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
Rep. Ritchie Torres has proposed a bill that would change how video games are sold, seeking to give buyers ownership rather than a revocable license. The proposal would also require normally online-only games to offer offline play, but the bill text is not yet public and its prospects in Congress are unclear.
U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres has proposed a bill to give video game buyers ownership rather than a revocable license, while requiring games that normally need online access to offer an offline mode. The proposal could affect what players retain when publishers discontinue games or shut down their servers, but its full text has not yet been released.
According to the announcement on Torres’ House of Representatives website, the bill would address the distinction between buying a game and receiving a license to use it. Many game end-user license agreements say that a customer receives a license that can be revoked, rather than ownership of the game itself. The proposal seeks to change that relationship, though its precise legal terms cannot yet be assessed.
The announcement also says games that are normally playable only online would have to provide an offline mode. That would allow players to continue playing after an online service is discontinued, rather than requiring publishers to keep servers running indefinitely. The announcement does not specify how an offline mode would need to work or which games would fall under the requirement.
The proposal is not law, and the available announcement is not a substitute for the bill’s legislative text. Ars Technica reported that the text had not been made public, leaving questions about the requirements, enforcement, and which products or transactions would be covered. The measure still would need to advance through Congress, where many proposed bills do not reach a vote.
What Offline Rights Could Change
If enacted, the proposal could give consumers more protection when a publisher ends support for a game or withdraws access to it. An offline-play requirement could help preserve access after servers go dark, while an ownership rule could change the legal framing of what customers receive when they pay for a game. Those are potential effects of the proposal, not rights that buyers have gained already.
The issue reaches beyond whether a customer has a physical disc. A disc may contain game files, but that does not necessarily make the game independent of the publisher’s servers or the terms of its license. Players may also find that the disc version differs from the game after updates. The proposal’s impact would depend on how its eventual text treats these cases.
For publishers and developers, an offline-mode mandate could have technical consequences. Some online games may be designed around persistent servers, and creating a separate mode could require changes to how those games are built. The available announcement does not establish which titles could comply easily or what costs compliance might involve.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Why Discs May Not Mean Ownership
Discussions about preserving access to games have often focused on the vulnerability of online services. When a game relies on publisher-operated servers, shutting those servers down can prevent customers from playing, even if they bought the game or still possess a disc. Physical copies do not automatically resolve that problem.
As Ars Technica reported, licensing agreements commonly describe the transaction as a revocable license, and some games depend on online services to function. A disc can also hold a version that changes substantially through later patches. That means ownership, access, preservation, and the ability to play offline are related but distinct issues.
Activists, including the Stop Killing Games campaign, have pressed for changes to how publishers handle discontinued games. Previous proposals in different jurisdictions have taken different approaches. Some have faced criticism for appearing to require developers to maintain servers indefinitely, an obligation that can carry ongoing costs. The Torres announcement describes offline play instead, but without the bill text it is not possible to determine how that approach would work in practice.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Bill Text and Technical Scope
The most immediate unknown is the bill’s full legislative text. Without it, the scope of the ownership provision, the definition of an online-only game, and the standards for an offline mode remain unclear. The announcement also does not explain what remedies or penalties might apply if a publisher failed to comply.
It is also uncertain how the requirement would apply to games whose systems depend on continuous online services. Ars Technica noted that some titles may not be designed to operate offline, so compliance could require changes to their technical architecture. The proposal does not say whether developers would have to redesign such games, provide another form of access, or meet a different standard.
Finally, no outcome in Congress is assured. The proposal would need to move through the legislative process, and the source material does not establish whether it has sufficient support, when it might receive consideration, or whether its provisions would be revised.
game ownership collector's edition
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Congressional Steps Ahead
The next key development is publication of the bill text, which would allow lawmakers, developers, consumer advocates, and players to evaluate the actual requirements. Its provisions and definitions will determine whether the proposal would cover only certain sales or games, and how it would address online dependencies and discontinued services.
After that, the bill would need to proceed through Congress. The timing and prospects are not established by the announcement. Until there is legislative action, the proposal does not change existing game licenses or require publishers to provide offline modes.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What would Rep. Ritchie Torres’ proposed bill do?
Based on the announcement, the proposal would give buyers ownership rather than a revocable license and require games that normally need online access to offer offline play. The full bill text is not yet publicly available.
Does the proposal require publishers to keep game servers running?
The announcement, as reported by Ars Technica, describes an offline-mode requirement, not a requirement to keep servers operating indefinitely. The final details cannot be confirmed without the bill text.
Would the bill give players new rights now?
No. It is a proposal, not enacted law. It would have to advance through Congress before changing buyers’ rights or publishers’ obligations.
Why might an offline mode be difficult to provide?
Some games are engineered around online services and may not be designed to run without them. Ars Technica reported that adding offline play could require changes to a game’s technical architecture; the proposal’s standards and exceptions are not yet known.
Source: fediverse
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
