California bill would require patches or refunds when online games shut down
595 points
• 3 days ago
• Article
Link
一项名为 Protect Our Games Act 、旨在保障在发行商关闭在线游戏后玩家访问权的 California 法案，已通过 Assembly 的拨款委员会，离全体表决更近一步。该法案要求发行商在停止对在线游戏的支持时，要么向玩家提供全额退款，要么发布一个不依赖发行商服务器、可独立运行的更新版本；同时要求在关闭维持正常游戏所需的服务前至少提前 60 天通知。法案适用于自 2027 年 1 月 1 日起在 California 销售的游戏，但 free-to-play 游戏和仅订阅制的游戏将被豁免。
该法案的推进被视为 Stop Killing Games 运动的一大胜利。该草根玩家维权组织在 Ubisoft 于 2024 年关闭其游戏 The Crew 后成立。总部设在 UK 的 SKG 表示曾参与法案起草，并帮助建立了美国分支以推动法案通过。该组织认为，没有其他媒介会允许产品在售出后毫无通知地被收回，随着 live-service 游戏越来越普及，明确的退役流程对保护消费者至关重要。
代表主要游戏发行商的 Entertainment Software Association（ESA）对该法案提出反对。 ESA 认为消费者购买的是对游戏的使用许可而非所有权，依赖在线服务的游戏最终关闭是需要持续基础设施的现代软件的自然结果。该组织还警告称，法案可能在音乐或其他知识产权许可方面制造难以解决的局面——这些许可通常有时效性，可能迫使发行商无限期重新谈判许可，或以法律或技术上不可行的方式修改游戏。
尽管面临行业反对，该法案已先后通过了 Privacy and Consumer Protection 委员会和 Judiciary 委员会，并在拨款委员会获得通过。接下来它仍需在 California Assembly 和 Senate 均获多数票通过，才能送交州长 Gavin Newsom 办公室签署。此时，Stop Killing Games 在 UK 的运动势头有所放缓：去年 11 月 UK parliament 就游戏保存展开的辩论并未促成政府采取行动。
A California bill aimed at preserving access to online games after publishers shut them down has advanced out of the Assembly's appropriations committee, moving closer to a full floor vote. The Protect Our Games Act would require publishers who discontinue support for an online game to either provide full refunds to players or release an updated version of the game that can function independently of the publisher's servers. The bill would also mandate 60 days' notice before shutting down services necessary for normal gameplay. It would apply to games sold in California starting January 1, 2027, though free-to-play games and subscription-only titles would be exempt.
The bill's advancement is a significant victory for the Stop Killing Games movement, a grassroots player advocacy group formed after Ubisoft shut down its game The Crew in 2024. SKG, which is based in the UK, says it advised on the drafting of the legislation and helped establish a US branch to support its passage. The group argues that no other medium allows a product to be sold to consumers and then taken away without notice, and that as live-service games grow more popular, clear end-of-life procedures are essential for consumer protection.
The Entertainment Software Association, representing major game publishers, has pushed back against the bill. The ESA argues that consumers purchase a license to access a game rather than outright ownership, and that the eventual shutdown of online-dependent games is a natural feature of modern software requiring ongoing infrastructure. The group also warns that the bill could create impossible situations around licensing for music or other intellectual property, which are often time-limited, potentially forcing publishers to renegotiate licenses indefinitely or alter games in ways that aren't legally or technically feasible.
Despite industry opposition, the bill has cleared multiple committees, including Privacy and Consumer Protection and Judiciary, before passing appropriations. It still needs majority approval in both the full California Assembly and the Senate before reaching Governor Gavin Newsom's desk. The progress in California comes as the Stop Killing Games campaign has seen momentum stall in the UK, where a parliamentary debate on game preservation last November did not result in government action.
