Europe and California are moving to force game makers to keep titles playable after servers close — or refund buyers. Our estimate: $1.8 billion a year. The market still prices it as a lobbying fight.
Lawmakers in two of the world's biggest markets are moving to make game makers keep their titles playable after the servers go dark. California's AB 2426 already forces sellers to admit you only license a game, not own it; its AB 1921 end-of-life bill cleared the state Assembly in 2026. In Europe, 1,294,188 verified signatures sit before the European Commission. Our central estimate puts the yearly cost at $1.8 billion (range $1.2 billion to $2.6 billion), about 3.0% of the $60.0 billion exposed market.
The market still treats this as a lobbying fight. But about 84% of games-market money now comes from live-service designs these rules would directly disrupt, and 52 games were shut down in just the first half of 2026.
Ubisoft, whose The Crew shutdown sparked the movement, is most exposed. Electronic Arts and Take-Two Interactive lean heavily on always-online titles. Roblox and NetEase both run live, server-dependent games that simply stop working when the lights go off.
Why this matters. Lawmakers in Europe and California are moving to force game makers to keep titles playable after servers close, or refund buyers. That turns the 'always-online' design behind most of today's revenue into a recurring cost. Lenders, operators and investors backing studios built on live-service games face a bill the market still treats as a minor lobbying fight.
Blindside · Gaming
Laws Force Games To Stay Playable
Always-online games now carry a legal cost, not just a feature
Building
61
Blindside index
What drives it — drag to test
each slider starts at our cited estimate — drag to see the range
Always-online games sold where new rules apply55%
Our judgment — games needing a constant connection, sold in Europe, California and the United Kingdom.
Yearly cost to build offline versions, as share of exposed sales4%
Our judgment — cost of building two versions from the start; no public dollar estimate exists yet.
Extra cost from refunds and group lawsuits+25%
Sourced — California's disclosure law is already drawing group lawsuits against game makers.
Time to impact
2–5 yearsBuilding
now3 yrs7+ yrs
When the financial hit begins to land, on our read.
How to read this. Drag any slider to test your own number — the chart and index update live. The likelihood and the locked facts stay put.
Yearly cost to keep games working and refund buyers
$1.8bn3.01% of sector
Dark line = most likely · faint lines = low–high (8 in 10 outcomes land between) · shaded band = what outside analysts expect
Our estimate lands within what outside analysts expect ✓
Chance this is a permanent shift, not a blip
52%
Average of five independent reads (range 38–60%):
What the track record says55%
Consumer-protection laws usually arrive slow and watered-down, but California's disclosure rule already passed.
How it actually works60%
1.29 million verified European signatures plus California Assembly passage put real bills moving in two big markets.
The skeptic's case38%
Europe's game-industry lobby is strong; regulators can decline, or define the rule narrowly and cheaply.
What the courts show55%
Lawsuits under California's disclosure law are already reaching games, so courts entertain the ownership argument.
The architecture problem50%
Always-online and live-service designs clash directly with any rule that games must keep working.
Fixed — the sliders change the size of the hit, not the odds it's permanent.
Why this matters
Lawmakers in Europe and California are moving to force game makers to keep titles playable after servers close, or refund buyers. That turns the 'always-online' design behind most of today's revenue into a recurring cost. Lenders, operators and investors backing studios built on live-service games face a bill the market still treats as a minor lobbying fight.
Most exposed companies
Ubisoft UBI · Electronic Arts EA · Take-Two Interactive TTWO · Roblox RBLX · NetEase NTES
🔒
The facts — locked
measured, not editable
1,294,188
verified EU signatures; submitted to the European Commission
EU Citizens' Initiative, Jan 26 2026
Feb 23 2026
organisers met EVP Virkkunen + Commissioner McGrath
European Commission
Jan 1 2025
California AB 2426 in force (must disclose 'license, not ownership')
CA AB 2426 / Sidley
AB 1921
CA end-of-life bill cleared the Assembly (2026)
GameLuster / Push Square 2026
~84%
of games-market revenue is non-full-game-sales (live-service/IAP)
MIDiA / industry 2024
52
games shut down in H1 2026 alone (delisted, access lost)
Game Rant 2026
The Crew
the Ubisoft shutdown that triggered the movement (no offline mode)
Stop Killing Games
Attention is climbing. the market is starting to price this in — the early window is closing.
Our central estimate is $1.8 billion a year in costs to keep games working and refund buyers (range $1.2 billion to $2.6 billion, about 3.0% of the $60.0 billion exposed market). It is driven by 1,294,188 verified European signatures now before the European Commission, California's AB 2426 already in force, and AB 1921 cleared through the California Assembly. With 52 games shut down in the first half of 2026 and about 84% of games-market money tied to live-service designs a 'must stay playable' rule would disrupt, this is a recurring cost the market still prices as a lobbying problem.
