenance. Instead, it seeks to prevent publishers from selling games and subsequently disabling them without offering consumers any recourse.
Katzner articulated, “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.”
Historically, the ESA has actively lobbied against measures aimed at preserving access to games. In 2024, the association contested a DMCA exemption that would allow libraries and museums to offer remote access to video games, expressing concerns that such access could be exploited for recreational purposes rather than educational ones. The Copyright Office ultimately sided with the ESA, rejecting the proposal put forth by advocates for the Software Preservation Network.
The ESA’s recent statements regarding Stop Killing Games echo similar sentiments expressed by Video Games Europe, the European counterpart to the ESA, which warned that the demands of Stop Killing Games could lead to “unsafe community content” and impose significant financial burdens on developers, potentially stifling creativity and innovation in the gaming industry.