474 comments • Comments Link
- 在下线在线游戏时，公开服务器端代码被视为一种公平的解决方案，让社区接手托管。但对大型公司来说，第三方许可、知识产权审计和内部审批流程使这一做法在法律与操作上都异常复杂。
- 多数意见支持在关闭在线服务前至少提前 60 天通知玩家，认为这是合理的消费者保护措施，能让玩家有时间调整并避免在即将无法使用的内容上仓促消费。
- 强制开源可能促使开发者从一开始就使用开源或易于审计的库，从而降低长期合规成本并促进社区维护与保存工作。
- 有人建议提供服务器二进制文件（不含源代码）作为更简单的替代方案，但闭源二进制易受未修补漏洞影响，也限制了社区对软件的修改与修复能力。
- 对依赖复杂后端基础设施（如身份验证、匹配系统）的游戏而言，全面开源并不现实，但公司可以发布精简版或修补版以剥离对专有服务的依赖。
- 订阅制和免费模式通常被排除在相关法规之外，这留下了漏洞——发行商可能通过改变商业模式来规避义务，进而损害消费者选择和游戏保存。
- 折中方案包括发布时托管源代码、在生命周期结束时强制提供支持离线运行的补丁，或根据购买价提供有限时长的支持保障。
- 行业组织以法律和许可限制（例如有时限的音乐或中间件授权）为理由，解释为何无法提供无限期支持，但批评者认为公司应事先为此类情况制定应对方案。
- 历史案例（如 SubSpace 和 CS:GO）表明，只要源代码或二进制可得，社区运营的服务器就能在官方停止支持后长期维持游戏。
- 批评者警告，若法律设计不当，可能产生意外后果：公司可能退出某些市场、提高售价，或放弃永久许可转向订阅制。
总体讨论体现出消费者权益与行业可行性之间的紧张关系。普遍共识是玩家应当拥有更好的已购游戏生命周期结束选择，但在具体实施上分歧很大。虽然将服务器代码开源被理想化为解决之道，许可、基础设施和企业责任等现实障碍让其复杂化，因此许多人主张采用更具体可行的措施——如强制提供离线补丁或托管源代码。也有人担心，过于广泛的监管会加速向订阅模式的转变，削弱消费者对产品的所有权。总体而言，各方一致认为，目前付费游戏可能一夜之间彻底不可用的状况不可持续，需要某种监管介入。 • Open-sourcing server code when shutting down an online game is seen as a fair solution, allowing communities to self-host, though the process is legally and logistically complex for large companies due to third-party licenses, IP audits, and internal approvals.
• A 60-day notice before shutting down online games is supported as a reasonable consumer protection measure, giving players time to adjust and avoid last-minute purchases of soon-to-be-unusable content.
• Mandating open-source releases could incentivize developers to use only open-source or easily auditable libraries from the start, reducing long-term compliance costs and fostering community-driven preservation.
• Providing server binaries (without source code) is suggested as a simpler alternative, though closed-source binaries are vulnerable to unpatched security flaws and limit community modding or fixes.
• Games with complex backend infrastructure (e.g., authentication, matchmaking) make full open-sourcing impractical, but companies could release stripped-down or patched versions that remove dependencies on proprietary services.
• Subscription-based and free-to-play games are often excluded from such regulations, creating a loophole where publishers might shift models to avoid obligations, potentially harming consumer choice and preservation.
• Middle-ground proposals include requiring source code escrow at launch, mandatory end-of-life patches to enable offline play, or time-limited support guarantees based on purchase price.
• Legal and licensing barriers—such as time-limited music or middleware licenses—are cited by industry groups as reasons indefinite support is unfeasible, though critics argue companies should plan for these contingencies.
• Historical examples like SubSpace and CS:GO show that community-run servers can preserve games long after official support ends, especially when source code or binaries are available.
• Critics warn that poorly designed laws may lead to unintended consequences, such as companies avoiding certain markets, increasing prices, or abandoning perpetual licenses altogether in favor of subscriptions.
The discussion reflects a tension between consumer rights and industry practicality, with broad agreement that players deserve better end-of-life options for purchased games but significant disagreement on implementation. While open-sourcing server code is idealized as a solution, real-world constraints around licensing, infrastructure, and corporate liability complicate its feasibility. Many suggest narrower, more enforceable measures—like mandatory patches for offline play or escrowed source code—as more realistic paths forward. There is also concern that broad regulations could accelerate the shift to subscription models, ultimately reducing consumer ownership. Despite differing views on specifics, there's a shared recognition that the current status quo—where paid games become completely unusable overnight—is unsustainable and warrants some form of regulatory intervention.