Hi everyone,
I wanted to follow up on yesterday’s class discussion regarding digital storefronts using the word “buy” when customers are purchasing a game despite us only obtaining a license to play the digital game rather than actually owning the game.
In California a new law has been signed that requires digital storefronts to make it abundantly clear to purchasers that they are not buying (and owning) the digital media rather they are just obtaining a license to play or watch it. This law is meant to help people understand why their digital media such as games, movies and ebooks disappear. When the law comes into effect, digital storefronts will be banned from using words like “buy” or “purchase” unless the customer is informed that they are not receiving unrestricted access to whatever they are buying. Storefronts are going to have to inform customers they are receiving licenses and all the restrictions that come along with that fact.
Personally, I feel this law is beneficial but has a major drawback. I appreciate that digital storefronts are required to be more transparent with players with respect to the purchase of digital games being the purchase of mere licenses to play. It will help keep players expectations in check and help them realize their digital games can be taken away from them. Ideally, this law could encourage players to purchase more physical media after learning that they do not actually own the games they are purchasing digitally.
The problem with this law however is that it further entrenches the idea that purchasing digital gams equates to purchasing a license to play is acceptable. As someone who typically buys physical media, the idea that buying a game digitally does not equate to ownership is problematic to me . Especially considering a lot of the time the price of the digital game is equal to the physical copy of the game. It is not as if the purchase digital games are meant to be like subscription services (i.e. Netflix) or rentals where it’s more understandable why you wouldn’t own the game. I believe it is unfair that the method in which you purchase a game can impact whether or not you own the game. In my opinion, buying a digital game should equate to ownership just like it would with a physical game. In the alternative digital games should be discounted compared to their physical counterparts to justify the fact that you are not receiving ownership of the digital game.
How do you feel about the law, do you think it is beneficial? Are you fine with the way things are (digital games being licenses to play) or do you think they should be treated similarly to physical media? Can you think of other solutions that may justify digital games being licenses to play?
Sources:
https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/26/24254922/california-digital-purchase-disclosure-law-ab-2426
Check out theVideos of Interest to Law 423 on YouTube 
Communications Law
Join the Community!
Hi Reese,
Your point about California law’s potential to inadvertently normalize the practice of selling digital licenses at ownership-level prices rather than challenge it is a great point. I agree that the key issue here is the disparity between consumer expectations and the legal limitations of digital purchases for the consumer. Many consumers, including myself, would reasonably assume that “buying” a digital game confers the same ownership rights as purchasing a physical copy, including the ability to use it indefinitely, resell it, or transfer it. After all, I paid full price for it!
The law seems to bridge the gap between consumer expectations and the legal realities of buying a digital game but sidesteps the broader question of whether digital media should offer more robust ownership rights or whether pricing should be adjusted to reflect the limitations of a license. Exploring alternative models, such as digital goods that provide partial ownership rights or transferable licenses, might better align with consumer expectations.
If developers are intent on pricing digital games similarly to physical copies, it would be interesting to consider a compensation scheme for situations where access to a purchased title is revoked. Maybe this could take the form of partial refunds or store credit?
Hi Samuel,
Thank you for your response. I think offering partial refunds or store credit could be a good way to make the situation more fair for consumers who have purchased digital games that are being revoked. This does raise an interesting question of who should be responsible for the store credit or the partial refunds between the game developer and the digital storefront. I personally think the game developer should have to foot the bill in this scenario as they effectively are the ones revoking the consumers license to play, and the storefronts are mostly faultless (except for advertising things with words like “buy or purchase”).
Another solution could be that the license to play becomes ownership after a set number of years has passed. If the license is revoked before the set number of years has passed, a partial refund of some kind could be offered. However, if the years do pass, then players would get all the rights associated with owning a physical game. To compensate for this consumer friendly approach the set number of years would likely have to be fairly lengthy.
Hi Reese,
Thank you for posting about this!
I think that the movement away from physical media and to a “licence model” of possessing games has had a lot of downsides; however, it has also had its upsides. It’s great to be able to be able to download a game off steam and play it in the comfort of your home without going to stores like GameStop. On the other hand, you are right that such laws do not really address the issue of players not truly owning the games they play. I am lucky to still own and play games such as “Rollercoaster Tycoon” on my computer, and knowing that I own that game without the need to pay a licence to use a subscription services gives me peace of mind.
I suppose it’s a matter of determining whether the benefits associated with a “licence model” outweigh the downsides. I find myself on the fence on the issue.
Hi Peter,
Thank you for your response. I totally agree that digitally purchasing a game is much more convenient than having to buy the physical copy of the game from a store. Adding on to your point, its fairly common that you will see a game on a substantial discount on a digital storefront but the physical version is not on the same discount. Although on the other hand it is also common for games when they release to be more expensive on digital storefronts compared to the physical counterparts usually because the developer has to pay to have the game on the digital storefront and than the developer chooses to place that cost on to the consumer. Like you said there are trade-offs associated buying a game digitally or purchasing a physical copy.