This and the "Steam has a contingency to remove Steam DRM from games even after Gabe passes" are the two biggest myths I always see around Steam. If people actually cared that much about DRM...
This and the "Steam has a contingency to remove Steam DRM from games even after Gabe passes" are the two biggest myths I always see around Steam. If people actually cared that much about DRM they'd buy from GoG.
My steam account apparently is worth ~$10k and I didn't expect it to transfer to anyone after I died or anything.
I may be wrong about this, but steam makes games work through proton correct? Proton can be utilized without having steam or the steam version of a game. It's a little more manual work but should...
I may be wrong about this, but steam makes games work through proton correct? Proton can be utilized without having steam or the steam version of a game. It's a little more manual work but should work all the same.
It should work most of the time even without Proton. But there are lots of adjustments and "tricks" they do and most people just wanna play a game. Even with programs like Lutris and Bottles,...
It should work most of the time even without Proton. But there are lots of adjustments and "tricks" they do and most people just wanna play a game. Even with programs like Lutris and Bottles, managing Wine prefixes may be trivial but it is not exactly pleasant.
I think GOG is nicer for setups where you just want to setup games without a cloud connection, which is why I use it for certain indie titles. Also very helpful for windows 7 and xp legacy rigs...
I think GOG is nicer for setups where you just want to setup games without a cloud connection, which is why I use it for certain indie titles.
Also very helpful for windows 7 and xp legacy rigs...
Oh yeah those systems are a no go for internet, I basically use them offline by this point The last time I actively browsed the internet with XP was 11 years ago...
Oh yeah those systems are a no go for internet, I basically use them offline by this point
The last time I actively browsed the internet with XP was 11 years ago...
I'm not sure what "value" there is in the majority of my Steam library. For many games, I paid my money, and I got hours of entertainment. Even if my entire Steam library went poof or became...
I'm not sure what "value" there is in the majority of my Steam library. For each game many games, I paid my money, and I got hours of entertainment. Even if my entire Steam library went poof or became inaccessible, for a big majority, I already got my money's worth out of the games. For those games, the value to me is in the past, not the future.
Yeah, it's not necessarily an accurate thing, I only really threw that line in to say that I've definitely spent a fair share in my Steam library. https://steamdb.info/calculator/ is where you can...
Yeah, it's not necessarily an accurate thing, I only really threw that line in to say that I've definitely spent a fair share in my Steam library.
https://steamdb.info/calculator/
is where you can find it, if you're interested. If I ever have kids and want to give them my Steam library for whatever reason, I'll just give them my login details, not too difficult lol.
Heh, I love the STeam has a contingency myth (which the one I heard is that if htey shut down they'd remove DRM from the games) /s. Maybe they did promise it but I can see several problems here....
Heh, I love the STeam has a contingency myth (which the one I heard is that if htey shut down they'd remove DRM from the games) /s. Maybe they did promise it but I can see several problems here. 1. A company cannot make a promise for future problems when it may be different people running the company by then who never made that promise Especially when that promise is just verbal and not in any sort of contract. 2. They never actually put a contract or statement like that in the agreement so you are just going by their word. 3. Even if they truly mean to do that and it is the same people running hte company (or the people afterwards also agree with that policy), if they are going out of business would they even be in a position to be able to make good that promise? At that point they are out of resources and have other more important things (for them) they have to deal with like debtors who can do a lot more to them then customers who they won't be selling to anymore anyways.
It also makes me wonder if that contingency is in the contracts that developers sign when they onboard with steam. One of the more attractive features from a developer's standpoint is that Steams...
It also makes me wonder if that contingency is in the contracts that developers sign when they onboard with steam.
One of the more attractive features from a developer's standpoint is that Steams DRM is unobtrusive, easy to implement, and works pretty well. If steam didn't have good DRM, they probably wouldn't have gone with them. If valve shuts down, would EA really be cool with valve just stripping DRM from their latest battlefield game? I get the feeling they wouldn't.
You know, i didn't even think about that. That's a very good point. I honestly don't know if Steam made some sort of contingency promise, just been told they did (and I was skeptical that such a...
