NY announces game ownership bill requiring ownership rather than licensing

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

A US congressman from New York has announced plans for a federal bill that would require video game purchases to confer actual ownership, including the right to keep playing after official support or servers are shut down. Commenters broadly support the goal of preserving games and curbing DRM and “licensed only” purchases, but argue over technical feasibility, legal complexity (copyright, DMCA, region locks), and how such rules would affect always-online titles and indie studios. Many expect the industry to respond by pushing harder into subscriptions and SaaS models, while others see this as a needed regulatory counterweight to increasingly rental-like digital ecosystems.

Scope and Status of the Bill

  • The bill is federal, proposed by a NY House member, not a NY state law.
  • It has only been “announced,” not formally introduced; some see it as election-season signaling.
  • Text is not public, so many arguments are based on assumptions or related campaigns like Stop Killing Games.

Ownership vs Licensing / Offline Requirements

  • Core goal: consumers should own games rather than licenses, and games must remain functional after support ends (e.g., via offline or P2P/community servers).
  • Many argue earlier eras already met this standard: games ran offline and multiplayer coexisted with offline modes for decades.
  • Others say designing robust offline+online support increases complexity, especially for live-service designs.

Technical Feasibility and Server Release

  • Several commenters claim it’s trivial to keep games alive: just release existing server executables or tools; community will handle the rest.
  • Counterpoints:
    • Some games rely on third-party or cloud services whose code can’t legally be released.
    • Region-locked licensing, proprietary components, and SaaS architectures complicate open server release.
    • For MMOs and heavily patched games, deciding which “version” to preserve is non-trivial.

Economic and Market Effects

  • Supporters say this restores first-sale–like rights, enabling real ownership, resale, and long-term use.
  • Critics argue it would push publishers toward pure SaaS, cosmetic-only monetization, and subscription models to avoid obligations.
  • Some worry about undermining second-hand markets and platform lock-in; others say subscriptions, F2P, and piracy already cover low-cost access.

Indie vs AAA and Liability

  • Concern that “keep it functional” could be a perpetual maintenance burden, disproportionately harming small studios.
  • Suggested mitigations: revenue thresholds, liability caps, or carveouts; others insist no exceptions, arguing most indies already ship offline games.

Copyright, DRM, and Legal Reform

  • Many argue the deeper problem is copyright/DRM law (DMCA 1201, excessive terms) and support shorter copyright durations, fair-use expansion, or mandatory DRM-free escrow.
  • There is debate over whether copyright mainly protects large corporations vs individual creators.

Enforcement and Ambiguities

  • Unclear definitions: what exactly counts as “functional,” “offline mode,” or sufficient server support.
  • Some fear vague delegation to the FTC could produce messy or weak regulations.