On October 15, 2026, U.S. Representative Ritchie Torres announced plans to introduce legislation called the "Power To The Players Act," aimed at protecting the ownership of purchased video games and the right to play them. The bill would direct the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to draft consumer protection rules and would require games with online features to offer an offline mode before their servers are shut down. The backdrop is a problem with digital games: even after purchase, they depend on the publisher's continued operation of its services, and a server shutdown can make some or all features unusable. However, NBA 2K25, the example the congressman cited, is said to remain partly playable in offline modes after its service ends. How far the bill can protect purchasers will depend not only on whether a game can be launched, but also on which features must be preserved and on the conditions for transferring games.
A Bill to Shift Game Purchases From "License" to "Ownership"
In his official announcement on October 15, Torres said consumers who buy a video game should gain ownership of it, not merely a license to play. He argues that consumers have the right to own, play and transfer to others the games they buy, and that being able to resell them as used games is among the bill's goals. "If you pay for a game, you should own it," Torres said, criticizing the current situation in which a purchased game becomes unusable simply because a company shuts down its service. According to the announcement, the plan is to have the FTC draft rules protecting these rights, and to require games with online features to provide an offline mode before service ends.
In today's digital game market, it is common for purchasers not to own the game itself but to be granted a right to use it under a contract. For example, Section 2.A of Steam's Subscriber Agreement states that content and services are licensed, not sold, and that the license does not grant ownership. Section 1.B collectively refers to rights of access to and use of content and services, including games, as "Subscriptions." Here, "Subscriptions" does not mean only monthly paid services; it also covers usage rights for ordinary one-time-purchase games.
Torres's proposal seeks to change this legal relationship between purchasers and sellers. However, the October 15 announcement only declares an intention to introduce a bill; no law has been enacted. The announcement also gave no specific text or bill number, so the legal definition of ownership and the conditions for exercising these rights remain unclear. Nor does it mean purchasers would acquire the copyright, so the specific rights to be recognized will have to be checked once the bill's content is available.
NBA 2K25 Stays Playable After Service Ends, but Some Modes Will Not
The specific example Torres cited is 2K's basketball game NBA 2K25. For this title, the date it can no longer be newly purchased differs from the date its online service ends. According to 2K's official support information, the sales end date is October 30, 2026, and the online service end date is December 31 of the same year. From January 1, 2027, online matches and online-only modes will become unavailable, but users who have already purchased the game can continue to re-download it and play offline modes.
The features that remain and those that will be lost after the service ends are summarized below.
| Status after shutdown | Affected features and modes |
|---|---|
| Remain available | Re-downloading the purchased game, offline modes |
| Still playable | Play Now, MyNBA, The W, MyWNBA (excluding features that require a server connection) |
| No longer available | Online modes such as MyCAREER, MyTEAM and online matches |
| Actions no longer possible | Earning virtual currency (VC), joining online leagues, community sharing, etc. |
Thus, the service ending does not make NBA 2K25 entirely unplayable. Offline modes remain available, but users who mainly played specific modes such as MyCAREER or MyTEAM will no longer be able to continue with them. Being able to re-download and launch a purchased game is a separate matter from being able to keep using the features that mattered at the time of purchase.
How far the bill could protect a title like NBA 2K25 depends on how the offline-mode requirement is defined. The level of protection purchasers receive would differ greatly depending on whether simply being able to launch the game offline satisfies the requirement, or whether major features that were online-only must also remain usable in some form. Because the bill text has not been published, however, it is impossible at this point to judge whether the shutdown measures 2K has planned would comply with a future rule.
Protection Beyond Disclosure at Purchase: Continued Use and Resale
Some states have already moved to enact consumer protection laws on ownership of digital games. A leading example is California's "AB 2426." Section 17500.6 of the Business and Professions Code, added by that law, sets certain conditions for using terms such as "purchase" for digital goods, including digital games. Sellers must ensure that buyers can clearly understand that they are actually receiving a license and what the terms of use are.
Specifically, sellers are required either to obtain the buyer's express acknowledgment that the transaction is a license and of its restrictions, or to clearly state before the transaction that it is a license and provide a link or similar means to view the detailed terms. This acknowledgment or disclosure must be clearly distinguished from the other terms of the transaction. However, what this law mainly protects is the transparency of disclosure at the time of purchase; it does not require a game's online service to continue or all features to be maintained after the service ends.
Torres's proposal, by contrast, goes beyond disclosure at purchase to cover continued use of games and their transfer or resale to third parties. Comparing the rights covered by existing laws and terms with those covered by this proposal gives the following:
| Area of protection | Existing laws, terms and notices | Torres's proposal |
|---|---|---|
| Understanding rights at purchase | California's AB 2426 requires disclosure of, or acknowledgment that, a transaction is a license when terms such as "purchase" are used | Change the rights obtained by buying a game from a license to ownership |
| Playing after service ends | NBA 2K25 can continue in some offline modes, but online-only modes end | Require games with online features to provide an offline mode before servers shut down |
| Transfer or resale to others | Section 1.C of Steam's Subscriber Agreement restricts transferring or selling accounts and usage rights except where expressly permitted | Aim to protect the right to transfer or resell purchased games to others |
Note that this comparison includes an enacted California law, Steam's terms of use, an individual game's shutdown notice and the announced plan for a federal bill. Each has a different legal status, so this is not a direct comparison of systems with equal force. Also, because the official text of Torres's proposal has not been published, its content may change.
California's AB 2426 also contains exceptions. For example, subscription services that are accessible only during the contract period and products provided free of charge are excluded. Products whose access the seller cannot revoke after purchase are also excluded, with permanently offline-usable downloaded products given as an example. AB 2426 therefore does not require every game to be offered in an offline version.
Even when license terms are adequately explained, there is no guarantee that a game's main features will remain usable after servers are shut down. And even for a game that can be played offline, whether the right to use it can be transferred to someone else is a separate question. What makes Torres's proposal significant is that it seeks to extend protection beyond disclosure to purchasers, to the rights of continued use and transfer after purchase.
Can an Offline-Mode Mandate Alone Protect Purchasers?
Torres's official announcement indicates a plan to provide an offline mode before online services end, but it does not define which features must be retained. It is also unclear whether the new rules would apply to existing titles, from what point the obligation would arise, and what conditions would qualify for exceptions if any are allowed. It is therefore premature to assume that games already purchased would be automatically protected by a new law.
A particular question is how to treat games that depend heavily on online services. A title like NBA 2K25, in which some modes can be used offline, can retain a certain play environment after service ends. But how far features designed around connection to online servers must be reproduced offline needs separate consideration. What will matter is whether the forthcoming text and FTC rules require merely that a game be launchable, or also that the main features purchasers have used continue to work.
The same goes for transferring and reselling games: recognizing a right in law is a separate matter from building a mechanism through which it can actually be exercised. Where usage rights are tied to an individual account, as on Steam, rules would be needed on what is transferred when a game is handed to someone else and how the original owner's access is revoked. The current announcement does not make clear any concrete method for enabling used sales of digital games.
As the NBA 2K25 case shows, there is a big difference between being able to re-download and launch a game after service ends and being able to keep playing the modes one enjoyed at the time of purchase. Torres's "Power To The Players Act" is a proposal that asks anew what rights should accompany the act of buying a digital game. Whether it can make purchaser protection effective, however, depends on the bill text and FTC rules to come. In particular, the scope of features that must be maintained after service ends, and the specific conditions under which transfer and resale of digital games would be permitted, will determine the bill's effectiveness.