You know, i didn't even think about that. That's a very good point. I honestly don't know if Steam made some sort of contingency promise, just been told they did (and I was skeptical that such a promise meant anything due to the reasons I already said). I'm definitely leaning more it's a myth even that Steam even said that after reading your point cause no way would EA be ok with that and unless Steam blatantly lied they couldn't make that promise cause of that (and while companies lie, they don't usually lie that blatantly, least hte more reputatble ones and Steam comes off as decently reputable).
Unfortunately, it's a myth. Valve has never made any public comment about stripping DRM from games on Steam, and this whole idea is impractical for any number of reasons. It's nothing but a rumour...
Unfortunately, it's a myth. Valve has never made any public comment about stripping DRM from games on Steam, and this whole idea is impractical for any number of reasons. It's nothing but a rumour that subsists on wishful thinking.
A more practical question to ask is whether Valve would actually police this. If you leave your username and password in your will, will they ban the account once you pass? How will they know? Why...
A more practical question to ask is whether Valve would actually police this. If you leave your username and password in your will, will they ban the account once you pass? How will they know? Why would they care?
Yeah I don't even think your real name is on Steam so it just feels like a non-issue in general. If anything they probably just don't want to deal with the legal part of wills (not a lawyer, no...
Yeah I don't even think your real name is on Steam so it just feels like a non-issue in general. If anything they probably just don't want to deal with the legal part of wills (not a lawyer, no idea if that's an issue), with the publishers. Isn't the meme that everyone's birthday is January 1st, 1901 anyways?
This is kind of a silly article. I'm not sure why any of this needs to be brought up. The TOS of every bit of software ever is pretty clear that you don't own it (perhaps unless you're in one of...
This is kind of a silly article. I'm not sure why any of this needs to be brought up. The TOS of every bit of software ever is pretty clear that you don't own it (perhaps unless you're in one of those utopian societies that respects customers). If a company says you can't trade accounts, then no, legally you can't do that, but ...
People have been trading Steam accounts for decades. Steam support has had a whole process for recovering accounts even as far back as registering CD keys. I don't think they have EVER had a system that checks that you aren't using the same credit card across multiple accounts -- and that would be one of the easiest ways to determine if people are VAC ban-evading, smurfing, sharing account credentials/payment methods across a family or other relationship (before gifting, I'd login to my gf's account and buy her games directly), and so on. They certainly don't care if multiple accounts are originating from the same IP address or sharing the same Steam Deck.
"Steam Families" is new. Cool. They've had "Family Library Sharing" for a long time. It allows you to authorize multiple accounts on a device and you can just ... play that other account's games whenever you want. From your own account, with your existing friend's list and all that. The only hangup I've had doing that has been when there's a third-party account required to login with (mostly F2P stuff). But the "Family Library Sharing" thing is what everyone wants out of this process. Just don't tell Steam? They'll never ask? They specifically don't have a mechanism in place to make sure this isn't being "abused." Can we not ruin this?
Although other software may have a similar TOS, not every software can lock away thousands of dollars in legitimate purchases. Because of that, it is reasonable to request Steam to transfer those...
Although other software may have a similar TOS, not every software can lock away thousands of dollars in legitimate purchases. Because of that, it is reasonable to request Steam to transfer those games to someone else when you die. It's a reasonable expectation. Maybe it's unrealistic, or unfeasible. Personally, I wouldn't call it silly.
Apologies if I came off as too dismissive, but the article brings up the best example: you can't give away/bequeath/sell your iTunes collection. Or your Google/Apple/Samsung Store apps. Or any...
Apologies if I came off as too dismissive, but the article brings up the best example: you can't give away/bequeath/sell your iTunes collection. Or your Google/Apple/Samsung Store apps. Or any other software no matter how much you've spent. It's a legal thing. But that doesn't mean you can't load up an iPod and give that to someone, which IIRC is what people suggested back when that was in the news. Of course the better move is to buy DRM-free music in the first place.
I do agree that it's reasonable to want to be able to transfer games, music, etc., to next of kin, but I would say that TOS should've made it clear to everyone that that's not how it works for digital media. And people have warned about this every time a new digital medium has taken off. Physical books are always legally transferable to other people or can be resold, that's not the case with DRM'd e-books. Physical games are always transferable or able to be resold, that's not the case with digital games. Music. Movies. TV shows.
