US lawmaker calls videogame purchases rentals disguised as sales: ‘When you pay for a game, you should own it’
A US lawmaker has argued that buying a video game should give customers lasting ownership, rather than access that can be withdrawn. The comments add political support to a consumer campaign challenging digital sales that may leave players unable to use games they have paid for.
The article focuses on California Assemblymember Chris Ward, who has backed the Stop Killing Games movement and raised the issue with state officials. The campaign followed Ubisoft’s shutdown of online racing game The Crew, which made the game unplayable even for owners; its supporters seek stronger protections for purchased games when publishers close servers or end support.
- Chris Ward says game buyers should own what they pay for.
- The Crew’s shutdown helped spur the Stop Killing Games campaign.
- Supporters want protections when publishers end online services.
New here? Start with this
Video games are sold in physical and digital forms, but a digital purchase may depend on a publisher’s servers or account systems to work. If those services end, players can lose access even though they paid for the game.
Stop Killing Games is a consumer campaign seeking protections for people who buy games that rely on online services. It gained attention after Ubisoft shut down the servers for The Crew, an online racing game, leaving it unplayable.
Chris Ward is a member of California’s state legislature, which can consider laws affecting consumers in the state. The debate matters because rules about what “buying” a digital game guarantees could affect players, game publishers and how older games remain available.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
When people pay to buy a game, they reasonably expect lasting use, not access that a publisher can later withdraw. Protecting that expectation would strengthen consumer rights, preserve games as cultural works and encourage publishers to offer workable ways to keep playing when servers close.
The case against
Digital games often depend on online services, licensing and ongoing technical support, so a purchase may not be practically equivalent to owning a self-contained physical copy. Requiring indefinite access or support could impose costs and legal uncertainty on publishers, potentially limiting online features or making games more expensive; clear disclosure and realistic preservation measures may be more workable.