Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) announced the Power to the Players Act on October 15, 2026, a video game ownership bill that would tell the Federal Trade Commission to write rules so that paying for a game means you own it. The pitch is blunt: stop selling revocable licenses as if they were purchases.
The catch is in the verbs. Torres said he will introduce the bill. The press release lists no bill number, no cosponsors and no text, so as of October 17 this is an announcement, not a law and not even a filed bill. It still hit the front page of Hacker News with 203 points and 113 comments, because the question underneath it, "do I own what I bought?", is one gamers keep asking. This comes right as Sony's disc plans have people arguing about what digital-only really costs.
TL;DR: the Power to the Players Act at a glance
| Question | Short answer |
|---|---|
| Who announced it? | Rep. Ritchie Torres (NY-15), on his House website |
| When? | October 15, 2026 |
| Is it law? | No. Torres says he will introduce it; no bill number or cosponsors listed |
| What does it do? | Directs the FTC to write rules treating a game purchase as ownership |
| Offline mode? | Games with online features would need one before servers shut down |
| Resale? | The bill would preserve consumers' ability to resell their games |
| What triggered it? | NBA 2K25: off digital stores October 30, servers off December 31, 2026 |
| What is missing? | Bill text, exemptions, penalties, a timeline |
What is the Power to the Players Act?
According to Torres's own announcement, the bill has three moving parts. It would direct the FTC to create regulations that protect the ability of consumers to own and play the games they buy, and to treat a game purchase as ownership of the game rather than a license to play it. It would require games with online features to provide an offline mode before the servers that support them are shut down. And it would preserve the ability to resell games.
The release frames this as a response to publishers shifting toward digital-only sales, where games are often sold as revocable licenses. The congressman's own words:
"When you pay for a game, you should own it."
"It is a rental disguised as a sale."
"The Power To The Players Act ensures consumers own what they buy and can keep playing long after a company moves on."
Notice what the plan routes through: the FTC. The bill does not itself write the rules for offline modes or resale; it would hand that job to an agency. That is how consumer-protection bills often work, and it is also why the real fight, if the bill ever moves, would be over the rulemaking details nobody has seen yet.
Why NBA 2K25, and why now?
The release picks one concrete example. NBA 2K25 retailed for $69.99 (standard) and $99.99 (All-Star Edition). It is scheduled to be removed from digital storefronts on October 30, and its online servers will shut down on December 31, two years after launch. Anyone who paid full price gets a game whose online features simply stop.
That is the pattern the bill targets, and it is not unique to one publisher. We have covered a smaller version of the same problem when Techland cancelled the last-gen versions of Dying Light: The Beast and offered refunds, and the disc debate behind Sony's plan to end physical disc production for new games in January 2028 is the same worry from the other side: if discs go away, the license is all you have.
Timing also helps Torres, with physical-versus-digital ownership already a live argument. Sony's own finance chief has said the disc backlash has had no measurable business impact so far, which we covered in Sony CFO Lin Tao: PlayStation Disc Backlash Has Had "No Impact". A bill is one way to turn forum anger into leverage.
What does the bill leave out?
Plenty, mostly because there is nothing to read yet. As announced, the following are open questions:
- No bill text. We could not find the draft. Details such as which games count, what "offline mode" means for a multiplayer-only title, and what penalties apply are unknown.
- No cosponsors listed. The House page names none. A bill from a single member with no cosponsors has a long road.
- No timeline. The announcement gives no introduction date and no effective date for any rule.
- No carve-out language. Nothing says whether small studios, game jams or hobby servers are exempt.
For context, Engadget's report notes the bill could die in committee, as a California bill with similar protections did in June. That outcome is what usually happens to first-term messaging bills. It is also fair to say a bill can matter even if it never passes: it forces publishers to answer, in public, why a purchase should end when a server does.
