A proposed US federal bill could change how video game companies sell digital titles and handle games that depend on online servers. Representative Ritchie Torres of New York has announced the Power To The Players Act, an initiative that would direct the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to establish rules protecting consumers’ ability to own and play the games they purchase. The proposal also seeks to require publishers to provide an offline mode before shutting down servers that support a game.
The initiative comes amid growing concerns about digital purchases that can become unusable when publishers discontinue support. Unlike a physical game disc or cartridge, a digital purchase may be governed by a licence that grants permission to use the game under specified conditions. If the service required to run it disappears, customers can lose access despite having paid for it. The proposed legislation seeks to address this gap, although its final wording, congressional progress and practical requirements remain uncertain.
Key Takeaways
- Proposed legislation: Representative Ritchie Torres announced the Power To The Players Act in October 2026.
- Ownership rights: The proposal aims to distinguish owning a purchased game from holding a revocable licence to play it.
- Offline access: Publishers would be required to provide an offline mode before shutting down supporting servers.
- FTC involvement: The Federal Trade Commission would be directed to establish consumer-protection regulations.
- NBA 2K25 example: The game is scheduled to be delisted from digital storefronts on October 30, 2026, with its online servers set to shut down on December 31.
- Current status: The proposal is not an enacted law, and its detailed legislative text and formal filing status require confirmation.
- Potential impact: If adopted, the rules could affect how publishers design, sell and maintain games that rely on online services.
What Is the Power To The Players Act?
The Power To The Players Act is a legislative proposal announced by Torres to address consumer concerns about video game ownership and long-term access.
The central idea is straightforward: buying a game should provide meaningful ownership rights rather than merely a licence that can be withdrawn under certain circumstances. The proposal also seeks to preserve playability when a publisher decides to stop operating the servers that a title requires.
Torres has argued that consumers should have the ability to own, play and transfer the games they buy. The initiative would put the FTC in charge of developing regulations intended to protect those interests.
However, the proposal should not be interpreted as a guarantee that every digital game could be resold, modified or transferred without restrictions. The exact scope of these rights will depend on the legislative text and the regulations eventually adopted, if the proposal becomes law.
The announcement also does not immediately change the terms governing games already purchased. Existing licences, platform rules and technical requirements remain in place unless applicable law or future regulatory action changes them.
Why Video Game Ownership Has Become a Major Issue
Video games have moved from physical media toward digital downloads, online accounts and subscription-based access. This shift has made games easier to purchase and distribute, but it has also created new dependencies.
A physical game disc may allow someone to install and play a title without needing the publisher’s servers for every function. A digital game, by contrast, may require an online account, a licence verification check or a persistent connection to a central server.
The result is that paying for a game does not always guarantee that every feature will remain available indefinitely.
Some games are designed around online multiplayer, cloud-based progression, centralised matchmaking or other services. If those services are discontinued, the game may lose major features or become entirely unplayable.
This raises a consumer question: what should happen when a company stops supporting a product that customers have already purchased?
Publishers must also consider the costs of maintaining older games, including server infrastructure, security updates, licensing agreements and technical support. The debate is therefore about balancing the costs of continued operation with customers’ expectations of long-term access.
How the Proposed Bill Could Change Game Ownership
The proposal targets two connected issues: the rights attached to purchasing a game and the steps publishers must take before ending the services required to play it.
| Issue | Current concern | Proposed direction |
|---|---|---|
| Digital ownership | Purchases may be governed by licences rather than unrestricted ownership | Establish stronger consumer ownership rights |
| Server shutdowns | Games can lose major features or become unplayable | Require an offline mode before supporting servers are shut down |
| Consumer protection | Terms and access conditions vary across platforms and games | Direct the FTC to establish relevant regulations |
| Game preservation | Older titles can become inaccessible when support ends | Improve the ability to keep purchased games playable |
The table describes the proposal’s broad aims, not rules that are already in force.
The offline-mode provision could be particularly significant. If a game relies on a publisher-operated server for its core functions, developers may need to prepare a way for it to run locally before ending support.
That could require changes to game architecture, software updates and authentication systems. Some titles may be easier to adapt than others, especially where gameplay depends on real-time multiplayer interactions or complex centralised services.
The proposal’s effectiveness will therefore depend partly on how the final rules define an offline mode and which games must comply.
NBA 2K25 Highlights the Problem
Torres cited NBA 2K25 as an example of the concerns behind the proposal. The game is scheduled to be removed from digital storefronts on October 30, 2026, while its online servers are scheduled to shut down on December 31.
The timing has drawn attention because the game will lose access to online services relatively soon after its release. Once those services close, players may no longer be able to access the modes and features that depend on them.
The situation illustrates the difference between owning a copy of a game and retaining access to all of its functionality. Even when a customer has paid for a title, its long-term usability may depend on decisions made by the publisher.
However, not every game is affected in the same way. Some titles continue to work offline after their multiplayer services end, while others rely so heavily on central servers that shutting them down can make the entire game unusable.
The proposed law seeks to address this problem before the shutdown happens, rather than relying on customers to challenge a publisher after access has disappeared.
What Would an Offline Mode Mean for Players?
An offline mode would allow at least some gameplay to continue without a connection to the publisher’s servers. Depending on the title, it could preserve a single-player campaign, local gameplay, saved progress or other features that do not require centralised services.
For players, this could extend the useful life of a game and reduce dependence on a publisher’s future business decisions.
