US bill would make game purchases ownership, not licences

A New York congressman has introduced federal legislation that would change what it means to buy a video game in the United States, according to The Verge. Rep. Ritchie Torres, who represents the Bronx, put forward the Power To The Players Act this week. The bill proposes directing the Federal Trade Commission to write rules ensuring that when a consumer pays for a game, they gain ownership of it rather than a licensing agreement.

What the bill would do

The proposal tackles a long-standing grey area in digital games retail. Purchases on most storefronts are framed as licences, which is why access can disappear when a platform or publisher withdraws support. Under the legislation, regulators would be tasked with defining rules that treat a payment as a sale of the game itself. The bill would also require developers to build in an offline mode before they shut down the servers a game depends on.

The text has not passed, and the FTC rulemaking it calls for would come after the legislative process. The proposal therefore describes an intended outcome rather than an immediate change for players or platforms.

The examples behind the push

The Verge reports that Torres points to NBA 2K25 as a recent illustration of the problem. According to the report, 2K plans to remove the title from storefronts at the end of the month and to shut down its servers on December 31, which would limit how much of the game remains playable. The pattern is familiar across the industry: many modern titles rely on server connections, so a shutdown can leave a paid-for product unusable.

Torres framed the issue in blunt terms in a statement announcing the bill. He said a game that can be withdrawn when a company pulls the plug should not be characterised as a purchase, describing such an arrangement as a rental presented as a sale.

Why the timing matters

Questions about ownership, continued play, resale and transfer have gained prominence recently. The Verge notes that Sony said it intends to phase out physical game discs in 2028. That plan sharpened concern about what consumers actually hold when they buy digitally, particularly for titles whose functionality depends on publisher-operated infrastructure.

A state-level parallel

The federal bill echoes efforts at state level. In Pennsylvania, State Sen. John Kane introduced the Protect Our Games Act, which would require companies to offer an offline mode, an online mode that does not depend on the company's servers, or a refund of at least 25 percent when a title is being retired. The overlap suggests the debate is moving through more than one legislative channel, though neither proposal is law.

The two bills are not identical. The federal text, as described by The Verge, centres on an ownership guarantee and a pre-shutdown offline requirement. The Pennsylvania proposal adds a refund option and specifies a minimum percentage.

What remains unresolved

The source material does not say how ownership would be verified, how existing titles would be treated, how the FTC would enforce the rules, or what industry response the bill has drawn. Those gaps matter for platforms, studios and players alike, since the practical effect of any rule would depend on definitions and timelines that are not yet public. The Verge's reporting also does not state whether the bill has co-sponsors or a committee path.

For now, the proposal is a statement of intent about digital ownership. Its significance lies in connecting consumer frustration about disappearing games to a formal regulatory mechanism, and in pressing the question of what a purchase should mean when the product depends on a server that someone else can switch off.