US lawmaker announces proposal for game ownership and offline modes

US Representative Ritchie Torres, a New York Democrat, announced on October 15, 2026 that he intends to introduce the Power To The Players Act. The proposal would direct the Federal Trade Commission to establish rules protecting consumers' ability to own and continue playing games they purchase. The official release describes three goals: make a purchase confer ownership, preserve transfer or resale, and require an offline mode before an online game's servers are shut down.

The proposal's status requires careful wording. Torres's office says he “will introduce” the measure and provides no bill number, legislative text, list of cosponsors or timetable. Some reports described the announcement as a completed introduction, while others retained the future tense used by the primary source. Until a formal text is available, the details should be treated as the lawmaker's announced position, not as an enforceable rule. No digital library or license agreement changed because of the announcement.

The problem the proposal is trying to solve

Digital games are frequently sold under licenses that may restrict transfers, resale and continued access. For titles dependent on remote infrastructure, a server shutdown can remove central features or make the product unusable. Torres argues that calling this transaction a purchase creates an expectation that conflicts with a publisher's ability to withdraw access on its own timetable.

His office cites NBA 2K25 as an example. On its support page, 2K says the game's online features and services are scheduled to remain available until December 31, 2026. The same page identifies modes that will continue to work offline, including Play Now, MyNBA/MyLeague/MyGM, 2KU/Learn 2K, MyWNBA and The W. This shows that “server shutdown” does not always mean total loss of the software, but it can remove progression, virtual economies, connected matches and other systems that formed part of the purchased experience.

An offline mode is a starting point, not a complete answer

Requiring publishers to plan for the end of a service would change development priorities. Studios could have to separate local and remote functions more clearly, document dependencies and build an end-of-life step before launch. That is an editorial inference about the proposal's likely consequence, not a confirmed obligation, because no legislative text has been published.

Major questions also remain. An offline mode can preserve campaigns and local matches, but it cannot recreate persistent communities, internal markets or shared worlds. The announcement does not explain how the rule would distinguish premium games, free-to-play releases, subscriptions, MMOs and multiplayer-only experiences. It also does not define retroactivity, minimum support periods, technical standards or exceptions related to security and intellectual property.

What it could mean for digital preservation

If it advances with clear definitions, the measure could turn preservation into a product requirement instead of an improvised repair after shutdown. That could reduce reliance on private servers for essential parts of a purchased game and give consumers a testable expectation of continued access.

The announcement does not mention source-code releases, community-server tools or an obligation to preserve every feature. It would therefore be inaccurate to conclude that the proposal would save any online game in full. Its present significance is that it moves the debate from voluntary company promises toward a possible consumer-protection rule. The real test will come with formal legislative language: only then will it be possible to judge what “ownership,” “transfer” and “offline mode” mean in law, which games are covered and how much of the original experience must survive.