For developers, creating offline functionality may require substantial work. A game built around online accounts, server-side calculations or persistent multiplayer worlds may not have a straightforward way to operate independently.
The proposal’s details will matter. A requirement that simply asks for an offline mode could have different effects from a rule that specifies which core features must remain available, how long access must be preserved and what exceptions apply.
The law would also need to account for games whose essential purpose is online competition or cooperation. An offline mode cannot necessarily reproduce the experience of playing with thousands of other people on shared servers.
These technical questions are among the reasons the proposal’s final text will be important.
The Connection to the Stop Killing Games Movement
The proposal follows years of campaigning by gamers and game-preservation advocates who argue that publishers should not be able to make purchased games permanently unplayable without offering a way to preserve them.
The Stop Killing Games movement has brought attention to cases in which games lose functionality or become inaccessible after their supporting services are discontinued. Its broader objective is to encourage publishers to leave games in a playable state when official support ends.
Torres’s proposal addresses similar concerns at the federal level, but it is not identical to every proposal advanced by preservation campaigners. Different approaches have suggested offline modes, independent or community-run servers, refunds or other ways to handle discontinued titles.
The federal initiative could create a regulatory framework for the issue if Congress acts on it and the FTC adopts rules. Its scope will depend on the precise legal language and the authority granted to the regulator.
The debate is also part of a wider discussion about digital ownership. Consumers increasingly purchase software, films, books and other digital products through platforms that control access. Video games provide a particularly visible example because server shutdowns can directly affect whether a product continues to function.
What Could Change for Game Publishers?
If the proposal becomes law in a form that imposes offline-access requirements, publishers may need to plan for the end of a game’s lifecycle much earlier.
Developers could have to build offline capabilities into new games, maintain systems that permit local access or release updates before discontinuing server support. Publishers might also need to explain more clearly what customers are buying and which features depend on ongoing services.
Those changes could increase development and maintenance costs. Smaller studios may face different challenges from large publishers with extensive technical resources, particularly if compliance requires major changes to games built around online infrastructure.
Publishers could also review their business models for games that rely on persistent online worlds, live-service updates or recurring monetisation. The legislation’s final scope would determine how far these changes would extend.
At the same time, clearer ownership rules could reduce uncertainty for customers and developers by establishing more consistent expectations about what happens when support ends.
What Happens Next in Congress?
The next step is to determine the proposal’s formal legislative status and obtain the text that would define its requirements. A public announcement does not, by itself, establish that a bill has completed the filing process or advanced through Congress.
If formally introduced, the legislation would need to proceed through the congressional process. That can involve referral to a committee, hearings, amendments and votes before the proposal could become law. The FTC would then need to act within the authority granted by the final legislation.
There is no guarantee that the proposal will pass in its current form, or at all. Lawmakers may disagree over how to define ownership, how to handle games that depend on online services and how much responsibility publishers should bear after a title reaches the end of its commercial life.
Until those questions are resolved, gamers should not assume that the proposal protects their existing libraries or requires publishers to preserve games today.
The Bigger Picture
The Power To The Players Act puts a growing digital-consumer issue before US lawmakers: whether paying for a game should provide stronger rights to keep playing it after a publisher withdraws support. The proposed ownership protections and offline-mode requirement target different parts of the same problem—what a customer receives when purchasing a digital product and what happens when the service supporting it ends.
The practical consequences will depend on the final legal text, technical exceptions and whether the proposal becomes law. For consumers, the debate highlights the importance of understanding digital licences and online dependencies. For publishers, it raises questions about how games should be designed and maintained when long-term access becomes part of the expected purchase.
Looking Ahead
The immediate focus will be on the bill’s formal introduction, its detailed wording and the response from lawmakers, consumer advocates and the gaming industry. If the proposal advances, the definitions of ownership and offline functionality will be central to determining which games are covered and what publishers must do before shutting down servers. The FTC’s potential role would also depend on the authority provided by Congress.
For players, the proposal represents a possible shift toward greater control over purchased games, but it does not yet change current access rights. The wider issue is likely to remain relevant as gaming becomes increasingly digital and more titles depend on ongoing online services. Whether legislation can protect long-term playability without imposing impractical requirements on developers will be a key part of the debate.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the Power To The Players Act?
It is a proposed US federal measure announced by Representative Ritchie Torres. It aims to strengthen consumers’ ownership rights over purchased video games and require offline access before supporting servers are shut down.
2. Has the bill become law?
No. The proposal is not an enacted law. Its formal filing status and detailed legislative text should be confirmed through official congressional records.
3. Will the proposal make all digital games resellable?
Not necessarily. Torres has identified the right to transfer games as one of the ownership principles behind the proposal, but the precise rules and scope would depend on the final legislation.
4. Why is NBA 2K25 part of the discussion?
The game is scheduled to be removed from digital storefronts on October 30, 2026, and its online servers are scheduled to shut down on December 31. The case illustrates how discontinued services can affect access to purchased games.
5. Would every game need to work offline?
The proposal aims to require an offline mode before supporting servers are shut down. The exact requirements, exceptions and technical definitions depend on the final text and any regulations adopted.
6. What should gamers do now?
Players should check whether games they buy require persistent online access, read platform licence terms and keep track of official shutdown announcements. The proposed legislation does not currently guarantee continued access to existing purchase
Get the day’s top stories in your inbox
One concise email. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
