[ad_1]
In a formal statement of support for the bill sent to the California legislature, SKG wrote that “there is no other medium in which a product can be marketed and sold to a consumer and then ripped away without notice… As live service games rise in popularity for game developers and gamers alike, end-of-life procedures are essential tools to ensure prolonged access to the games consumers pay to enjoy.”
The Entertainment Software Association, which helps represent the interests of major game publishers, publicly told the California Assembly last month that the bill misrepresents how modern game distribution actually works. “Consumers receive a license to access and use a game, not an unrestricted ownership interest in the underlying work,” the ESA wrote. The eventual shutdown of outdated or obsolete games is “a natural feature of modern software,” the group added, especially when that software requires online infrastructure maintenance.
The ESA also said the bill would impose unreasonable expectations on publishers regarding licensing rights for music or IP rights, which are often negotiated on a time-limited basis. “A legal requirement to keep games playable indefinitely could place publishers in an impossible position—forcing them to renegotiate licenses indefinitely or alter games in ways that may not be legally or technically feasible,” they wrote.
Last month, the Protect Our Games Act also received positive votes from the California Assembly’s Privacy and Consumer Protection and Judiciary committees. But the bill still faces significant hurdles in getting majority passage in the full California Assembly and the California Senate before being sent to California Governor Gavin Newsom for signature.
Still, the current legislative progress in California has to be heartening for the Stop Killing Games movement, which has seen its momentum in the UK stall a bit after a UK Parliament debate on game preservation last November.
[ad_2]
Source link
