The Illusion of Ownership: Why Buying Digital Games is Not Enough

In a landscape where digital purchases are treated as mere licenses rather than true ownership, the line between legality and morality blurs. If buying isn’t owning, then piracy isn’t stealing. This assertion challenges the very foundation of how we interact with digital games and the corporations that produce them.

The Illusion of Ownership

When you purchase a digital game, you aren’t buying the game itself but rather a license to play it. This distinction has significant implications. While physical games come with a tangible product you can resell or lend, digital games exist in a nebulous space where ownership is merely a façade. If a game is removed from a storefront, the user can lose access entirely, even if they’ve paid full price.

Consider the ramifications of this system: gamers invest their money, time, and emotions into titles that can disappear without notice. For example, online services and cloud gaming platforms can and do shut down, leading to the loss of access to games players have purchased. This reality underscores a critical need for reform in digital ownership rights—one where users can truly claim ownership over the games they buy, with the ability to download and back them up indefinitely.

Valve’s Stance on Digital Ownership

In a move that starkly highlights the ongoing issue of digital ownership, Valve has recently added a note on its Steam checkout screen stating that “a purchase of a digital product grants a license for the product on Steam.” This explicit acknowledgment signifies that users do not own the games they buy; instead, they are merely granted access to play them under specific conditions.

This development is not merely semantic; it reflects a broader trend in the gaming industry where digital rights management (DRM) practices increasingly dictate the terms of consumer access. As Valve makes it clear that purchases do not equate to ownership, gamers must confront the uncomfortable reality that they are investing in licenses rather than products. This shift necessitates urgent calls for policy changes to ensure consumers are treated fairly and transparently in the digital marketplace.

The Exploitation of Consumers

The gaming industry has shifted its focus from creating exceptional games and fostering innovation to maximizing profits at the expense of player satisfaction. Major corporations, driven by shareholders and board members, increasingly prioritize financial gain over delivering quality products. The rise of microtransactions, season passes, and pay-to-win mechanics exemplifies this trend.

This relentless drive for profit has resulted in incomplete games filled with bugs, lackluster content, and features that are promised but never delivered. Gamers are no longer treated as valued customers but as cash cows, with companies doing all they can to squeeze the most revenue while providing the bare minimum of a product. The public outrage over poorly launched games, such as Cyberpunk 2077, serves as a stark reminder that this exploitation is a widespread issue. When consumers express dissatisfaction, companies often respond with silence, dismissive patches, or PR stunts rather than substantive changes.

The Used Game Market and Inflated Prices

In addition to the limitations imposed by digital ownership, the used game market has become a significant concern for consumers. Companies like Nintendo and Sony vehemently oppose “piracy” as they define it, yet they turn a blind eye to the inflated prices in the resale and secondhand markets. This hypocrisy creates a paradox: as digital access becomes increasingly restricted, the physical copies of games become scarce and command exorbitant prices on resale platforms.

The scarcity model—where limited availability drives prices up—renders legal purchases at fair prices nearly impossible. For instance, classic titles that were once available at reasonable rates are now often sold for five to six times their original retail prices. This inflation is not only a burden for consumers but also reinforces the perception that gaming companies are more interested in profit than in providing accessible, fair pricing for their products.

By neglecting to address the issues in the used game market, these corporations effectively endorse a model that prices out many consumers, forcing them into a position where they might consider alternatives, including piracy or emulation, just to access the games they desire.

Nintendo’s Stance on ROMs

Nintendo’s position on downloading ROMs further complicates the conversation around digital ownership. According to the company, it is illegal to download a Nintendo ROM from the internet, regardless of whether you own an authentic copy of that game. This stance is particularly troubling given the context of copyright law. While Australian copyright law now permits limited “format shifting” of certain copyright materials for private and domestic use, this right does not extend to copying video games to a different format.

Additionally, the limited right that the Copyright Act grants to make backup copies of computer programs does not apply to “Nintendo video games” as they have stated. How this doesn’t apply to Nintendo games is still a mystery. Thus, even if a consumer has purchased a physical copy of a game, they are still not legally allowed to download a ROM version for personal use. This policy underscores a significant issue in how corporations maintain control over their products and further limits the rights of consumers who wish to preserve or access their games.

Forced Arbitration and Erosion of Rights

Another insidious layer of this exploitation is forced arbitration. When players agree to the terms of service for most games, they essentially sign away their rights to seek recourse. These agreements often contain clauses that limit players’ ability to challenge corporations legally, further entrenching their power and diminishing consumer rights.

The forced arbitration model places the onus on the consumer to resolve grievances privately, often in a manner that heavily favors the company. This practice not only undermines accountability but also erodes the very foundation of consumer protections that should exist in any market. Instead of offering recourse for poor service or defective products, companies can sidestep accountability altogether, leaving gamers feeling powerless.

Emulation as a Necessity

As digital rights continue to erode, emulation has emerged as a necessary means for gamers to preserve access to older titles and games that have been delisted. With many classic games disappearing from storefronts and facing the risk of being lost to history, emulation becomes an act of preservation rather than theft.

Instead of demonizing emulation, we should recognize it as a tool for preserving not just games but the cultural heritage of the medium itself. The notion that consumers should be penalized for seeking access to content that companies have abandoned is fundamentally flawed. Emulation enables gamers to keep playing beloved titles that may no longer be commercially available. Moreover, it sparks discussions about how we can balance protecting intellectual property rights while also safeguarding gamers’ ability to enjoy and preserve the history of video games.

A Call to Action for Consumer Rights

We need to advocate for a Digital Bill of Rights that would protect gamers’ interests. This includes requiring companies to maintain servers and services for the games they’ve sold, offering compensation for outages, and regulating pricing to ensure fairness.

Consumer Rights Groups can play a vital role in setting ethical standards, holding corporations accountable for their practices, and ensuring that players are treated with respect. Establishing a formalized system for addressing grievances—such as a dedicated regulatory body to oversee gaming practices—could significantly shift the balance of power in favor of consumers. These groups could also enforce standards for game releases, mandating that titles meet certain quality benchmarks before being offered for sale.

Conclusion

The video game industry is not pro-consumer, and the current landscape favors corporate interests over player rights. We must confront this reality and demand change. Gamers need to stop defending multi-billion dollar corporations that prioritize profit over people. It’s time to stand up for our rights as consumers.

The call for a more equitable gaming landscape is urgent. If buying isn’t owning, then piracy isn’t stealing—and it’s high time we redefine what it means to own a game in the digital age. The responsibility lies with us to advocate for a gaming industry that values its consumers and provides genuine ownership of the digital experiences we cherish.

About Author