This is the Faustian bargain people made. They chose convenience over a physical version. And often at the same price to the consumer, I might add, which always mystified me. Even today I will buy a physical copy of a game over a digital at the same or similar price.
All that said, I absolutely want this practice to change. Maybe making an example of Valve's Steam Store will help raise awareness. But this is an issue with DRM, legally binding contacts (TOS), and all of that. It's an issue that needs legislative change because it's not something that Valve can or will change alone -- because I'm sure that many companies appreciate that sales of digital games on the Steam platform are at least partially predicated on the customer not being able to transfer or resell their digital goods.
The thing is, that doesn't seem to hold up when actually be put to the test in court. It turns out companies can put whatever they want in a terms of service, and a whole big chunk of it can be...
Exemplary
I would say that TOS should've made it clear to everyone that that's not how it works for digital media.
The thing is, that doesn't seem to hold up when actually be put to the test in court. It turns out companies can put whatever they want in a terms of service, and a whole big chunk of it can be completely unenforceable.
The CJEU agreed with the Advocate General ruling that the concept of “sale of goods” referred to in Article 1(2) of the Directive must be interpreted as covering the supply, in return for payment of a fee, of computer software to a customer by electronic means where that supply is accompanied by the grant of a perpetual licence to use that software.
While there are contradicting rulings (especially in incompetent US courts), these will eventually shake out. Importantly, the EU found this is the case regardless of how that software is delivered.
Software being classed as a good means that if you have a perpetual license, you own it, and can transfer it. It's just that the companies in question have a legal team and you (probably) don't.
I was hoping someone would bring up a case or two where TOS were proven not to hold up. Yes, until it's tested more in court and there are further rulings, and as you said especially in US courts...
I was hoping someone would bring up a case or two where TOS were proven not to hold up. Yes, until it's tested more in court and there are further rulings, and as you said especially in US courts with so far contradicting rules, this won't really be hashed out to consumers' satisfaction. There haven't been many yet, but hopefully more will follow. However parts of a TOS being unenforceable doesn't mean companies won't continue to attempt to enforce behavior on customers and/or prevent them from doing things that should otherwise be legal via other interpretations of the law (the second amendment is a great example of how interpretation works vis-a-vis enforcement).
Software being classed as a good means that if you have a perpetual license, you own it, and can transfer it.
I certainly hope that becomes legally true in the U.S.. Your link though doesn't actually address the second party being able to sell or transfer the software to a third party. It just states that the original sale, and the person conducting the sale, transfers the license to use and own it to the second party, insofar as its a perpetual license. It says nothing about transferring to a third party, in the case of inheritance or another sale, which is what was originally talked about. Your link says:
In relation to “sale”, the CJEU applied the commonly accepted definition of “an agreement by which a person, in return for payment, transfers to another person his rights of ownership in an item of tangible or intangible property belonging to him.”
But I don't see how actually transferring rights of ownership to something with, say, intellectual property or a copyright, would mean that person can legally turn around and sell it to someone else. That wouldn't hold up, so I don't think the linked ruling you provided is a particularly good example.
Software reselling is already a thing, just ceased to be as easy with the transition to digital-only and companies operating in legal grey area, wanting to have their cake and eat it too. It's...
Software reselling is already a thing, just ceased to be as easy with the transition to digital-only and companies operating in legal grey area, wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
It's long been held that purchasing say a music CD is a good, even though the music recording is a copyrighted work. The copy is a good': you purchased a copy of a copywritten work with perpetual playback rights for personal use, and can transfer the ownership of that copy as you would any other good. The copy does not confer copyright ownership, which means no reselling rips.
'I bought this software on a CD' - Is a good, can resell it. Like videogames on discs.
'I bought this software and downloaded off a website' - was not (verifiably) a good, and now is most definitely, on account that the transfer medium is considered irrelevant....as it should be.
I'd like to see a legal ruling that firmly allows this kind of transfer. I'd be allowed to pass on literally anything else I own, and I own a license to play those games. I'll probably just take...
I'd like to see a legal ruling that firmly allows this kind of transfer. I'd be allowed to pass on literally anything else I own, and I own a license to play those games.
I'll probably just take to having an archived pirate copy if possible.
They could have a dead man switch. If you don't login in 3 years, and after repeated (automated) attempts to contact you, all your games are transferred to another account previously chosen by you.
