TL;DR
Get the latest gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
US Rep. Ritchie Torres has proposed a bill intended to give video game buyers ownership rights rather than a revocable license. A press release says it would require normally online-only games to offer offline play, but the bill’s full text is not yet public and its prospects are uncertain.
U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres has proposed legislation aimed at giving people who buy video games ownership rights rather than a revocable license, according to an announcement on his House website reported by Ars Technica. The proposal also says games that normally require an internet connection would have to offer an offline mode, potentially allowing continued play after a publisher shuts down its servers.
The proposal responds to a gap between how consumers commonly describe buying a game and how publishers’ end-user license agreements often define the transaction. Ars Technica reports that these agreements generally grant a license that can be revoked, rather than ownership of the game itself. The proposed measure’s stated aim is to change that relationship, though its precise legal effect cannot be evaluated without the bill text.
Torres’ announcement, as described by Ars Technica, does not say developers must keep online servers running indefinitely. Instead, it says games that are normally online-only must provide offline play. That approach could avoid requiring publishers to maintain costly services forever, but it may still require changes to games designed around always-online infrastructure.
The bill has not become law, and the source material does not establish that it has been scheduled for a vote. The proposal’s full text was not publicly available at the time of the report. Its requirements, exceptions, enforcement mechanism and practical effect therefore remain unknown.
What Offline Play Could Change
If enacted as described, the proposal could affect what buyers can do with a game after a publisher ends support or closes its servers. An offline option could preserve access to at least some play, rather than leaving a purchase dependent on a service that may no longer operate. A change to the licensing relationship could also affect how clearly consumers are told what rights they receive when they pay for a game.
The technical consequences may vary by title. Some games rely on online systems for core functions, and the report says it may not be feasible to add an offline mode to every game without changing how it is built. The proposal therefore concerns both consumer rights and design decisions made by developers and publishers. Whether it can address those issues will depend on the bill’s actual wording and how it is enforced.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Why Discs Do Not Guarantee Access
A physical disc does not necessarily give a buyer a lasting, self-contained copy of a game. Ars Technica notes that some disc releases still rely on online servers, while the license terms may characterize the purchase as permission to use the software rather than ownership. In other cases, patches have substantially changed the version players ultimately experience compared with what was originally shipped on the disc.
Advocacy efforts such as Stop Killing Games have pressed for changes to how publishers handle games when support ends. Proposals in different jurisdictions have taken different approaches. Ars Technica says some earlier legislative ideas drew criticism for appearing to require developers to keep servers running indefinitely, a potentially costly obligation. Torres’ proposal, as summarized in the announcement, instead emphasizes offline play, but its full requirements cannot yet be checked.
“The announcement describes a proposal to give video game buyers “ownership,” not “a license.””
— Ritchie Torres’ House website announcement, as reported by Ars Technica
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Bill Text and Feasibility Remain Open
The bill’s complete text was not publicly available in the source material, so it is not possible to determine exactly which games would be covered, what qualifies as ownership, or how compliance would be enforced. The announcement also does not establish whether the measure has bipartisan support, a committee path or a timetable for consideration.
It is also unclear how an offline-play requirement would apply to games built around online services. Ars Technica reports that for some titles, adding offline functionality may not be technically feasible without substantial architectural changes. The proposal’s treatment of those cases, and any exceptions or transition period for developers, is not known.
Finally, a proposal is not a guarantee of enactment. Legislation must advance through Congress, and the report notes that many proposed bills do not reach a vote. The measure’s ultimate effect will depend on both its final language and whether it progresses.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Congressional Steps to Watch
The next concrete development is publication or introduction of the bill’s full text. That would allow lawmakers, developers, consumer groups and players to assess the proposed definitions, offline-play rules, exceptions and enforcement provisions. The available announcement does not specify when that text will appear.
After introduction, the proposal would need to move through the relevant House process before any floor vote, and further action would be required for it to become law. Until those steps occur, the measure remains a proposal, not a change to buyers’ current rights. Any claims about its final scope or effects should be treated as provisional.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Who proposed the video game ownership bill?
U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres proposed the legislation, according to the announcement on his House website cited by Ars Technica.
What would the proposal require for online-only games?
As described in the announcement, games that normally require an internet connection would have to offer an offline mode. The precise requirement cannot be confirmed without the bill’s full text.
Would the bill require publishers to keep servers running forever?
The report says the announcement does not require servers to remain online indefinitely. It instead describes an offline-play requirement, though the bill text is needed to clarify how that would work.
Has the proposal become law?
No. It is a proposed bill, and the source material does not say it has passed Congress or been scheduled for a vote.
Why is the full bill text important?
The text would show how the proposal defines ownership, which games it covers, what exceptions apply and how compliance would be enforced. Those details were not available in the report’s source material.
Source: fediverse
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
