You Don’t Own The Video Games You’ve Bought: The Death Edition
from the death-and-video-games dept
In my basement at home, I have a handful of old gaming consoles that were left to our family after other family members either got too old to want them any longer or after they passed away. Coming along with them are a handful of games for those consoles. As a result of the physical nature of those products, my young kids at home have been able to play those games on their old consoles and using old controllers.
But if those games had been bought digitally, none of that would have happened. Ars Technica has a short but interesting post about what happens to your PC gaming library after you die. And the answer is essentially this: those games just go away.
The issue of digital game inheritability gained renewed attention this week as a ResetEra poster quoted a Steam support response asking about transferring Steam account ownership via a last will and testament. “Unfortunately, Steam accounts and games are non-transferable” the response reads. “Steam Support can’t provide someone else with access to the account or merge its contents with another account. I regret to inform you that your Steam account cannot be transferred via a will.”
This isn’t the first time someone has asked this basic estate planning question, of course. Last year, a Steam forum user quoted a similar response from Steam support as saying, “Your account is yours and yours alone. Now you can share it with family members, but you cannot give it away.”
Now, there are obviously workarounds for this sort of thing. I could very easily go into the will we have setup for our family and just jot down my Steam login and password. But that’s not really the same thing, nor does it address the overall issue that exists with the ownership of the digital game library I have. And from a purely logical standpoint, there is little reason why I should be able to will a boxed copy of a game I bought to a family member, but I cannot do the same for the exact same game I bought for the exact same price if it’s digital.
And these same ownership and transferability questions are present not just in matters of our own corporeal existence, but on matters of game preservation as well.
Beyond personal estate planning, the inability to transfer digital game licenses has some implications for video game preservation work as well. Last year, Jirard “The Completionist” Khalil spent nearly $20,000 to purchase and download every digital 3DS and Wii U game while they were still available. And while Khalil said he intends to donate the physical machines (and their downloads) to the Video Game History Foundation, subscriber agreements mean the charity may have trouble taking legal ownership of those digital games and accounts.
“There is no reasonable, legal path for the preservation of digital-born video games,” VGHF’s then co-director Kelsey Lewin told Ars last year. “Limiting library access only to physical games might have worked 20 years ago, but we no longer live in a world where all games are sold on physical media, and we haven’t for a long time.”
There are obviously differences between a digital and physical product. But game publishers mostly ignore those differences entirely. A physical copy of a game typically costs exactly the same dollar amount as a digital copy, despite the lack of a need to pay for the physical medium and packaging costs. Copyright laws apply to both equally.
So why aren’t customer rights around ownership and first sale doctrines likewise still applied to this content that has been “bought,” at least such that my kids or a charity of my choice can inherit my game library in the event that I get run over by a car?
Filed Under: copyright, death, ownership, video game library, video game preservation, video games



Comments on “You Don’t Own The Video Games You’ve Bought: The Death Edition”
Copyright and corporate greed, I’d presume.
Because it’s not bought; that’s just a bullshit pretense…
…coupled with an attempt at emotional manipulation. If your kid doesn’t have access to your games now, why should the court grant them access after you die? Particularly when you’ve waived all your rights to transfer the games, and agreed to waive the jurisdiction of the courts (in favor of binding arbitration—and if somehow a court gets involved anyway, it’ll have to be in King County, Washington), and basically accepted that you’ll give them money and have no rights.
What benefit would society get from continuing this pretense of “property”, and giving courts more work to do after a death? It’s not like they’re tied up with lawsuits over TV show and video game inheritance now. If it becomes a problem, and courts are wasting time dealing with ownership of Steam-game-holding corporations and the like, maybe then we’ll get video-game wills.
Re:
If someone believes they own a thing by virtue of purchasing it, they may also believe they have the post-death right to transfer ownership of that thing to an heir. Companies rarely, if ever, say that “purchases” of digital products such as video games are actually purchases of a product license. Ergo, believing the purchase of a digital product is akin to buying a book or a DVD, and that the ownership of those products is transferrable, is reasonable.
People inherit all kinds of physical objects from dead relatives. I see no reason, other than copyright and/or corporate greed, to prohibit the inheritance of digital products…or the licenses to said products, at least.
Re: Re:
This is not a matter of who owns what, it’s a matter of a 3rd party attempting to infiltrate and take over the terms of a will, a document that is prescribed by the laws of the land and the courts to be a means of passing l ownership from one generation to the next.
Should the ownership become a question in fact for the court to determine, then the 3rd party company (in this case, Steam) would have to prove that they are the rightful owners of the product, and that the original “purchaser” was fully aware that they were not actually purchasing a product, they were only renting it for a limited time.
This would certainly prick up the court’s ears, I’m sure. The question becomes, does the originating company still, or actually in the first place, own the product and thus retain all rights, or does the estate now own the product by means of the original ‘purchaser’ passing away? And the originating company is just attempting to interfere with a age-old process of legally transferring ownership….
Sticky question, and someone should step up to the plate and test it in the courts.
Re: Re: Re:
It is, though. Either the person who purchased the games or Valve owns those digital products. Determining who holds ownership of them under the law would thus determine whether an individual can bequeath ownership those games to an heir. And to quote you again…
This wouldn’t even be an issue with physical objects such as books. But now that we’re in a world where digital purchases are far more commonplace, the question of “who owns what” must eventually be settled so issues arising from that question can be resolved.
Re: Re: Re:2
Smell the glove.
Re: Re: Re:3
We did.
It doesn’t make us hate the situation any less, asshole.
Perhaps you might want to be a bit more symphathetic instead of being psychopathic.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, you know what, I don’t see Steam winning that argument in court.
