Digital Resell, 2026 Edition

The gaming news of this past week was Sony’s announcement that they are ceasing production of game discs starting in January 2028. In completely unrelated news, Sony is also removing access to ~500ish movies from customer libraries while offering zero refunds for otherwise permanently lost access to movies licenses purchased rented with real money. While the ascent and eventual domination of digital has been a long time coming, it is perhaps an especially ignoble end coming first from the same company that put out this (at the time) devasting advertisement.

There are a lot of different concerns surrounding the upcoming loss of physical media in the game sphere – Bhagpuss and others have shared a few – but I keep circling back to the fundamental, unresolved question of: do we have the right to resell things we purchased, specifically games?

Yes… but also no.

Everyone intuitively understands and accepts that a physical disc or cartridge can be resold. As soon as it becomes exclusively digital though, suddenly it is a wildly different thing… for no particularly good reason. We already have ubiquitous DRM, we already have storefronts capable of revoking access to games on an account level. What’s the hang-up? Other than unabashed corporate greed?

I made post in 2015 about this topic, which also referenced a 2012 legal outcome in the EU that stated software licenses could be resold. Considering that nothing seems to have come from that, suffice it to say there must have been some carve outs that game publishers just sailed their mega-yachts through.

My next follow-up was in 2019 where, spoilers, the issue remains unresolved. Although, at that time there was a new gaming storefront called Robot Cache that was set to revolutionize the market by allowing digital game licenses to be resold, with publishers taking a cut of the profits. I wonder where that ended up

“Thank you sincerely for joining us on this journey,” reads the screenshot of an email purportedly from the Robot Cache Team. “While we gave it everything we had, we weren’t able to attract the user base and sales traction needed to keep the store running. As a result, we’ve made the difficult decision to shut down the Robot Cache store.

“The store will officially close in 30 days. After that point, the platform will no longer be accessible, and users will no longer be able to play games purchased through Robot Cache, even if they’ve downloaded a full copy.” It’s the nightmare scenario of games with DRM. The email continues that the team can’t let people keep their games because the site’s “verification system” will go offline. Any “iron,” the site’s digital currency, will similarly be rendered kaput.

Oh. So the worst possible ending, eh?

I have been a PC gamer for decades now, for which a resell mechanism has not truly existed since the beginning. Why care now? Because we as consumers are losing out. I have specifically purchased almost all my Switch games as physical versions, because there is utility in being able to resell them on eBay or GameStop or whatever else. The only exceptions were Mario Kart 8 that “came with the system,” and Breath of the Wild/Tears of the Kingdom which were purchased at a discount via Nintendo vouchers. For all the other games, since they cost the same either way, I essentially had a choice: convenience of not having to swap out cartridges, or being able to recapture 50% or more of the value of the original price. Option B was of greater utility to me, so that’s what I went with. Sony will be eliminating that option for everyone on their platform in 2028. That’s a loss, whether you used it or not.

I don’t expect much progress on the digital reselling front in the near future, especially under current regimes, but I do feel like the topic will become increasingly urgent. The industry has been coasting on the (occasionally court-imposed) good graces of Valve and Steam, but Gabe Newell is 63 years old. Already we sort of hand-wave away the inability to bequeath a Steam library upon death, but there’s a future in which Gabe retires/dies, Valve goes public, and all sorts of corporate tomfoolery occurs. Legally, what stops Valve from revoking access to games in your library arbitrarily? A Terms of Service… that can be amended at any time?

Sony already has us trained to accept that entire storefronts can close, such as the PSP and PSOne in 2021, and now the PS3 and Vita stores in 2027. If you previously purchased a game, you can still download it “for the foreseeable future,” but it kinda makes you think. I can still download and install Farcry 2 and Kane & Lynch: Dead Men via Steam, both of which show up as Last Played in 2011. Maybe that is a trivial expense on Steam servers, but we can imagine a scenario in which a public Valve invokes the same “adapt to consumer trends” language to essentially prune the storefront. Again, what stops them? Potentially negative PR?

I don’t imagine there would be much of a resell market for my copy of Farcry 2 or Kane & Lynch: Dead Men all these years later. And ironically, IsThereAnyDeal shows that people can buy Farcry 2 “new” for like $2.40 right now. But I feel like having some stronger sense of legal ownership even over the license is necessary to dissuade future shenanigans. Or, fine, go all the way the other direction and replace Buy/Purchase with Rent.

Posted on July 9, 2026, in Commentary and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. I really think it’s a labelling issue. Publishers and platforms should just state clearly at… I was going to say “time of purchase” but I guess I mean “time of rental”… that you’re renting, not buying. The rental period should be fixed, too. No supposedly open-ended licenses that equate to ownership. Rent a game for a week, a month, a year. Want to carry on playing? Extend the rental. Game no longer available to rent? Move on.

    It’s hardly a new concept. In the 80s I used to go to the store on a Friday and rent two or three Atari 2600 cartridges for the weekend, then take them back on Monday. And if I wanted to play the same game next weekend, I’d rent it again. Same as we did with videos. It worked fine then and with digital you wouldn’t even have to go to the store!

    Of course, one of the reasons that system worked was that the rentals were a small fraction of the price of the game or the video if you bought it. That’s a crucial part of the process. A game that sells for $60 now probably ought to rent for no more than $20 a month. Most people will finish a game in a lot less than that, anyway. Maybe $10 a week would work.

    Obviously companies could also opt to sell too, which would work fine for offline games either as physical copies or digital downloads but any game that requires access to someone else’s server either to play or for account authorisation should be rent only.

    It’s the whole telling people they bought a thing then taking it away from them that’s getting people riled up.

    Like

    • First, sorry your comment got stuck in my spam filter for so long!

      Second, something tells me if many devs hate Game Pass already, that they aren’t going to want to (re)encourage rentals. How many games could be fully beaten in a weekend, let alone longer? Back in my Blockbuster days (SNES/Genesis era), some game devs famously made their games super difficult so that kids could beat them in one weekend rental. That sort of thing (probably) wouldn’t fly today, but I could imagine devs going back to padding game time.

      In any case, we are very clearly in the timeline where games are taking 6-8+ years to develop, and cost $300+ million apiece. If the devs are already struggling to breakeven on $70+ purchases, something tells me that they will instantly collapse with $10 (or whatever) rentals.

      Like

  2. ….which is why you never buy big titles at release time and wait for them to be on steam at < 10E, or prioritize indie games, where the money you pay is “help a developer” and not “buy a product”….

    And if this kills big productions, don’t count on me to cry.

    Like

    • The great irony is that consumers don’t have to worry about “killing big productions” because they’re imploding all on their own. Even despite (or because of) all the aggressive monetization, battlepasses, Live Service, microtransactions, cash shops, etc, etc, etc.

      And this all presupposes that the big productions are even capable of releasing games people want to play anymore. Not just in a reasonable time frame, but like, at all.

      Like

  3. Of course, it’s not just software. License/functionality can nowadays be revoked for every kind of media, and a surprising amount of actual hardware. (I occasionally read Fredrik DeBoer, and not long ago he wrote an amusing wail about how Connecticut law and Google’s hair-trigger discontinuation practices bricked his smoke alarm system.)

    The good news is that Steam libraries, apart from live-service games, will survive because the phone-home API dll is hackable and has been for ages. Beyond a certain threshold of enshittification, piracy becomes, imho, ethical.

    Like