What players and developers are saying on Hacker News
The Hacker News thread (203 points, 113 comments) mixed support with practical objections. A few that stood out, all paraphrased from the commenters' own words:
- Sohcahtoa82 argued that an offline mode does not make sense for something like an MMORPG, and suggested the fallback should be publishers releasing server binaries plus client support for choosing a server, without being required to provide support. Their reasoning: community members tend to figure out setup and write guides.
- JumpCrisscross asked why the bill text was not released, and said they would want a revenue floor so an indie developer is not sued over how they shut down a hobby project.
- Animats pointed out that "will introduce" means it is not even in the hopper, and that without cosponsors it reads like a PR stunt.
- Thegn raised the loophole worry: what stops a company from shipping an update that cripples a game and then shutting it down, leaving the crippled version as the only one?
- wang_li proposed a different mechanism, saying companies that build license servers or time-limited certificates into software should have to hold customer payments in escrow and refund them if the software stops working.
These are individual opinions, not facts about the bill. But they map the real design problems: scope for small developers, what counts as "offline," and how to stop companies from gaming the rule.
Does this change anything for browser games?
Not directly, since the bill is about games people buy. But the idea behind it explains why a lot of players like browser games. A free game you open from a link has no store listing to be delisted from and no license key to revoke. That is not the same as permanence: a web game still vanishes if its host pulls it, and we are not claiming any browser game is guaranteed to stay up.
For a team that wants a Friday session without anyone buying, downloading or worrying about a delisting date, bunpav's free multiplayer browser games are built around that no-install idea, and our guide to no-download team building games walks through how to run one. If you want to see how much can run in a tab these days, we also explained how browser games run PS2 titles with WebAssembly and WebGPU.
What should you do about game ownership today?
The bill does not change anything this week. These steps do:
- Check the end-of-service date before you buy. If a game has online-only features, look for a shutdown or delisting notice on the publisher's page. NBA 2K25's October 30 delisting and December 31 server shutdown are the kind of dates to look for.
- Prefer physical or DRM-light copies for games you want in ten years. A disc or a DRM-free file still works when a store closes. It does not fix online-only features.
- Read the license, not the buy button. Most storefronts say "buy," while the terms say "license." The wording is exactly what Torres is attacking.
- Back your own saves. Where a game allows it, keep local save copies; they are the one part of a game you made yourself.
- Contact your own representative if you care. The release is the only official text so far. Ask whether they will cosponsor once the bill is filed, and watch for the bill number on congress.gov.
- Watch for the introduction. Real text will answer most of the questions above. We will update this post when it is filed.
Other game news today
A vibe-coded web shooter set in San Francisco's Tenderloin was pulled after backlash. Pierre-Louis Biojout, founder of the Y Combinator-backed startup NanoCorp, published Tenderloin Night Shift, a free browser shooter, after posting on October 13 that he had already made $300 from in-game ads. City residents and leaders denounced it, and PC Gamer reports the game appears to have been removed from NanoCorp's website; Biojout told the SF Chronicle he did not intend to depict shooting real people (PC Gamer). It is a small example of how fast a weekend AI-coded web game can ship, earn and get yanked.
Jagex cancelled RuneScape: Reignited less than two weeks after announcing it. The mode would have given new players fresh characters with a separate economy, and long-time players objected that it split the player base. Associate creative director Mod Ryan said: "It is clear that we missed the mark," and that the studio decided to cancel it; RuneScape still gets an Adventure Guide update and other additions in December (Eurogamer).
Related reading
- The PlayStation disc ban: Sony ends physical disc production for new games in January 2028
- Sony CFO Lin Tao: PlayStation disc backlash has had "no impact"
- Dying Light: The Beast cancels PS4 and Xbox One versions, with refunds
- Steam hits 43.5 million concurrent users
- No-download team building games
- Rep. Torres's announcement
- Hacker News discussion
Facts here are accurate as of October 17, 2026. The bill had not been introduced when we published; check congress.gov for the current status.