Physical media – including games on disc and films on DVD, Blu-Ray and 4K – is dying. We know this to be fact. Year-on-year, consumers are spending less on physical media and more on digital goods, with the shift sped along by the release of digital-only games, digital-only microtransactions, and the spread of subscription-based streaming platforms.
Responding to this rise in digital media consumption, PlayStation recently announced a significant change. After many years of supporting physical media, as of 2028 it will no longer produce games on disc.
‘This is a natural direction for Sony Interactive Entertainment to adapt to consumer trends as the general preference for digital media significantly outpaces physical discs,’ a statement from the company said. ‘This transition will enable us to align more closely with how most of our community prefers to access and play games today.’
The announcement followed news that it would be removing 550 films from its PlayStation Store library of StudioCanal features, with no compensation for purchasers, and that it would be shutting down the PlayStation Store on PlayStation 3 and PlayStation Vita consoles as of August this year (although games will still be downloadable by purchasers ‘for the foreseeable future’).
The three announcements painted a stark picture: the future will be all-digital, with no discs produced. At any time, for any reason, access to those digital goods can be removed. Purchased content, at some point in the future, may no longer be accessible at all.
Against this backdrop, digital ownership must be carefully considered. More than that, it must be questioned. If we are heading to a digital-only future, then we need to give consumers much greater thought, and much greater protection, than is currently offered.
Digital ownership and consumer rights – quick links
Digital ownership and terms of use
Currently, the terms of digital ownership are defined by individual platform holders, which each have their own conditions of service.
Per PlayStation, buying a digital product via its online or console stores doesn’t guarantee the right to actually own a game or film.
The Playstation terms of service state: ‘When you purchase or download A Digital Product from the PlayStation Store: You buy a personal licence to use Digital Products for private use. Your licence to use Digital Products is not transferrable unless your local applicable laws say it must be. This means you can use a Digital Product in the ways described in the licence but you do not own the Digital Product.’
Microsoft has very similar terms for goods purchased via Xbox consoles, or via its online store: ‘All Digital Goods are licensed, not sold … Microsoft may stop distributing any Digital Good, or add to or reduce the capabilities for any Digital Good, at any time. You may lose access to or capabilities of Digital Goods, or have the nature of your access changed.’
The terms are clear. A digital purchase via these stores does not mean you actually own the digital product. You’re only purchasing access to a digital good, for a period specified by the rights holder.
You might consider these clauses unlikely to be implemented. But as precedent has made clear, companies can and will revoke the access to games under certain conditions.
What happens when games disappear?
In the US, a bill to ensure better games preservation and consumer rights in the case of online service closures is currently making its way through the legal system.
The ‘Protect Our Games’ Act, aka Bill 1921, was proposed by Assemblyman Chris Ward early in 2026, and is about providing warning to consumers in the event of planned game shutdowns, and forcing companies to either provide an offline alternative to players or to deliver full refunds.
This bill was directly inspired by the Stop Killing Games movement, which was kickstarted by a Ubisoft decision to shut down the online-only racing game The Crew and remove it from player libraries following the end of its online service. This decision was made despite the game having a lengthy single-player campaign mode, and technically being playable without its online multiplayer component.
It was the final straw in a lengthy debate about online-only games, and the responsibilities of game developers to compensate players in the case of major shutdown.
It’s standard practice, and has become acceptable, for players not to be compensated when online games shut down suddenly or are removed from stores. In recent years, we’ve seen titles including Anthem, XDefiant, Fuser, Marvel’s Avengers and others shut down, with players simply required to accept the games are gone, with no legal channels for recompense or revival (although some, like Marvel’s Avengers, do have playable offline modes).
When the cost of game maintenance becomes too burdensome – for example, if a game is no longer or was never profitable – live servers will be shut down, and games will become unplayable. As we’ve seen with The Crew, even games with single player campaigns can be impacted, with little accountability from developers and publishers.
In the world of physical media, having that good taken away would be interpreted as theft. In the digital world, the rulings are much looser – and while country-based consumer law offers some protection, tricky legal clauses make it difficult to determine the exact rights that come with digital ownership.
What Australian law says about digital ownership
Australian Consumer Law, the blanket rules that govern the rights of consumers purchasing goods and the responsibilities of businesses selling goods, does technically account for digital goods in its terms.
