Game ownership and the companies against it

🔧 Article status notice: This article heavily relies on AI/LLMs

This article has been marked because its heavy use of LLM generated text may affect its percieved or actual reliability and credibility.

---

To contact a moderator for removal of this notice once the article's issues have been resolved, you can use the #appeals channel on our Discord server (Join using this link]) or use the talk pages on the wiki and leave a message to any of the moderators. List of current moderators.

---

Learn more ▼

Common issues include:

• affect the validity of the claims made (e.g. by making unsubstanciated assertions, not citing sources).
• make use of tone not complaint with the wiki's editorial guidelines
• be overly extensive in areas that are not relevant to the mission statement
• come across as automatically generated, bringing the Wiki's credibility into question

As a result this article needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. How You Can Improve This Article

1. Replace or supplement weak citations with credible, verifiable sources.
2. Remove content you determine to be inaccurate
3. Link the problem to modern forms of consumer protection concerns, such as privacy violations, barriers to repair, or ownership rights
4. Replace language that that is non-compliant with the editorial guidelines of this wiki.

As the article incorporates text from a large language model, it may include inaccuracies or hallucinated information. Please keep this in mind if you are using this article as a source for infromation.

The gaming industry is one of the largest entertainment sectors in the world, generating hundreds of billions of dollars annually. In 2025, industry projections placed its worth between $236.9 billion and $522.5 billion, with expectations to exceed $600 billion by 2030. Alongside this massive growth, debates around game ownership have intensified, especially as digital distribution, subscription models, and online authentication have reshaped the way players access and keep games.

Definition of Game Ownership Historically, purchasing a video game — whether on a cartridge, CD, DVD, or Blu-ray (in a decent amount of cases) — granted the buyer a physical copy that could be used indefinitely, resold, or shared without the involvement of the publisher. In contrast, modern distribution often treats purchases as licenses to access software, rather than permanent property. This means that, in legal terms, players may not own the game itself but merely hold a limited right to use it under specific conditions.

The Shift to Digital Distribution The rise of platforms such as Steam, PlayStation Store, Xbox Live, and Nintendo eShop has led to a majority of game sales being digital. While this offers convenience and instant access, it also removes the tangible product from the equation. Many digital storefronts include clauses in their terms of service allowing companies to revoke access to purchased games, shut down servers, or modify content without the user’s consent.

In recent years, even physical game releases have often contained little or none of the actual game data. Instead, discs or cartridges may include only a small installation file or an activation code, requiring players to download the rest from the internet. This means that a physical copy may become unusable in the future if servers are shut down, effectively making it no more permanent than a digital license.

Some notable examples include:

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II (2022) – The PlayStation and Xbox discs reportedly contained only about 70–100 MB of data, serving as a launcher that downloads the full game from online servers.

Spyro Reignited Trilogy (2018) – Only the first game was included on the disc; the remaining two had to be downloaded separately. Following significant backlash from consumers and preservation advocates, later physical releases of the trilogy included all three games on disc.

Nintendo Switch releases – Certain titles, such as NBA 2K series entries, have been sold as “download required” physical editions, with cartridges containing only part of the game data.

These cases highlight how the line between physical and digital ownership has blurred, even for players who deliberately buy physical media to avoid reliance on online access.

Anti-Ownership Practices Some of the most common corporate practices that limit game ownership include:

Always-Online DRM – Requiring constant internet connection to verify licenses, meaning games become inaccessible if authentication servers shut down.

Account-Bound Purchases – Tying games to a user account, making resale or transfer impossible.

Server Shutdowns – Removing access to online-only titles or modes once support ends.

Subscription Services – Platforms like Xbox Game Pass or PlayStation Plus provide large libraries of games, but only while the subscription is active; once expired, all access is lost.

Content Removal – Games can be delisted from storefronts due to licensing issues or publisher decisions, even for those who already bought them.

Notable Examples Several high-profile cases have brought the ownership debate into public attention:

P.T. (2014) – A playable teaser for the canceled Silent Hills game, removed from the PlayStation Store and impossible to redownload once deleted. While it can still be accessed if it remains installed on an older PlayStation 4, it is not legally obtainable by any other means.

Ubisoft 2022–2024 – Multiple older games were delisted, with online features disabled, leaving players with incomplete experiences or losing access entirely.

Google Stadia Shutdown (2023) – Cloud-based games became inaccessible after the service closure, despite users having paid for them.

Industry and Consumer Perspectives From the corporate perspective, limiting traditional ownership helps protect intellectual property, combat piracy, and provide ongoing monetization through subscriptions, microtransactions, and expansions. However, many players and preservation advocates argue that these restrictions undermine consumer rights, hinder game preservation, and make cultural artifacts vulnerable to permanent loss.

Pro-Ownership Companies and Initiatives A notable example of a company that takes the opposite approach is GOG (Good Old Games), a digital distribution platform operated by CD Projekt. GOG sells games completely DRM-free, allowing customers to download, back up, and install their purchases without requiring an online connection or account verification after purchase. This ensures that players retain access even if the storefront ceases operation.

In addition to its pro-consumer DRM-free stance, GOG works to restore and re-release older titles that would otherwise be lost due to compatibility issues or delisting. By patching games for modern systems and keeping them permanently available, GOG plays a significant role in video game preservation.

Preservation and Advocacy Organizations like the Video Game History Foundation and movements such as Right to Repair push for laws that protect digital purchases and ensure the long-term availability of games. Some countries, particularly in the EU, have debated or enacted legislation that strengthens consumer rights for digital goods, though enforcement remains inconsistent.

Criticism and Community Backlash Many of the anti-ownership practices described above have faced significant public criticism. Online campaigns, petitions, and boycotts have targeted companies that heavily restrict player rights or remove purchased content. Notable backlash events include:

Again, the Spyro Reignited Trilogy physical release controversy, where widespread criticism eventually led to later copies shipping with all three games on disc.

Player protests against always-online DRM in titles like SimCity (2013) and Diablo III, where launch issues rendered games unplayable for many.

Outrage over server shutdowns for purchased games, prompting some companies to release offline patches after community pressure.

Such pushback demonstrates that consumer voices can sometimes influence corporate decisions, though not all controversies result in policy changes.

Conclusion The question of who truly owns a game in the digital age remains unsettled. As the industry continues to grow, the tension between corporate control and consumer rights will likely intensify, shaping the future of how games are bought, played, and remembered.

Future Outlook In the coming decade, several factors could shape the outcome of the game ownership debate:

Legislation – Consumer protection laws for digital goods may become more common, particularly in the EU and other regions with strong digital rights movements.

Technology Shifts – Offline compatibility patches, blockchain-based ownership records, or open-source releases for abandoned games could offer new solutions.

Market Pressure – Growing demand for DRM-free content and consumer backlash against restrictive practices may push more companies toward preservation-friendly models.

Preservation Partnerships – Collaborations between game developers, digital storefronts, and preservation groups could ensure that games remain accessible long after their commercial life ends.

While some industry trends point toward more restrictive access, there is also momentum toward greater player rights, and the balance will likely depend on both consumer advocacy and corporate willingness to adapt.