A US congressman wants buying a game to mean owning it again. On 15 October, New York Representative Ritchie Torres announced the Power To The Players Act, a bill that would direct the Federal Trade Commission to write rules protecting what people get when they pay for a video game.
Torres's pitch is short. "I think there should be a simple rule: if you pay for it, you own it," he told Kotaku. His office's statement, reported by Shacknews, puts it more bluntly: "A game that can be taken away the moment a company pulls the plug is not a purchase."
It is worth being clear about where this sits. The bill has been announced, not passed. Kotaku reports Torres still plans to formally introduce it in Congress, after which it would go to committee. Shacknews describes it as submitted to the House. Either way, no detailed text or definitions have been published yet, and no vote is scheduled.
What the bill would change
According to Kotaku, the Act would require companies selling digital games to give players more than a licence that can be withdrawn at any time. Torres's release names three rights: to own, to play and to transfer the games people buy. Games with online features would also need an offline mode that keeps working after their servers are switched off.
That last part is the most practical. It goes after the situation where a game you paid for keeps working right up until the servers shut down, and then doesn't.
The bill covers games only. Kotaku notes it leaves out films and music, although Torres suggested it could later serve as a model for other digital media. Torres is a Democrat who has represented New York's 15th district since 2021. Kotaku reports he didn't say whether anyone has signed on as a cosponsor, or whether any Republicans will back it.
How we got here
For most of gaming's history, ownership was simple because it was physical. A cartridge or a disc was a thing you could lend, sell or keep in a drawer for twenty years. Downloads and live services changed the deal quietly, and the fine print is not shy about it. Steam's Subscriber Agreement, for example, states that "The Content and Services are licensed, not sold", and that the licence "confers no title or ownership".
Torres pointed to a fresh example. Kotaku reports that 2K Games is delisting NBA 2K25 from digital storefronts on 30 October, and its online servers go offline by 1 January 2027. That leaves the game's most popular modes unplayable, little more than two years after a release millions of people paid US$70 for. Shacknews ties the wider push to the Stop Killing Games movement and to Ubisoft delisting The Crew 2.
Torres calls it an affordability issue rather than a niche hobby complaint. He describes the bill as restoring what Kotaku calls the historical norm of game ownership, not as something new.
What happens next
The next step is formal introduction, then committee. That is a long road. Kotaku cites an estimate that 87 percent of legislation never gets a full vote. Even if the bill moves, the FTC would still have to write the actual rules, and those definitions are where "ownership" will either mean something or quietly shrink.
For now, nothing changes for anything you have already bought. What's new is that a sitting member of Congress has put game ownership on the federal agenda, with a named bill and a clear principle attached.
Reporting notes