has recently emerged as a hot potato.This law, an institutional response to the 'Stop Killing Games' movement sparked by Ubisoft's 'The Crew' service termination, was initially well-intentioned. The practice of forcing unnecessary always-on server connections for typically single-player games and blocking access to existing gameplay upon service termination absolutely needs to end.

However, when you shift focus to online-only games that critically require multiplayer (MMORPGs, PvP fighting games, etc.), this bill is riddled with fatally flawed provisions. The reason for the industry's backlash and gamers' concerns simultaneously erupting is largely due to the near-complete lack of countermeasures or distinctions for this very aspect.

Diving into the bill, it stipulates that game companies must ensure consumers can continue to run the game 'in some fashion' when service ends. This is an incredibly vague phrase, allowing for a multitude of interpretations. For instance, in a 5v5 team-based shooter, a P2P method using intermediaries like Steam where users take turns hosting would be ideal. Yet, instead of such a method, simply dropping nine 'dumb AI bots' with rudimentary intelligence into the game and claiming it supports single-player offline play would legally be no issue at all. What about MMORPGs? Even if players are just left to wander empty maps with only NPCs and monsters, devoid of any other players, the legal requirements are met.

If this bill is enacted as is, the emergence of such deceptive offline patches is as clear as day. From the company's perspective, when a game fails and its service is terminated, they lack the financial capacity to incur additional development resources and server costs for regulatory compliance. Naturally, users will not be satisfied with such patches. Ultimately, the emotional chasm between gamers hurt by these half-hearted results and game companies will deepen to an irrecoverable extent. A law intended to prevent unilateral game service termination could instead become a catalyst that fuels conflict between both parties.

What's even more concerning is that this law will cause a regression in the business model ecosystem of online games. The exceptions in this law are 'subscription-based services' and 'free-to-play games (with microtransaction models).' Online multiplayer-only games that require an initial package purchase fee fall under the regulations. Games like Helldivers 2, New World, Chivalry 2, and PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds before its free-to-play transition are prime examples. These package-based games tend to have less aggressive monetization compared to free-to-play titles and typically offer stable gameplay and rich content from the outset.

However, if the bill passes, game companies will have no reason to release multiplayer games in a package format. Consequently, the industry will be forced to shift all multiplayer games to a free-to-play or monthly subscription model to circumvent legal loopholes. The package-based multiplayer business model, which clearly had its advantages, is facing its demise.

The game industry operates on a global scale. And the United States, now and historically, is the world's largest market and the home base for giant game companies like Activision Blizzard, EA, Valve, Take-Two, Microsoft, and Riot Games. In this environment, a bizarre service that applies separate offline patches or refund systems only to games distributed in California is impossible. Therefore, this bill is highly likely to operate as a de facto global standard. South Korea's game industry is also actively knocking on the doors of the North American and European markets, primarily through console and Steam platforms, making it inevitable that they will be bound by this legal framework.

The legislative intent to protect consumer rights and preserve digital heritage is commendable. However, there remain deep concerns about this bill, which has passed the California State Assembly in such an unpolished state due to a lack of understanding of the game industry and technology. The process still includes review by the California State Senate subcommittee, hearings, a vote, and the Governor's signature. During that process, crucial amendments are desperately needed, such as grading 'post-end-of-life operability,' transparently informing consumers before purchase about whether P2P network access or high-quality AI bots will be provided, or adding further exceptions for online-only multiplayer games.