• SomeGuy69@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I think is a bit strange that Steam is so adamant on that. Sure in total every game of an inherited account might be a lot, but most are old games they sell for 5 bucks or less. How many of these old games would’ve been bought again from the new owner? I have little time for old games or old media, so it would be like getting grandpa Joes old book collection. It’s not worthless but the emotional value is probably higher than the real use. Steam gets 30% of every game sold, seams enough to cover account forwarding.

    • Zeroxxx@lemmy.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      At this point I believe Steam is just trying to avoid a rabbit hole. Given how massive and easily abused Steam platform is… it does not align with their interest.

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        They probably don’t care, but are dealing with a lot of publishers they want to keep happy. If they’re forced to transfer the titles by a court, they can wipe their hands of any of their publishers being angry at them.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        They’ll be forced to accept it, at least in the EU, they will also need to enable you to resell your games. EU law on this is clear, rulings in other cases are clear, all we’re waiting for is for Valve to stop appealing or lose before the ECJ, whatever is first.

        The tl;dr is if they want to argue that they’re simply renting out licenses then they shouldn’t be taking one-time but regular payments, or only give out time-limited licenses for one-time payments, or some such. They should also avoid terms such as “buy” and “summer sale” like the plague.