3
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
US Congressman to introduce Power To The Players Act
Posted on 10/16/26 at 11:03 am
Posted on 10/16/26 at 11:03 am
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. quote:
A U.S. congressman wants to change how we legally “own” video games.
??
??Rep. Ritchie Torres has announced plans to introduce the Power To The Players Act, a bill that would direct the FTC to create rules protecting consumers who buy video games.
??
??The proposal would give players three basic rights:
??
??>The right to own the games they purchase, rather than simply receiving a revocable license
??>The right to keep playing games after online servers are shut down, through an offline mode
??>The right to transfer or resell games they own
??
??Torres argues that if a company can take a game away simply by shutting down its servers, then the consumer didn’t really buy the game in the first place.
??
??Torres also hopes the legislation could eventually establish a precedent for ownership rights across other parts of the digital economy:
??
??“If you pay for it, you own it.”
His interview with Kotaku.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 11:10 am to Bard
Agreed, but this should extend to anything and everything you purchase.
If I purchase something, digital or otherwise, I should own it and my ownership of it should not be revocable.
If I purchase something, digital or otherwise, I should own it and my ownership of it should not be revocable.
quote:Exactly, but this should be applied to everything.
Torres argues that if a company can take a game away simply by shutting down its servers, then the consumer didn’t really buy the game in the first place.
This post was edited on 10/16/26 at 11:11 am
Posted on 10/16/26 at 11:15 am to Bard
Probably not great having the gov involved they only make things worse
Posted on 10/16/26 at 1:40 pm to Bard
Should companies be forced to keep servers running for a game that no one plays? Sucks for you if you bought the game but you can't keep paying thousands of dollars a month to run a server for 10 people who bought a game 5 years ago.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 1:57 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
Should companies be forced to keep servers running for a game that no one plays? Sucks for you if you bought the game but you can't keep paying thousands of dollars a month to run a server for 10 people who bought a game 5 years ago.
In the age of AI, it is trivial for these companies to release binaries or alter the games code so that players can either host their own servers or join others servers. Also would be trivial to make it to where you could play with bots for any online game.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 2:10 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:I agree with this but people refuse to believe this is something that’s pretty prevalent. It’s unrealistic to expect a company to keep servers up forever.
Should companies be forced to keep servers running for a game that no one plays? Sucks for you if you bought the game but you can't keep paying thousands of dollars a month to run a server for 10 people who bought a game 5 years ago.
If this law did pass you would see WAY less games be released. You would see something like The Sims has become with The Sims 4 where companies release one or two games, just add on little expansions over time and charge $40 for each of them then never release any new games
Posted on 10/16/26 at 4:05 pm to Big4SALTbro
quote:
Probably not great having the gov involved they only make things worse
I'm an extremely small government person but every now and then there's regulation to get behind.
Studios like Ubisoft are cocksuckers charging the same or increasing prices and saying "get comfortable not owning games" and the consumer has no recourse or defense.
Other than pirating the high seas, regulation is the only way I can think of where the customer isn't robbed.
This post was edited on 10/16/26 at 4:08 pm
Posted on 10/16/26 at 6:59 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
Should companies be forced to keep servers running for a game that no one plays? Sucks for you if you bought the game but you can't keep paying thousands of dollars a month to run a server for 10 people who bought a game 5 years ago.
There is a point there, but by any objective view the idea that a single-player game can't be owned outright because... reasons!... does not hold water.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 8:59 pm to Brosef Stalin
i get your point, but as an egregious example: NBA 2k shuts down servers 2 years after its release date. You cannot play NBA2k24 online as of last week.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 10:45 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
Should companies be forced to keep servers running for a game that no one plays? Sucks for you if you bought the game but you can't keep paying thousands of dollars a month to run a server for 10 people who bought a game 5 years ago.
No, but when companies purchase software from other companies like this they require the source code to go into escrow incase that company can no longer fulfill their perpetual license agreements by either cost or bankruptcy.
It would not be hard for companies to release the source code when they shut down servers or sell a license to the code to allow other companies to host servers.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News