The New Law that Reveals: We Don’t Own Digital Games

In the modern era, digital media has revolutionized how we consume entertainment. The shift towards streaming music and movies has made physical products less common. The same trend is now affecting video games, with over 90% of games sold in the UK being digital.

While digital media offers convenience—like instant access without the need to visit a physical store or manage multiple discs—it also comes with hidden terms and conditions. Digital storefronts are now required by California’s new law (AB 2426) to disclose that buyers do not hold unrestricted ownership over their digitally purchased content.

Key Points:

  • Disclosure Requirement: Californian sellers must clearly state they are providing a license, not selling digital goods outright.
  • Limited Ownership Rights: While this does not preclude the right to access your purchases temporarily, it highlights the transient nature of licensed media.
  • Permanent Exclusions: The law does not apply when products can be permanently downloaded and is not applicable in situations where buyers are notified of terms clearly.

Implications:

This new law adds awareness that digital games, as well as other digital content, do not confer long-term ownership. It also brings to light the challenges of preserving retro or modern games through permanent downloads or physical media.


In the age of digital content, do you think it’s more important to own a permanent copy or have accessible licensed rights?

  • Destide@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Or just don’t spend your money on anything non-physical, you don’t need half that shit anyway put it in an EFT fund let em die :D

    • vhj@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Another problem is that physical is a red herring. You don’t own modern physical games any more than you own digital ones, as the famous The Crew shitshow has demonstrated. It doesn’t matter if you still have the fancy disc, if you can’t even go past the main menu when the publisher decides to shut down the game. In the end DRM is the only deciding factor, not if the game is digital or physical.

      • xyzzy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        You mean The Crew, the online-only racing game?

        “It doesn’t apply to an online game, therefore it doesn’t apply to any situation.”

        But I agree that it’s best to purchase DRM-free copies.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      I need you to understand that not only do boycotts not work, suggesting them as some kind of substitute for consumer protection regulation serves corporate interests. What you wrote isn’t “wrong,” per se, but it’s entirely unhelpful.

      • Destide@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Boycotts as a grand gesture don’t work, I agree I often use the COD boycott as examples, but neither does giving money to things you don’t agree with. We’ve been doing the Lisa Lionheart story line for the last 20 years, and they know it.

        This law hopefully will provide a bit more clarity to people buying… sorry, licencing games. My comment is the only one I sadly think they’d understand, as Ubisoft are finding out at the moment. Funny how quickly they can change things and give away all these assets we used to get by default when the share prices start dropping. I def made a mistake there saying non-physical, digital that is allowed to be backed up (Non-DRM) has been more convent and less prone to damage than any physical collection I have.