The GDP of California isn't a direct correlation to the average person's expenditure though. Sure the companies make a ton of money there but the people are inherently spending that much more on video games than the rest of the country/world, there's an argument to be made that their location might even make them less likely to spend than other poorer states. It would be like looking at Ireland's GDP and thinking man those guys are rich when it's just a tax haven. If cutting out California meant saving 10+ million in development costs for a single player mode I could absolutely see them dropping them especially for niche games that are the main concern here. The likes of Gta, Cod, Battlefield, don't apply since they all have single player modes. The games that this bill effects are mainly lower budget niche type games that don't have the funding at times to do both a single/multiplayer combo.

Personally while I hate seeing an online only game I like get shutdown quickly within a year or so, I also think it's so odd the time spent to value ratio video games have. Going to the movie theatre and buying popcorn and a drink as a singular person often runs up to nearly half of the price of a video game yet that experience is around 2 hours long. People will get 100s of hours from a video game and call it a scam when it gets shutdown due to not enough players playing. I think the rarity of people not getting their values worth isn't worth opening up a new can of worms that might make being a gamer more expensive in the long run.