A New Bill Says If You Buy a Video Game, You Should Actually Own It

Most people who pay $70 for a video game assume they have bought a video game. Legally, they have often bought a licence to play it for as long as the publisher keeps the lights on. A congressman from the Bronx wants to change that.

Rep. Ritchie Torres, a Democrat who represents New York’s 15th district, has put forward the Power to the Players Act, The Verge reports. The bill would direct the Federal Trade Commission to write rules guaranteeing that when consumers pay for a game, they own it rather than simply license it.

What the bill would do

The problem it targets is familiar to anyone who plays online. Many games now need a connection to the publisher’s servers. When the company decides to shut those servers down, the game can become unplayable, even for people who paid full price.

According to Engadget, the bill would push the FTC to make companies treat games as owned products and to offer an offline mode when a game’s servers are being taken down. That second part matters most in practice. Ownership in a contract is nice, but being able to actually start the game after the servers go dark is the point.

The NBA 2K25 example

Torres singles out NBA 2K25. Engadget reports the game launched in 2024 for $70 and is being removed from digital storefronts on October 30, about two years after release. 2K is also shutting down the servers that support the game’s online modes in December.

Delisting a game is not unusual. Switching off the parts that make it work is what turns a purchase into something closer to a rental with no stated end date.

Where the idea comes from

Engadget says the bill lines up in spirit with Stop Killing Games, a campaign lobbying to protect game ownership in a market dominated by digital licences that can be revoked. In an interview with Kotaku, cited by Engadget, Torres described the protections as a “restoration to the historical norm” from the days when games came on discs and cartridges. He also suggested similar protections could later be sought for digital books, films and music.

That is where the stakes grow. If the principle holds for games, it is hard to argue it should not apply to the film you bought on a streaming store or the ebook on your tablet.

Why it may not pass

There are real obstacles, and Engadget lays them out. The bill could die in committee, as a similar California bill did at state level in June.

Relying on the FTC is also less certain than it used to be. In 2024 the Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference, the doctrine that told courts to defer to agencies’ readings of ambiguous laws. Since then, agency rules are easier to challenge. Engadget points out that the FTC’s ban on noncompete clauses was blocked after one judge decided the agency lacked the authority to make it. A games rule could meet the same fate.

The bigger point

Even if this bill stalls, it puts a simple question in front of Congress: what does “buy” mean when the seller can switch your purchase off? Publishers have answered that in their terms of service for years. For the first time in a while, lawmakers are asking to answer it themselves.