• VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    What Stream support have sent that person is probably an accurate representation of what happens when you apply their policies as written. Write another article if they are seen enforcing it.

    Luckily, SteamDRM is usually easy to bypass, so if that happens one could prepare accordingly.

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      The difference is that your Steam account is probably holding thousands of dollars in value while your pirated copies of Steam games are worth nothing. And presumably that whichever of your grandchildren gets nerdy gran’s stash will likely not care to reverse engineer your warez archives just to play Bioshock again in 2075.

      It’s not about access to the games, it’s about whether you own what you buy.

      • VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I personally don’t value them differently, but I see your point.

        The wonky ownership of these games is actually the reason I’ve been pretty much exclusively buying stuff on GoG for a few years. I don’t know their stance on inheritance, but at least the hypothetical grandchild won’t need perpetual access to the account to keep playing the games.

        In the end, clear legislation is kinda the only thing that can resolve this mess.

    • woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      These days a will should include documentation of logins. No need to bypass Steam DRM when my relatives have my phone’s PIN and email credentials to just access all games. Pretty sure my local laws cover digital inheritance.

      • VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, my point was, if they do try to enforce their policies, we could probably find a way to work around it. It’s probably cheaper and easier than for your heirs to test those digital inheritance laws in court.

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    They also don’t let you transfer purchases if for instance you’re being stalked

    Had a friend lose a thousand games that way

    • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Friend could have in theory just authorized their steam library on the computer and played them through a different account. The “family sharing” thing.

      • flappy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Don’t you have to be friends for that? I believe there was a website that showed your friends list, even if your profile was set to private.

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Wait, what does stalked mean in this context? Aren’t you able to block people on Steam?

      • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        You can but they can just go to a steam profile site and see your previous names/the id doesn’t change

        And if they have a link to your profile (since it uses the id) they will always find you

        For this case they made her player of the week in a group she wasn’t apart of. It’s still there today but the profile is deleted (hence the question mark)

        Blocking an account doesn’t really solve the trauma of being scared to accept any friend request since it could be this guy

        Steam support did nothing

  • banana_lama@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Oh I didn’t own my steam account it was created for my future children. it’s a trust.

    • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Lol. That’s hilarious. But unfortunately you never owned the games in the first place. You rented the privilege to play the game for life?..life of the rental company or your life only? Oh man, we gotta go thru the small print on this.

      • banana_lama@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I understand for the life of the company. But it’s not even my steam account. It’s my child’s who’s currently -5 years old (give or take). I did create it on their behalf a decade ago to redeem the free games on their behalf and gift them games I think they’ll enjoy.

      • tabular@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        “Add to Cart”, “Continue Shopping”, “Purchase for myself”, “Purchase as a gift”, “Purchase”.

        Who knows, one day a court may find these terms could lead people into believing they’re buying a game and force some companies to allow us to to trade or resell them (an EU court most probably).

        • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Purchased should mean what it means for other things like cars or apples…you get a copy of an apple via a purchase and you are guaranteed to be able to use that apple in any manner you please. So for example, you could eat it, ferment it, store it in resin for posterity and for future humans to recreate it. There aren’t any limits to a purchase. So I agree, maybe we need ask the supremes of the supreme court if purchasing means different things. So if I purchase sex from a prostitute legally in Las Vegas, does that prostitute need to specifically state what activities I will own? Or if I go to Costco and buy a fried chicken, does Costco need to specifically state that the chicken is not just a rental but a final exchange between you and Costco, money for dead poultry. More relatable, a screw driver from home Depot, that thing will last a few uses, so do you still own it if home Depot goes down? Can you still rotate screws with it?

          • tabular@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Software can be both a product and a service:

            • it’s a product when running on my computer (i.e. the game)
            • it’s a service when running on their computer (i.e. providing the hosting/downloading, multiplayer client-server hosting).


            The issue preventing one practically enacting on software is that copyright defaults to preventing you redistributing it, and you need the source code to be able to modify (fully). Thankfully some games are free software/open source when you can act on your ownership.

            • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              So that should be “I purchased a game” when you got a detached product that is functional forever… unless the makers make a deal with Microsoft to fuck it up on the next illegally forced update or with Nvidia to change the next card such that it is unplayable.

              And it should be “I purchased…I subscribed to this online game” when you know that shit is not yours, so don’t expect it to last.

        • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          “yes, you made a purchase. But what you purchased were tickets. Tickets to specific rides at a theme park. You did not buy the rides. You bought tickets for the rides. Those tickets are valid for your personal use. If you are not the one using them, they are not to be used.” –Their argument in court probably.

          • tabular@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            You can resell Windows CD keys legally in the EU as the courts rejected the “only for you” part of the argument: invalidating that part of the EULA. I probably have the right to resell my Steam game tickets.

  • ForgottenFlux@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.
  • Schwim Dandy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    My family plays the games under my account now. I imagine not much will change when I’m dead.

      • Schwim Dandy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • Schwim Dandy@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              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

              • shottymcb@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                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.

      • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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.”

  • Altima NEO@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    On one hand, that’s shitty.

    On the other hand, I cant imagine anyone in my family gives a shit about my games.

  • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

      • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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.

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

          • Kairos@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • MudMan@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

    • BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      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?

      • jqubed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • MudMan@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

        • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • jqubed@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • Aceticon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

          • piccolo@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            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…).

              • piccolo@ani.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                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.

                • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  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.

  • MudMan@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    To be absolutely clear, this is not new. Steam accounts being non-transferrable and not your property has always been how Steam’s terms work. It’s not even the first time the death situation comes up.

    Because digital ownership sucks, and that absolutely, very much includes Steam. If you can’t keep an offline copy you don’t own it.

    But honestly, given the new family groups Steam came up with this gets weirder now. Other accounts that are more closely tied to hardware are one thing, and I do wish we had a more effective and reliable way to hand over passwords and credentials to relatives in case of emergency, but it’s so weird that now your mom can have an accident and you slowly see the games she was sharing with you over that system fade away as her account gets shuttered. It’s such a grim, sci-fi distopian piece of minutia. This is not a great timeline we landed on.

    • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I don’t think anyone thinks this is new, the article clearly states this was the result of a question on Reddit to valve personnel. The issue is not “why the change?” but more of “wait I didn’t think about this previously, I need to consider the implications/results of this policy.”

      • crossmr@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        https://publicknowledge.org/eu-court-when-you-buy-software-you-own-it/

        The EU has already taken care of it.

        The Court of Justice of the European Union found that a
        copyright owner exhausts the right of distribution to a copy of a computer
        program once he sells, or authorizes the sale of, the copy. This means that whoever purchased the
        computer program can resell it and the copyright holder cannot control the
        resale of the copy. The Court found that
        this exhaustion principle applies whether the copy is on a tangible medium like
        a CD-ROM or DVD or an intangible download from the Internet, and it also
        applies to corrected and updated programs that the copyright owner sells. Furthermore, the Court made clear that contract
        clauses that deny the customer the right to transfer his copy of the computer
        program are void.

        • Sanctus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          So, we can in the EU? But they provide no way of doing so without giving the account over.

          • crossmr@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yes, like refunds it’ll probably get sorted the first time someone’s estate with a bit of money tries to will it to someone and then they take Valve to court/make a complaint to the EU.

      • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        When you buy something you should be able to pass it on or sell it to someone else. This “the software not sold, only licensed” BS should be illegal. Either you rent with a monthly fee, or you buy it and own it. Owning something means you can sell it to someone else.

        • otp@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Either you rent with a monthly fee, or you buy it and own it.

          Of those two options, you know which one the publishers would pick…

  • darthsid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is Valve thinking ahead - when we invent the ability to respawn, we can just log back in like death never happened.

  • j4k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Means you don’t own anything then. It is a lost autonomy. Once lost, you will only lose more with time.

    • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Already the case in the US when it comes to media licensing unfortunately. We only own a temporary, restricted, personal license, regardless of the medium.

      • j4k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Criminals can claim a lot of things but that is not democracy which requires citizens which requires autonomy. Anyone stealing individual autonomy is a traitor.