They could have a dead man switch. If you don't login in 3 years, and after repeated (automated) attempts to contact you, all your games are transferred to another account previously chosen by you.
Yup, my steam account is fully accessible to my family, and just need to change the name associated to the account. TBH I'll probably just transfer my account to my child when they turn 18 and...
Yup, my steam account is fully accessible to my family, and just need to change the name associated to the account.
TBH I'll probably just transfer my account to my child when they turn 18 and have them family share to me.
Steam's "buy" button is pretty clear that I do own it. That's what buying is. TOSes can say they own my firstborn child, that doesn't mean they're legally binding. That's why they say "TO THE...
The TOS of every bit of software ever is pretty clear that you don't own it (perhaps unless you're in one of those utopian societies that respects customers).
Steam's "buy" button is pretty clear that I do own it. That's what buying is. TOSes can say they own my firstborn child, that doesn't mean they're legally binding. That's why they say "TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW", i.e. "if any part of this is not permitted by law then ignore that part".
One thing I've not seen discussed here is just how valuable is your steam account to your family? Sure you might have 1000 games but would they actually want access to more than maybe dozen of them?
One thing I've not seen discussed here is just how valuable is your steam account to your family? Sure you might have 1000 games but would they actually want access to more than maybe dozen of them?
Sure, and it would be great if we actually owned games we bought on steam. Still I think it's funny how people value those purchases since even if they were transferable the recipients might not...
Sure, and it would be great if we actually owned games we bought on steam. Still I think it's funny how people value those purchases since even if they were transferable the recipients might not share the same view.
This is no surprise - they don't let you transfer the games on your own account to someone else despite that being the most long running requested feature in Steam history. You will own nothing...
This is no surprise - they don't let you transfer the games on your own account to someone else despite that being the most long running requested feature in Steam history. You will own nothing and you will be happy, isn't that how the saying goes? :P
This and the "Steam has a contingency to remove Steam DRM from games even after Gabe passes" are the two biggest myths I always see around Steam. If people actually cared that much about DRM they'd buy from GoG.
My steam account apparently is worth ~$10k and I didn't expect it to transfer to anyone after I died or anything.
I do actually try to buy from GOG when I can but Steam works better for making games on Linux just work™ but a LOT of games aren't on GOG.
I may be wrong about this, but steam makes games work through proton correct? Proton can be utilized without having steam or the steam version of a game. It's a little more manual work but should work all the same.
It should work most of the time even without Proton. But there are lots of adjustments and "tricks" they do and most people just wanna play a game. Even with programs like Lutris and Bottles, managing Wine prefixes may be trivial but it is not exactly pleasant.
I find I end up just finding stuff on forums to find out how to get specific games working. Steam is a million times easier.
I think GOG is nicer for setups where you just want to setup games without a cloud connection, which is why I use it for certain indie titles.
Also very helpful for windows 7 and xp legacy rigs...
I'd be quite wary of still using an internet-connected Win7/Xp system
That's why it's helpful. Download the exe for an old game, plop it on a flash drive then install it on the XP/7 computer.
Oh I see, that makes sense.
Oh yeah those systems are a no go for internet, I basically use them offline by this point
The last time I actively browsed the internet with XP was 11 years ago...
Aside from GoG having less games, it’s also more expensive, doesn’t have regional pricing like Steam does for me.
I'm not sure what "value" there is in the majority of my Steam library. For
each gamemany games, I paid my money, and I got hours of entertainment. Even if my entire Steam library went poof or became inaccessible, for a big majority, I already got my money's worth out of the games. For those games, the value to me is in the past, not the future.Yeah, it's not necessarily an accurate thing, I only really threw that line in to say that I've definitely spent a fair share in my Steam library.
https://steamdb.info/calculator/
is where you can find it, if you're interested. If I ever have kids and want to give them my Steam library for whatever reason, I'll just give them my login details, not too difficult lol.
Heh, I love the STeam has a contingency myth (which the one I heard is that if htey shut down they'd remove DRM from the games) /s. Maybe they did promise it but I can see several problems here. 1. A company cannot make a promise for future problems when it may be different people running the company by then who never made that promise Especially when that promise is just verbal and not in any sort of contract. 2. They never actually put a contract or statement like that in the agreement so you are just going by their word. 3. Even if they truly mean to do that and it is the same people running hte company (or the people afterwards also agree with that policy), if they are going out of business would they even be in a position to be able to make good that promise? At that point they are out of resources and have other more important things (for them) they have to deal with like debtors who can do a lot more to them then customers who they won't be selling to anymore anyways.