Under local products and consumer rights legislature, there are three consumer guarantees to note: ‘When a consumer buys a product, they have a right to expect that: they have full ownership of the product, nobody will try to reclaim or repossess the product, and the previous owner doesn’t owe money for the product.’
This applies to the act of buying a product in any form.
But as the law notes, there is a caveat: ‘If any of these aren’t true, the business must tell the consumer before they buy the product.’
Technically, digital platforms do tell the consumer before they buy the product of the unique terms of Digital Ownership – in lengthy and legal language-packed documents that are easy available in their public terms of service.
When consumers buy a product, they agree to these terms of service – and it’s likely that this is the argument digital media providers will use when questioned about their practices. The battle would be in arguing that the Australian Consumer Law applies more firmly than a company’s exact terms of service.
As the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission told Choice in 2024, ‘Contracts that allow a business “to unilaterally change the arrangements that consumers have entered into” may raise unfair contract term issues.’
Proving that is the real challenge.
We need stronger laws to protect consumer rights
Given the ongoing conversation around PlayStation’s recent decisions, the nature of digital ownership is once again in the spotlight – not only locally, but on a global stage.
French politician and presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon recently expressed public disappointment about PlayStation’s decision to end production of physical game discs from 2028, and proposed law reform to protect digital ownership in future.
‘With GTA 6 without a disc in 2026 and Sony’s announcement of the end of physical disc sales for games in 2028, the question arises of how we view these products,’ Mélenchon said, via translation.
‘Tomorrow, you will pay without ever owning anything. No loan, no resale, no guarantee of keeping what you’ve paid for. Video games are not mere commodities; they are cultural goods, and applicable law must apply to them.’
Mélenchon pledged to address this digital ownership issue in 2027, should his party gain power in the presidential election.
Here in Australia, a similar push is needed.
Should an all-digital future be approaching, we need more modern laws to address it, and to ensure that when consumers purchase a product, they can expect the same rights and responsibilities as with a physical product.
Coordinated digital ownership action yet to emerge in Australia
At this stage, there does not appear to be any firm, cohesive movement within Australia to address the deficiency in consumer protections for digital ownership.
While there were conversations around the importance of protecting digital assets around 2025, this largely concerned the rise of cryptocurrency and ‘tokenised custody platforms’ without oversight of digital media and entertainment goods.
In 2025, the ACCC released its Digital Platform Services Inquiry, in which the nature of digital ownership was briefly touched on, but there was no specific reform attached.
‘Under standard-form terms of service used by many online game stores, a consumer who purchases a game does not gain ownership of a digital copy of it, but rather a revocable and generally non-transferable licence to access and play it,’ the organisation said, in its analysis of online gaming service.
‘Consumers may experience financial detriment where their access to a game (or certain features) they have paid for is terminated by a developer or distributor. The ACCC’s consumer survey found most game players (56%) were unaware of these types of clauses.’
One ACCC recommendation was that ‘businesses seeking to rely on “standard-form gaming contracts” should take steps to ensure the terms of any licence limitation clauses are transparent, in plain language and prominently displayed so consumers can clearly understand what they are purchasing and make an informed decision’.
It also stated, ‘Operators of digital game stores should explore mechanisms that allow consumers to download and keep the games they purchase, so that they can continue playing them even if the store ceases trading.’
In this decision-making, the ACCC said ‘digital game stores and game developers are best placed to determine when it is feasible to implement this potential measure’ in regards to allowing consumers to download and keep their purchased games.
With precedent, we should consider that game stores and developers don’t always have consumer interests at the forefront of their decision-making, and that some recent decisions could be considered anti-consumer.
While these clauses are in place for other reasons – as the ACCC says, developers and publishers should maintain the right to remove access for players who specifically violate terms by, for example, exhibiting extreme anti-social behaviour – these should not come at the expense of everyday consumers.
There must be greater legal protection around digital ownership, to compel developers and publishers to do right by their customers. Where a digital good is purchased and used in good faith, access to that good should be guaranteed in perpetuity.
As it stands, digital ownership remains a very tricky, complex concept under Australian law. While the ACCC has investigated the topic deeply in recent years, it’s certainly something that could do with another look, as our all-digital future swiftly approaches.
To that end, the organisation does have a portal to raise consumer rights questions and concerns, and it’s likely any respectfully-worded message will be considered.
With media companies increasingly turning to digital ownership, and turning away from physical goods, it is a conversation certainly worth having – and, eventually, it may prove essential to protecting our basic consumer rights.
