Join for quick access. Enter your email below and we'll send confirmation plus sign you up to our newsletter.
By submitting your information, you confirm you are aged 16 or over,
have read our
Privacy Policy
and agree to the
Terms & Conditions. Geographical rules apply.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
Join the club
Get full access to premium articles, exclusive features and a growing list of member rewards.
An account already exists for this email address, please log in.
New York rep announces game ownership bill that would require consumer ownership rather than sale of licenses — would also require publishers to keep the game functional after support ends
Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York's 15th congressional district has introduced the Power To The Players Act. This new legislation aims to protect consumers by directing the FTC to establish regulations on game ownership to curb anti-consumer business practices. "Under the bill, buying a video game would give the consumer ownership of the game rather than a license to play it," the release says. "Games with online functionality would also be required to provide an offline mode before the servers supporting them are shut down."
Games having an expiration date despite being more expensive than ever has been scrutinized by players all over the world, along with aggressive monetization schemes within the games themselves. Rep. Ritchie Torres isn’t the first to fight for gamers, as Pennsylvania state senator John Kane also recently introduced the Protect Our Games Act, requiring publishers to provide an offline mode, community servers, or a 25% minimum refund. Players want to be able to enjoy their games even if the publisher decides to stop supporting the game, but Sony doesn’t think the players own their games and that they have the right to pull the rug from under them. Sony’s lawyers even recently said in a defense in an ongoing class action lawsuit that clicking on the “purchase” button would obviously not lead the consumer to think that they were acquiring a durable right to use the game instead of a revocable license; basically a one-time rent fee that Sony could take away at any moment that benefits them.
One of the most prominent recent examples of players not owning their games came in 2024 with The Crew, an online-only racing game that Ubisoft shut down for server upkeep, making it unplayable even for those who had recently purchased it. Ubisoft had not provided a way for community servers to be set up, nor an offline mode, since even the single-player campaign depended on a connection to Ubisoft’s servers. Another is the notorious yearly sports games released by EA, 2K, and Sony, with NBA 2K25 specifically being cited by Rep. Torres in his announcement of the Power to the Players Act; NBA 2K25 is being pulled from digital storefronts, with the online servers being shut down only two years after release, leaving players unable to use a main feature of the game they purchased, and new players unable to purchase the game at all. Overwatch 2’s release also killed the first Overwatch game, replacing it outright instead of the first game becoming a purchasable and separately playable game.
The Crew’s shutdown prompted the Stop Killing Games movement, demanding that publishers leave the games functional after discontinuation in the form of an offline mode, peer-to-peer patching, and the ability to host community servers. The movement also pushes back against the industry standard of selling games as revocable licenses rather than outright ownership of the copy. Concrete definitions and details of the bill have yet to be released, but it aims to require publishers to provide an offline mode before shutting down servers and actual consumer ownership instead of a license that can be taken away, potentially satisfying the demands of the movement. We don’t know whether the right to transfer that Rep. Torres mentions is mandatory for digital purchases, but it will likely be relevant for physical copies. It is also important for the bill to strictly define what ownership is and what rights the owners have over their copy.
One popular phrase against these practices is “If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing,” pushing strongly against these revocable licenses that the companies want you to purchase. Piracy is often touted as a better experience by players, as it removes DRM that often slows games down and provides a permanent copy that the publishers cannot modify to be dysfunctional; many players say they would be more glad to purchase the game if it were actually a better experience. It is still yet to be known how well the bill will execute its aims, but this is a big step towards correcting the direction the gaming industry is currently on.
Jhet Borja is a serial hobbyist who was taking apart toys from childhood and sketching inventions. He now loves doing DIY projects ranging from designing custom 3D-printed parts, building PCs and keyboards, all the way to woodworking. If he's not getting his hands dirty, he's probably brainstorming his next project.
This is a step in the right direction, and I hope more states join this effort. Product licenses that can be unilaterally terminated by the issuer with zero recourse or value retention for the licensee need to be outlawed.
This is ridiculous. All you are going to get is a really lame version that is off-line and the really good version requires a monthly subscription. An online version requires resources to maintain
All software should be purchaser owned. The scam of "licensing" is extortion of consumers.
Licensing does not have to be a scam though. Perpetual licenses work quite well when it isn't disreputable companies like Sony or Microsoft that a consumer is dealing with.
An example of an AFAIK perpetual license that many people on this forum probably have dealing with, is WinRAR. Perhaps the people behind WinRAR are disreputable too, but from what I've ever seen and read the perpetual license really is perpetually perpetuating.
You people who give money to Sony are your own worst problems.
What about Operating Systems... Like Microsoft Windows... This bill might be able to stop them from making another crappy Windows. If this had been in effect back when Windows XP was a thing, we might still be on Windows 7 before the OS got really bad with 8+.
This is ridiculous. All you are going to get is a really lame version that is off-line and the really good version requires a monthly subscription. An online version requires resources to maintain
Once upon a time, games shipped with the necessary software to allow the loading of private servers. So let's not pretend it's *hard* to accomplish, as it used to be expected.
Move to a buy and patch system with EOL open source:
Buy the app and own the media
Buy feature expansions and upgrades
When the service is end of life, either the server API or game code must be open sourced to the point an end user could run it without the mothership.
This is ridiculous. All you are going to get is a really lame version that is off-line and the really good version requires a monthly subscription. An online version requires resources to maintain
That's what private server solutions and P2P are for. Somehow, Valve and Unreal games have been able to pull this off for decades without imposing subscriptions. So, I don't really get what you're on about, and you just seem like a shill for The Industry™.
Going forward, if this bill passes, you'll get a lot of half-hearted single player games that require nothing more than the hardware to run, no more multiplayer options, and all live service games will be F2P with even more micro transactions than ever. If you don't have to pay for the game itself, there's nothing to own. The desire to own everything you purchase and force companies to support dead games just because you and 3 friends want to relive your childhood is going to destroy the gaming industry, because AAA companies will find ways around it while indie developers will be financially incapable of providing the requirements. I can agree with being able to pay for a game and being able to download it forever, even after it's been pulled for sale, but I can't agree with forcing companies to keep a dead game alive years after the popularity has been drained. No more sequels to games with online functions, no more new content after the game has run it's course, that's what I see coming.