It also makes me wonder if that contingency is in the contracts that developers sign when they onboard with steam.
One of the more attractive features from a developer's standpoint is that Steams DRM is unobtrusive, easy to implement, and works pretty well. If steam didn't have good DRM, they probably wouldn't have gone with them. If valve shuts down, would EA really be cool with valve just stripping DRM from their latest battlefield game? I get the feeling they wouldn't.
You know, i didn't even think about that. That's a very good point. I honestly don't know if Steam made some sort of contingency promise, just been told they did (and I was skeptical that such a promise meant anything due to the reasons I already said). I'm definitely leaning more it's a myth even that Steam even said that after reading your point cause no way would EA be ok with that and unless Steam blatantly lied they couldn't make that promise cause of that (and while companies lie, they don't usually lie that blatantly, least hte more reputatble ones and Steam comes off as decently reputable).
Unfortunately, it's a myth. Valve has never made any public comment about stripping DRM from games on Steam, and this whole idea is impractical for any number of reasons. It's nothing but a rumour that subsists on wishful thinking.
A more practical question to ask is whether Valve would actually police this. If you leave your username and password in your will, will they ban the account once you pass? How will they know? Why would they care?
Yeah I don't even think your real name is on Steam so it just feels like a non-issue in general. If anything they probably just don't want to deal with the legal part of wills (not a lawyer, no idea if that's an issue), with the publishers. Isn't the meme that everyone's birthday is January 1st, 1901 anyways?
This is kind of a silly article. I'm not sure why any of this needs to be brought up. The TOS of every bit of software ever is pretty clear that you don't own it (perhaps unless you're in one of those utopian societies that respects customers). If a company says you can't trade accounts, then no, legally you can't do that, but ...
People have been trading Steam accounts for decades. Steam support has had a whole process for recovering accounts even as far back as registering CD keys. I don't think they have EVER had a system that checks that you aren't using the same credit card across multiple accounts -- and that would be one of the easiest ways to determine if people are VAC ban-evading, smurfing, sharing account credentials/payment methods across a family or other relationship (before gifting, I'd login to my gf's account and buy her games directly), and so on. They certainly don't care if multiple accounts are originating from the same IP address or sharing the same Steam Deck.
"Steam Families" is new. Cool. They've had "Family Library Sharing" for a long time. It allows you to authorize multiple accounts on a device and you can just ... play that other account's games whenever you want. From your own account, with your existing friend's list and all that. The only hangup I've had doing that has been when there's a third-party account required to login with (mostly F2P stuff). But the "Family Library Sharing" thing is what everyone wants out of this process. Just don't tell Steam? They'll never ask? They specifically don't have a mechanism in place to make sure this isn't being "abused." Can we not ruin this?
Although other software may have a similar TOS, not every software can lock away thousands of dollars in legitimate purchases. Because of that, it is reasonable to request Steam to transfer those games to someone else when you die. It's a reasonable expectation. Maybe it's unrealistic, or unfeasible. Personally, I wouldn't call it silly.
Apologies if I came off as too dismissive, but the article brings up the best example: you can't give away/bequeath/sell your iTunes collection. Or your Google/Apple/Samsung Store apps. Or any other software no matter how much you've spent. It's a legal thing. But that doesn't mean you can't load up an iPod and give that to someone, which IIRC is what people suggested back when that was in the news. Of course the better move is to buy DRM-free music in the first place.
I do agree that it's reasonable to want to be able to transfer games, music, etc., to next of kin, but I would say that TOS should've made it clear to everyone that that's not how it works for digital media. And people have warned about this every time a new digital medium has taken off. Physical books are always legally transferable to other people or can be resold, that's not the case with DRM'd e-books. Physical games are always transferable or able to be resold, that's not the case with digital games. Music. Movies. TV shows.
This is the Faustian bargain people made. They chose convenience over a physical version. And often at the same price to the consumer, I might add, which always mystified me. Even today I will buy a physical copy of a game over a digital at the same or similar price.
