Winget_TO_PUBLISH_Final_V2

For years, the legal structure of the video game industry has rested on the idea that consumers do not buy games but rather purchase licenses to access them. As the industry has shifted toward always-online games and online multiplayer, this minor distinction has transformed from a technicality into a tool for product obsolescence. Through an analysis of case law and video game history, this Note examines the widening gap between consumer expectations of digital ownership and the restrictive realities of modern user license agreements. Central to this argument is the observation that marketbased mechanisms such as litigation and consumer outrage have failed to sufficiently deter these practices. Lastly, this Note evaluates the limitations of emerging state legislation, such as California’s Assembly Bill 2426, and advocates for more than just a disclosure-based framework. Specifically, the Note proposes a statutory preserved game mandate, requiring publishers to provide offline or peer-to-peer patches upon server closure and discusses the economics of providing those patches. Without such intervention, the gaming landscape risks becoming a graveyard of purchased goods that exist only at the whim of corporate lifespans.

PDF: https://journals.law.unc.edu/ncjolt/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2026/04/Winget_TO_PUBLISH_Final_V2.pdf

Author: Matthew Winget

Volume 27, Issue 4