NY congressman to introduce bill protecting video game ownership

The Power to the Players Act is a proposed bill from Representative Ritchie Torres of New York. It would ask the Federal Trade Commission to protect people's ability to keep playing games they purchased. The proposal responds to a digital market where software licenses can be revoked or become unusable when online services disappear.

The bill would treat players as owners of their games rather than license holders. It would also require companies to provide an offline mode when they take down servers that support online play. That mechanism would preserve at least some way to use a purchased game after its online features end.

The bill has not yet been introduced in Congress. It could face obstacles, including committee action and court challenges to the FTC's authority. Torres described the proposed protections as a return to the historical norm before games were mainly sold digitally.

NBA 2K25 demonstrates the ownership problem because players paid for a game that is now being removed from digital storefronts. The game launched in 2024 for $70. Delisting alone is not unusual, but the planned loss of its supporting online services makes the purchase more serious.

2K plans to remove NBA 2K25 from digital storefronts on October 30. It will shut down the servers supporting the game's online modes in December. Once those servers disappear, players will not own the same usable experience they bought, especially if important play depends on online services.

The example gives Torres's proposal a concrete target. The Power to the Players Act would require ownership rather than a revocable license and would require an offline mode when servers close. NBA 2K25 therefore illustrates why digital purchases can provide less lasting control than buyers expect.

NBA 2K25 cost $70 when it launched in 2024. About two years later, 2K plans to remove it from digital storefronts on October 30 and shut down the servers supporting its online modes in December. The timeline is short compared with the expectation that a purchased game remains usable.

The money involved is the original $70 purchase price. The time involved is roughly two years between launch and the planned end of its online services. Delisting prevents new digital purchases, while server shutdown removes the infrastructure needed for the game's online modes.

The article presents this combination as more consequential than an ordinary delisting. Players may still have some access, but they will not own the same game they paid for by the end of the year. The proposed bill would respond by requiring an offline mode when servers are taken down.

When a company removes a game from digital stores, new buyers can no longer obtain it there. When the company also shuts down servers, features that depend on those servers stop working. The result is a game that may remain installed but no longer offers the same experience people purchased.

NBA 2K25 provides the article's example. 2K plans to delist it on October 30 and shut down servers for its online modes in December. The article says that, by the end of the year, players will not own the same game they paid for. Its practical value changes because online play is no longer supported.

The proposed solution is an offline mode. The Power to the Players Act would direct the FTC to prevent similar outcomes by requiring companies to preserve offline play when servers are taken down. The bill has not yet been introduced, and its enforcement could face court challenges.

The article describes the earlier period as a historical norm that existed before games were primarily sold digitally. In that model, buying a game was understood as giving the player a lasting copy, rather than access controlled by an ongoing software license. The article uses that contrast to explain why digital ownership concerns matter.

Digital sales can connect a game's usefulness to storefront availability and online services. A company can delist a title or shut down servers, changing what a buyer can access. Torres's proposal would counter that shift by treating purchased games as owned products and requiring offline play when servers disappear.

The article does not provide a detailed history of particular older formats or consoles. It does say Torres views the protections as a restoration to the historical norm. He also suggested similar protections might eventually be considered for digitally purchased books, movies, and music.

The Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, is the federal commission that the proposed bill would direct to create protections for game buyers. In this proposal, its role would be to establish regulations preventing companies from treating purchased games as merely revocable licenses. It would also oversee requirements for offline play.

The key mechanism would address two situations. Companies would need to let players own games they purchased, and they would need to offer an offline mode when servers supporting a game's online modes are taken down. These rules are intended to prevent a purchase from losing major functionality because a company ends digital services.

The FTC's involvement is not certain to succeed. The article notes that the commission has less power after the Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference in 2024. A judge could block rules by deciding the FTC lacks authority, as happened with its noncompete-clause ban.

Owning a game means the player would have a continuing right to use the purchased product. A revocable license is different: it gives permission to use digital software, but the company can potentially withdraw or limit that permission. The article says digital software licenses can be revoked at a moment's notice.

That legal distinction matters when a game depends on company-controlled stores or servers. NBA 2K25 cost $70 in 2024, yet it is scheduled for delisting and an online-server shutdown roughly two years later. Players may therefore lose access to parts of the experience, even after paying for the game.

The Power to the Players Act would change that balance by making players owners rather than licensees. It would also require an offline mode when servers close. However, the bill has not been introduced, and court challenges could limit the FTC's ability to enforce such rules.