Lol and what’s stopping me from just giving them my account info
Absolutely nothing… This article literally just says that somebody on an internet forum pointed out that what might happen is that if your account has been around longer than the average lifespan then they’ll investigate and maybe terminate it after determining it’s no longer owned by the original account owner. Valve today doesn’t have the support capacity to perform this kind of investigation. Valve in 50-60 years will be an entirely different beast. This speculation means nothing.
When you’re dead but someone has got into your steam account and is about to find all of your anime titty games
what are these im interested
Try
Nekopara
Doki Doki Literature Club
Boko No Piku
All great games with lots of tiddy.
One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just isn’t the same.
Ah, the olde “fuck me up for life” trifecta.
Boko Piku xD
Good one. 🤣
deleted by creator
My death insurance gonna be real big if steam refunds all games. Family gonna be rich Steam sale is crack
Once again further diluting the meaning of the words “bought” and “sold”
“And to my son, I bequeath my steam account - user is blah and password is blah”
Checkmate steam
blah!@birthday-ssn
The article goes into that and states password sharing is against the Eula so technically they can kick you off the service if they find out… IF they find out wink wink
Old and busted: Pretending someone’s alive for their Social Security check
New hotness: Pretending someone’s alive for their Steam account
4 generations later: “I’ve inherited my father’s steam account just as he inherited it from his father and so on. The library has grown ever larger, and yet so many remain untouched. The summer sales have sustained my forefathers and yet I feel hollow. Each year, more games are added to this historic account, but each year brings more regret as the purchases go untouched. I shall make a promise to myself: finish the extensive library, honor my family, complete the library. But first, some more Counter Strike.”
I mean it is not sharing if you are dead, it is bequeathing
You can’t just bequeath bankruptcy!
I bequeath bankruptcy!!!
I bequeath deez nutz to Jo mama
Dang, they’ll kick my corpse off Steam…
Your Steam games will go to the grave with you
Great, then I’ll finally have some time to play them…
Only if you have broadband in the grave with you.
finally some cloud gaming
The only cloud gaming I will accept
Wait a minute… why is it so hot here? That can’t be good for the… Windows Vista computer?! Where the heck am I?
It’s just Diablo… the new fully-immersive experience.
You got Vista? I got Windows ME!
That’s what heathens like yourselves deserve for living lives full of sin. True servants of God like myself have been rewarded with the almighty TempleOS
I’ve been playing Hades, we got this.
Ah, so that’s what they use in a cremation chamber nowadays…
Why is there even a debate about this? You need emulators to play 10 year old games, maybe twenty. In 60 years you’ll need who knows what to be able to play it. The question is whether people will want play them at all. There might be a VR with anally plugged interface which would lack support for hand controllers.
If steam did allow transfers this way, I can imagine it being a new type scam where people fabricate death documents to steal steam accounts.
Realistically, the transfer would likely need to be set up ahead of time via the account holder. For instance, my password manager has a function to allow me to designate a beneficiary. But importantly, that beneficiary assignment must come from my account before I die. If I die without designating a beneficiary, there’s nothing my family can do to gain access to my password vault. Only the accounts I have designated will be able to gain access.
In other words, in order to falsely designate a beneficiary, they would already need access to my account. And at that point, they wouldn’t need to deal with death certificates and beneficiaries, because they already have access to my account.
While this may be a concern I highly doubt it’s a primary motivating factor
Oh for sure, but it’s definitely a concern for stuff like this. It’s a lot easier for valve to just expect people to pass login info down as a way to pass on an account.
Valve actually migrating purchases from one account to another risks upsetting publishers, and requires whole new policies on how to verify death and verify who should receive the account. Finally there’s the risk of scams and having to resolve them. Overall it’s a lot of headache for valve, I’m not surprised they’re not jumping to offer it officially.
I don’t really think they need to allow folks to migrate your purchases. I think they should allow you to pass on your account however.
Still applicable
Transferring ownership of the account also transfers the game license owned by the account. Still upset publisher
I get that, I’m just saying that should be how it is.
True but ultimately this is about ownership - we don’t own our games. We license them - that is what is lost with Steam and DRM, and moving away from physical media.
GOG is an alternative in that you can download and back up the installers for your games (mostly) but even then do you own your ganes?
You’ve never owned your games. You owned the media they came on but legally you only ever had a license to use the software. Depending on the license agreement (the thing where most people click “I agree” without reading) you had more or fewer rights, such as transfer of license, but the way things work legally ownership of software seems to mean the more of the copyright ownership. Maybe like a book: you own your copy of the book but you don’t have the rights to print more books or make a movie based on the book.
With physical media those licenses didn’t materially matter though because a contract you can’t read until after a purchase is automatically void in court.
Copyright is automatically applied rather you want it or not. Licenses are granting you permissions to use the media without violating their Copyright. Having a physical copy simply means a publisher cant restrict access to your copy because they turned off their servers… (atleast before the age of zero day patches…).
Just FYI, you mean day zero patches. Zero days are something else entirely.
Actually the original meaning was the way I intended.
The term “zero-day” originally referred to the number of days since a new piece of software was released to the public, so “zero-day software” was obtained by hacking into a developer’s computer before release.
Using “updated” terms intending them as their original meaning is not usually the best plan… Like me saying “that’s an awful haircut” but using awful as the near synonym for awesome.
Which is why those license agreements generally had a clause that if you disagreed you could return the software with all the media for a full refund.
