While much of the discussion has centred on convenience versus ownership, an important question remains: are players' concerns supported from a legal standpoint? To better understand the implications of an increasingly digital future, I reached out to Rory Mir, Director of Open Access & Tech Community Engagement at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Mir argues that the distinction between physical and digital ownership begins with a legal principle known as the first sale doctrine: "The most important difference is the first sale doctrine, which is foundational to US copyright law. In short, it's your ability to actually own a copy of a copyrighted work. You can lend it to a friend, resell to a neighbour, or remix it, and the seller can't stop you. Unfortunately, courts have only recognized first sale for physical media, so ownership over a digital copy of the same game comes with fewer legal protections for these practices. In fact, many videogames also come with digital rights management software to prevent these practices and, due to DMCA 1201, tampering with that DRM is a federal crime — the same law hampering our right to repair in the US."

The difference between ownership and licensing isn't merely semantic. When purchasing a digital game, you don't truly possess it in the same way you do a physical copy. That concern was highlighted recently when Sony removed hundreds of previously purchased TV shows and movies from users' PlayStation libraries after licensing agreements expired. While games operate under different agreements, the incident is a reminder that digital purchases ultimately depend on continued access being granted by the platform. As the industry moves further toward an all-digital future, it's worth asking whether convenience is worth sacrificing a sense of ownership that players have enjoyed for decades.

Mir also warns that restrictive user agreements can further weaken consumers' control over their purchases: "A lot of videogame distribution platforms also come with restrictive user agreements that let them remove or alter your games after purchase. Whether it's flawed moderation, a hacked account, or a licensing disagreement between the platform and the publisher — your ownership of a game is up to the whim of a storefront. The logical conclusion of this trend is the same as we see in TV and film, holding media hostage behind monthly subscription models where there isn't even a pretense of ownership."

Beyond the legal implications, the shift toward digital distribution also raises practical questions as both formats offer distinct advantages and disadvantages. The most obvious benefit of owning a physical copy is the ability to lend games to friends and family without requiring them to purchase another copy. Many players view the loss of that option as a push toward increased digital sales. Physical media, however, isn't without its drawbacks. Discs can be damaged, misplaced, or delayed during shipping. Not all of those drawbacks disappear with the new disc-less physical editions, either. Players may still have to wait for a boxed copy to arrive, even though it contains only a download code instead of a game disc.

One of the first announced disc-less releases is Rockstar Games' highly anticipated Grand Theft Auto VI. Certain independent retailers, including Loot Box Gaming in Delaware, have decided against stocking the disc-less physical edition. Some argue that offering a physical box containing nothing more than a download code defeats the purpose of a physical release altogether. Others, however, believe that game discs have simply outlived their usefulness and now exist primarily to appeal to collectors and those nostalgic for physical media.

Regardless of where players stand on the issue, digital distribution offers undeniable convenience. Those living in remote areas don't have to rely on local retailers or pay additional shipping costs. Downloads also allow players to start playing immediately instead of waiting days, or even weeks, for a delivery. These advantages have understandably made digital purchases the preferred option for many people, even if they still appreciate the permanence and collectability that discs provide.

Mir acknowledges that digital distribution offers significant advantages but argues that those benefits don't have to come at the expense of consumer rights: "There are conveniences to having digital copies as an option, and many drawbacks are addressed by extending them the same rights as physical media. However, physical media can be uniquely beneficial to people with limited internet access, limited storage space, or who want the archival benefits of a physical backup."

Looking ahead, the Electronic Frontier Foundation believes legislative reform will play an important role. "We see the top priorities as striking down Section 1201, and extending first sale rights to digital purchases. We also support regulation which makes it clear to customers what they are getting at the time of payment, and protects their ability to use or revive their purchased games independent of distributors and publishers."

Sony's announcement may ultimately reflect where the industry is heading, but it also raises important questions about what consumers are actually purchasing when they click "Buy." As gaming becomes increasingly digital, convenience and accessibility will likely continue to improve. Whether legal protections evolve alongside the technology, however, remains an open question.