Digital games solve several problems for players. On a PlayStation 5, switching between purchased titles is quicker than changing discs, while a digital library avoids physical clutter and the risk of discs being lost or damaged.
That convenience comes with an important limitation: buyers have little control over what happens to their purchases. Sony may decide whether older games work on future hardware, and a title could become unplayable if PlayStation Network services eventually close. The question is how digital game ownership should work when physical media disappears.
One possible answer is legislation. Representative Ritchie Torres has announced plans to introduce a bill to Congress intended to establish digital ownership rights. The proposed Power To The Players Act would ask the Federal Trade Commission to guarantee that consumers can own, play and transfer the games they purchase.
“Consumers must have the right to own, the right to play, and the right to transfer the games they buy. A game that can be taken away the moment a company pulls the plug is not a purchase. It is a rental disguised as a sale. Families in the Bronx and across the country save up to buy these games, and they deserve better than a license that can vanish at any time. The Power To The Players Act ensures consumers own what they buy and can keep playing long after a company moves on.”
This proposal would represent a major change for platform holders and publishers. Torres has described it as a restoration of the ownership expectations that defined much of gaming’s history, but practical details remain unresolved.
The problem of online-only games
Multiplayer-only releases present one of the hardest challenges. If a publisher shuts down its servers, would the game need to support peer-to-peer connections so players or other organisations could continue hosting matches? Any law would need to address that question without ignoring the technical and security reasons companies rely on central servers.
Could digital games be transferred?
Reselling or gifting a digital title is another complicated issue. One suggestion is a blockchain-based record of unique digital copies, allowing games to move through private marketplaces. Such a system would reduce the control Sony and other platforms currently have over their digital ecosystems, making it unlikely to be adopted voluntarily.
There are already examples of greater flexibility. Xbox’s disc-to-digital initiative shows how a platform can connect a physical purchase with a digital licence, although it does not solve every ownership concern.
At minimum, a platform should not be able to unilaterally destroy, disable or lock customers out of digital libraries built with substantial time and money. Account inheritance is another unresolved issue: a buyer should arguably be able to pass a Steam account and its games to their children, yet current rules do not permit that.
What should ownership include?
- The right to keep playing a purchased game after a company ends support.
- The right to use that game on compatible future hardware.
- The right to transfer, gift or inherit a digital collection.
- A practical way to preserve online games after official servers close.
Physical media remains one answer to long-term access, just as an dedicated arcade machine can keep a game experience available without depending on a modern storefront. For people weighing different ways to preserve and enjoy games, RETROCADE’s arcade machine buying guide explains the choices involved.
An all-digital future does not have to mean temporary access disguised as ownership. Clear transfer rights, preservation requirements and protections against remote lockouts could give players confidence while still allowing publishers to operate modern online services. What rights should buyers have when a digital game is no longer supported?
For more discussion of gaming hardware and preservation, explore the RETROCADE arcade blog, browse arcade parts for repair and restoration, or consider a DIY arcade kit.
Leave a Reply