I’m not saying it’s the right way, just that’s how it’s been structured legally. Of course, in the days of physical media with software that couldn’t phone home it was harder to enforce those licenses if people didn’t strictly adhere to them. The software companies didn’t generally find it worth going after individuals if they found out about violations either. Corporations, on the other hand… I worked once at a media company that Adobe caught running a lot of unlicensed software. The story went that it was so bad at the main office their auditors found a copy of After Effects or something similarly ridiculous on a computer that was used as a cash register in the corporate cafeteria. That was very much worth Adobe’s time and money to get the lawyers involved, and became a very expensive problem for my employer. I wasn’t involved in the problem, but I had to check and clean my local office, where we found about a half-dozen computers with unlicensed software.
It makes no difference.
They’re trying to impose an obligation or task on a customer after the purchase, even if it’s only the customer having to go through the trouble of getting the refund (which is a task they were not informed about before the purchase).
If it’s not before the sale it’s void and even in some cases before the sale (for example bait and switch, were you’re mislead with fake contract conditions until the last minute) it’s void.
The whole point is that they must be clear upfront about any conditions attached when the customer is making the decision to buy and adding any conditions after the sale is not acceptable even if the seller gives options (such as refunds) because the customer has a right to use the product under the conditions at the time of the sale and cannot legally be forced otherwise, including forced to refund.
Owning media and owning the copyright to the media aren’t the same thing. There is a well recognized right to resell and transfer physical media, regardless of what the EULA says. You can’t sell more copies, but you absolutely sell (or gift, or leave in a will) the copy you have. The question here isn’t whether you should have a copyright on your digital purchases, it’s whether your rights to digital purchases should be analogous to your physical purchases.
I’d like you to read what you just wrote very slowly and imagine it’s somebody else saying it, just to visualize if it’s an absolutey bonkers thing to say.
There’s also items in people’s accounts
I’d like you to read what you just wrote veeeeery slowly…
Yes, I know, and people should have access to them. Just share passwords with loved ones and they can take the items out eventually. Steam needs to do things like this because publishers are assholes who want it.
This is absolutely not true. The publishers get very little of a say on what Steam does, as evidenced byt he fact that a bunch of them, including Activision and EA, arguably the two most powerful third party publishers, left in a huff over fees and microtransaction revenue splits… and then came back because Steam is the only game in town.
So no, Steam isn’t the good guy having their arm twisted by evil publishers, they are a large corporation that invented most of the practices in both digital distribution and games as a service, including this one.
Imagine if it said “Epic” instead of “Steam” in the headline.
Whew, that’s much better. I’ve always avoided the Epic store like the plague so nothing lost!
Exactly what I was thinking, people would be mad as hell. Heck, a few months ago I made someone realize they didn’t own their games on Steam because they were complaining about Epic and it blew their fucking mind.
There are two and only two things that makes Epic Games a pariah.
(1)Exclusive content on PC should be shunned so hard that it’s not even a fucking option. You can explain away exclusively on PS3 because of its unique hardware, but it’s just a naked monopolistic power grab on PC.
(2) Epic game store sucks on every level. It’s a pigs 3 week old rotting corpse compared to Valve’s packaged ham.
No one give af cuz Epic sucks?
Summary:
- This means that when a Steam user passes away, their entire game library and account cannot be bequeathed or transferred to their loved ones.
- The gaming community has expressed frustration over this policy, with some suggesting workarounds like sharing login credentials, but these may only be temporary solutions.
- This issue highlights the broader problem with digital purchases, as users do not truly “own” the content they buy, but rather have a license to access it.
whatever im not even playing them when im not dead
My family plays the games under my account now. I imagine not much will change when I’m dead.
If their continued usage depends on permissions from your account, that is not a safe assumption
Pretty sure I’m good. Account email is a forwarder to a family domain and they have access to everything relating to the account. For all intents and purposes, it’s just me logging in from the grave.
Right but ultimately they do need access to your account. I’m just saying having family sharing on is not sufficient for long term reliability.
Sorry for not being clear, I wasn’t aware family sharing was even a thing. In my case, everyone is using my credentials to log into and use the games under my account. All the same property so same IP.
Oh interesting. Yeah they just released a family function that’s currently in beta. You can add multiple people and you all share the library. It’s really cool. But I can’t imagine they’re going to let it stay as is. Super easy to abuse lol
Yeah, but Valve doesn’t really give a shit if it’s abused. Steam is a solitary positive example of the weird “(mostly)benevolent monopoly” idea. GabeN owns the company, there aren’t any shareholders to appease, so as long as he’s alive steam will be solid. I hope he has a successor picked out that can uphold his ideals.
Put your passwords in your will
Yes I agree but I’m telling them family sharing being on is not sufficient.
Bury me with my backlog.
And browser history
I have reached a place where I genuinely don’t care about anyone seeing my browser history.
FBI: “Mr. JoMiran, did you spend an hour browsing through Peggy Hill cosmic horror hentai?”
Me: “Meh. I found most of the tentacle detail work lacking and the exaggerated breast size off-putting.”
Nah we deleting that and then denying it
He died doing what he loved more, creating more backlog.
Well, if you’re stupid enough to tell valve about the death that is
I’m totally 132 years old tho
Imagine tomb raiders of steam accounts in the future ☠️
“This account is 132 years old, it is worth it to hack it”.
With the amount of people that made their account with a fake DOB of like 1900 or something to get around mature content I’m sure they already see plenty of users that age lol
Hey valve, I died…
Hey valve, so, Uhr… Funny thing… I’m actually… Uh
… kinda dead“… I got better.”
This is Valve thinking ahead - when we invent the ability to respawn, we can just log back in like death never happened.
