オンラインゲームの一方的終了を防ぐ法案、カリフォルニア州で前進 Bill to block publishers from killing online games advances in California

A California bill aimed at preventing publishers from rendering purchased online games unplayable has advanced past a key committee vote, marking a notable legislative intervention in the long-running debate over digital ownership.

At its core, the bill seeks to require publishers who sell access to online games to ensure some form of continued playability after official servers are shut down. Likely mechanisms include providing an offline mode, releasing server binaries to allow community-run instances, or at minimum disclosing clearly at the point of sale that the title is a time-limited service. The proposal challenges the now-standard industry framing of game purchases as mere revocable licenses rather than ownership of a product.

The legislation arrives against the backdrop of a string of high-profile shutdowns that left paying customers with nothing playable. Ubisoft's decision to fully decommission The Crew became a flashpoint, helping galvanize the European Stop Killing Games campaign, which has gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures as a formal EU citizens' initiative. The California measure can be read as a US-side echo of that same consumer-rights push, with lawmakers responding to growing constituent frustration over disappearing libraries.

Industry resistance is almost certain. Groups such as the ESA have historically argued that retrofitting always-online titles for post-shutdown survival is technically and financially burdensome, and that exposing backend code could create security and intellectual property risks. Live-service and MMO architectures often rely on proprietary middleware, third-party services, and licensed content that cannot easily be handed off to the public, complicating any straightforward mandate.

There is also a preservation angle. Organizations like the Video Game History Foundation have argued that current copyright and DRM regimes make legitimate archiving of online games nearly impossible, leaving researchers and museums unable to study significant works of the era. While the California bill is framed primarily as consumer protection rather than preservation policy, its downstream effects could meaningfully expand what survives of today's commercial games, particularly if community server projects gain legal cover.

Because California hosts a disproportionate share of major publishers, studios, and platform holders, even a state-level law could ripple through industry practice in ways that resemble the impact of the state's privacy and emissions rules. Companies may find it simpler to apply compliance measures across all US releases than to bifurcate their distribution. That said, the bill still faces floor votes, likely amendments, and potential preemption arguments from publishers who may claim federal copyright law overrides state-level mandates on software design.

For now, the committee vote is more symbolic than decisive, but it signals that the political appetite to treat digital game purchases as durable goods, rather than transient subscriptions in disguise, is growing on both sides of the Atlantic. How aggressively the industry lobbies in Sacramento over the coming months will likely shape whether the final text retains real teeth or is softened into a disclosure-only regime.