All that said, I absolutely want this practice to change. Maybe making an example of Valve's Steam Store will help raise awareness. But this is an issue with DRM, legally binding contacts (TOS), and all of that. It's an issue that needs legislative change because it's not something that Valve can or will change alone -- because I'm sure that many companies appreciate that sales of digital games on the Steam platform are at least partially predicated on the customer not being able to transfer or resell their digital goods.
The thing is, that doesn't seem to hold up when actually be put to the test in court. It turns out companies can put whatever they want in a terms of service, and a whole big chunk of it can be completely unenforceable.
While there are contradicting rulings (especially in incompetent US courts), these will eventually shake out. Importantly, the EU found this is the case regardless of how that software is delivered.
Software being classed as a good means that if you have a perpetual license, you own it, and can transfer it. It's just that the companies in question have a legal team and you (probably) don't.
I was hoping someone would bring up a case or two where TOS were proven not to hold up. Yes, until it's tested more in court and there are further rulings, and as you said especially in US courts with so far contradicting rules, this won't really be hashed out to consumers' satisfaction. There haven't been many yet, but hopefully more will follow. However parts of a TOS being unenforceable doesn't mean companies won't continue to attempt to enforce behavior on customers and/or prevent them from doing things that should otherwise be legal via other interpretations of the law (the second amendment is a great example of how interpretation works vis-a-vis enforcement).
I certainly hope that becomes legally true in the U.S.. Your link though doesn't actually address the second party being able to sell or transfer the software to a third party. It just states that the original sale, and the person conducting the sale, transfers the license to use and own it to the second party, insofar as its a perpetual license. It says nothing about transferring to a third party, in the case of inheritance or another sale, which is what was originally talked about. Your link says:
But I don't see how actually transferring rights of ownership to something with, say, intellectual property or a copyright, would mean that person can legally turn around and sell it to someone else. That wouldn't hold up, so I don't think the linked ruling you provided is a particularly good example.
Software reselling is already a thing, just ceased to be as easy with the transition to digital-only and companies operating in legal grey area, wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
It's long been held that purchasing say a music CD is a good, even though the music recording is a copyrighted work. The copy is a good': you purchased a copy of a copywritten work with perpetual playback rights for personal use, and can transfer the ownership of that copy as you would any other good. The copy does not confer copyright ownership, which means no reselling rips.
'I bought this software on a CD' - Is a good, can resell it. Like videogames on discs.
'I bought this software and downloaded off a website' - was not (verifiably) a good, and now is most definitely, on account that the transfer medium is considered irrelevant....as it should be.
I get that, you don't need to convince me of it. I just don't think companies see it that way. Seriously, email Gabe about it and see what he says.
I'd like to see a legal ruling that firmly allows this kind of transfer. I'd be allowed to pass on literally anything else I own, and I own a license to play those games.
I'll probably just take to having an archived pirate copy if possible.
They could have a dead man switch. If you don't login in 3 years, and after repeated (automated) attempts to contact you, all your games are transferred to another account previously chosen by you.
Yup, my steam account is fully accessible to my family, and just need to change the name associated to the account.
TBH I'll probably just transfer my account to my child when they turn 18 and have them family share to me.
Steam's "buy" button is pretty clear that I do own it. That's what buying is. TOSes can say they own my firstborn child, that doesn't mean they're legally binding. That's why they say "TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW", i.e. "if any part of this is not permitted by law then ignore that part".
One thing I've not seen discussed here is just how valuable is your steam account to your family? Sure you might have 1000 games but would they actually want access to more than maybe dozen of them?
But that's for your family to decide, yeah? Not for a corporation to decide that because the games aren't of interest that you don't own them anymore.
Sure, and it would be great if we actually owned games we bought on steam. Still I think it's funny how people value those purchases since even if they were transferable the recipients might not share the same view.
Hell how many people with 1k games actively use more than a dozen of them
This is no surprise - they don't let you transfer the games on your own account to someone else despite that being the most long running requested feature in Steam history. You will own nothing and you will be happy, isn't that how the saying goes? :P
Good thing Valve doesn't have access to death records. I'm thinking that there will be lots of 150 year old gamer accounts in 2120.
To be fair, I doubt this idea has even crossed their minds until this post lol