Power to the Players Act: NY Congressman’s Video Game Ownership Bill

New York Congressman Marcus Molinaro has introduced the “Power to the Players Act,” a bill aimed at protecting video game ownership by requiring publishers to keep online features functional and to offer refunds when they don’t. The bill would make it illegal for game companies to sell a game and then later disable it through server shutdowns or other means without providing a clear path for the consumer to get their money back.

Background: Why This Bill Exists

The Power to the Players Act is a direct response to a growing consumer frustration: buying a game that becomes unplayable when the publisher shuts down its online servers. This is not a hypothetical issue. Several high-profile games have been rendered completely or partially non-functional after their online services were discontinued, sometimes just a few years after release. For example, the racing game The Crew from Ubisoft became unplayable in March 2024 when its servers were shut down, even though it was a game that required a constant online connection. Players who had paid full price for the game could no longer launch it at all.

This practice, sometimes called “planned obsolescence” or “server shutdown abandonment,” has become more common as games increasingly rely on online connectivity for even single-player modes. The bill’s name, “Power to the Players,” reflects the idea that consumers should have more control over the products they purchase, rather than being at the mercy of a publisher’s business decisions.

Key Provisions of the Bill

While the full text of the bill has not been made public in its entirety, Congressman Molinaro’s office has outlined the core requirements. The bill would:

• Require clear labeling: Game publishers would have to clearly disclose, at the point of sale, whether a game requires an internet connection and for how long that connection will be supported.
• Mandate refunds: If a game’s online functionality is discontinued within a certain timeframe (the bill suggests two years from the game’s release date), the publisher must offer a full refund to any consumer who purchased it.
• Prohibit deceptive practices: It would be considered a deceptive trade practice to sell a game with online features that the publisher has no intention of supporting for a reasonable period.
• Enforcement: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would be responsible for enforcing these rules, treating violations as unfair or deceptive acts under existing consumer protection laws.

The two-year window is a key detail. It’s designed to protect consumers from buying a game that might become a digital paperweight shortly after purchase, while still allowing publishers to retire older games that have a declining player base.

How the Bill Would Work in Practice

If the bill becomes law, the process would look something like this:

1. At launch: The publisher must display a clear notice on the game’s store page (digital or physical) stating the online requirements and the minimum period of support.
2. If servers are shut down before the two-year mark: The publisher must notify all purchasers via email or in-game message and offer a pro-rated or full refund, depending on how long the game has been available.
3. If servers are shut down after two years: The publisher is not required to offer a refund, but must still provide a notice so players aren’t caught off guard.

This framework is similar to how some other digital goods are regulated. For example, many states have laws requiring gyms to give refunds if they close within a certain period after selling a membership. The bill essentially applies that same logic to video games.

Support and Criticism

The bill has received support from consumer advocacy groups and some gamers who feel that the current system is unfair. They argue that when you buy a game, you’re buying a product, not a temporary license that can be revoked at any time. The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), which represents major game publishers, has expressed concerns, arguing that the bill could stifle innovation and that many games are designed as live services with expectations of ongoing updates and support.

Critics also point out that the bill might be difficult to enforce, especially for games that are sold through third-party platforms like Steam or the PlayStation Store. Who is responsible for the refund—the publisher or the platform? The bill would likely need to clarify this. Additionally, some argue that a two-year minimum is too short, as many games continue to have active online communities for much longer.

Despite these concerns, the bill has sparked an important conversation about digital ownership. It’s part of a broader trend of consumers and lawmakers questioning the terms of digital purchases, from video games to e-books to streaming content.

How to Support or Follow the Bill

If you’re a gamer who cares about this issue, there are a few things you can do:

• Track the bill’s progress: The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. You can check its status on the official Congress.gov website by searching for “Power to the Players Act.”
• Contact your representative: Let your own member of Congress know where you stand. Personal stories about losing access to a game you paid for can be powerful.
• Support consumer advocacy groups: Organizations like Consumer Reports and the Electronic Frontier Foundation often track digital ownership issues and may take a position on this bill.

It’s important to note that this bill is in its early stages. It will need to pass through committee, be voted on by the House, then the Senate, and finally be signed by the President. The process could take years, and the final version of the bill may look very different from the initial proposal.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this bill apply to all video games?
It would apply to any game sold in the United States that has online features, regardless of whether it’s a AAA title or an indie game. However, the bill specifically targets games where the online functionality is essential to the core experience, not just optional multiplayer modes.

What counts as a “refund” under the bill?
The bill defines a refund as the full purchase price paid by the consumer. It does not cover in-game purchases or microtransactions, unless those purchases become unusable as a result of the server shutdown.

What if the game is free-to-play?
Free-to-play games are not covered by the refund requirement, since there is no purchase price. However, the bill would still require publishers to provide clear disclosure about online requirements and support duration.

Could this bill make game prices go up?
Publishers might argue that the cost of maintaining servers for a guaranteed two-year period could be passed on to consumers. However, most games already maintain servers for far longer than two years, so the practical impact on prices is likely to be minimal.

What happens if a publisher goes bankrupt and can’t offer refunds?
This is a tricky situation. The bill would likely require publishers to have a plan for this scenario, perhaps by setting aside funds or working with platform holders to issue refunds. It’s an edge case that would need to be addressed in the final version of the law.

Related

• GGUF vs EXL2: Which Local LLM Format Should You Use?
• Voice Memos to Searchable Family Cookbook Safely
• Call of Duty Fatigue: Has It Peaked?