Tim’s already pointed it out, but if I can will away my ownership of a physical game CD-ROM to someone else, this idea that my digital ownership can’t be passed on and has to expire with my earthly time is baffling. You’re arguing in favor of the goblin rules of ownership from Harry Potter where the sword of Gryffindor is forever the property of who made it, even after he got paid for it. I don’t have to give the Harry Potter book back if anything happens to me, why do I have to do that with a game?
Of course I get why Steam wants to try and argue your Steam account is your own. They’d rather not have a situation where someone rents out or lends their Steam account to another family member. But I don’t see them winning in the court of public opinion on this. The Louis Rossmann approach applies here: If buying isn’t owning, then piracy isn’t stealing.
Re: Re: Re:2
Depending on how the courts rule on this question, you might have to if it’s the epub version.
Re: Re: Re:3
Ah, yes. eBooks are their own version of cursed, which Louis Rossmann has also covered recently – mentioning how silly it is that you can carry a physical paperback anywhere in the world but Amazon won’t let you take Kindle eBooks out of the country. And parents wonder why the motivation to read for children is at an all time low.
Re: Re: Re:4
Maybe Kindle e-books are cursed, but LibGen is the greatest thing that’s ever happened to reading. (Off-topic, but where do their bad copies of books come from? I mean like all those copies of Harry Potter talking about “Sinus Black”, or with gray-on-white text or weird punctuation or section breaks… are the “purchased” e-books as bad as what’s on there?)
I really doubt that’s anything to do with Amazon’s actions. Or that parents are wondering; the new parents of today are an age group for whom reading was already in decline. Their parents bemoaned the death of reading too.
Just for myself, it was school that made me dislike reading for pleasure, and it took about a decade for me to get back into it. It became a chore, which took up much of my time, and from which I would be expected to deduce some thesis or subtext. Sometimes it was stuff like Shakespeare that could hardly be called “English” anymore, but was rather an English-like second language we were expected to figure out without any help. And not to enjoy, but just to write throw-away reports on.
But now I can read pretty much anything I want, any time I want, with little effort. The “little free libraries” popping up everywhere are great for this too. Sometimes I just grab a book or e-book on a whim, when I hear about or see one. That used to take a trip to a book store (and always the implicit question, “is this worth the money they’re asking?”) or library.
Re: Re: Re:5
Let’s not mention children on vacation in foreign countries having to do something other than read because Amazon took away their ability to read their ebooks and the cost of packing physical books was prohibitive because of the airline’s limited weight allowance. 🤦♂️
Re: Re: Re:
Which is a potential problem with wills containing lists of physical property, but no one argues that you shouldn’t believe you own physical property on that basis. Stop moving the fucking goalposts on your losing argument.
Re: Re: Re:
But why? Is it a matter of “rights”? I don’t think so. Some idea of fairness? It’s often perceived as such, but I’m not sure. More realistically, I see wills as a form of labor-saving standardization. If they didn’t exist, people would be setting up corporations, family trusts, and the like, to give the same effect as wills. People would waste time and money dealing with that. All would be a little different, and courts would waste time figuring out each one. So we make it standard.
I mostly agree with Stephen. I don’t think inheritance is a “right”, but that’s a minor point. Companies are being totally misleading with sales vs. licenses, and not just in one direction—see Eminem’s lawsuit over the music “sales” that were really licenses, being paid out to Eminem at the contractual “sale” rate rather than the “licensing” rate.
There’s something really wrong in general, that needs attention from the legal system; I just don’t think wills are a remotely sane way to do it.
Stephen wrote: “I see no reason, other than copyright and/or corporate greed, to prohibit the inheritance of digital products…”
And what you and Stephen seem to overlook is that there’s no real “property” or “products” here; that it’s not copyright preventing inheritance, but copyright propping up the entire idea that there’s anything to inherit or own.
Were there no copyright, a game or movie would just be a file sitting on a family’s file server. If one family member died, the others would still have access. Maybe the whole world would have access, or there’d be no file server because we’d all be sharing via archive.org or Napster or whatever. There’d be nothing for a third party to “infiltrate” via legal process.
Re:
Why do you think this is a good question to ask? You might not have access to your parents’ house until after they die at which time a court grants you access.
Re: Re:
It’s kind of a rhetorical question. I feel like we’re in “re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic” territory here. One can make a point that “digital property” is like any other property, and wills should cover it. But that’s doubling and then tripling down on the bullshit ideas of copyright. Making just minor tweaks to an idea that makes no sense in the modern world, minor tweaks that would paper over the problems, and, perhaps—to the detriment of society—delay the major overhaul or repeal that’s desperately needed.
Re:
Copyright is the pretense of “property” that’s the problem.
Re: Re:
Yes, that was precisely my intended meaning, and perhaps I should’ve said it explicitly.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, no kidding.
Well if they don’t want people to have ownership of their products, they should had never sold those products to them in the first place.
Quite the reversal
What I’m wondering about is why Valve has suddenly reversed its policy here.
Valve used to handle the transfer of games from deceased accounts to live accounts with grace and relative simplicity (there was a bit of fussiness about paperwork and letters of administration, but that’s all).
Now, suddenly Valve comes right out and says, “Hey, we did it for a couple decades, but we’re going to suddenly stop now”?
Why?
Re:
The reason to stop is quite simple: It costs money to Valve to do the transfer. Another reason is that it might mean some lost sales.
Yes, in the long run the customers get fed up with this lack of service and will turn to other options, piracy included.
Re: Re:
For non-pirates, there is also GOG and itch.io.
Re: Re: Re:
I am a happy GOG user (that keeps local backups of his downloaded installers). Still some of the games “phone home” and I can not be certain that they do not allow remote deactivation.
Re: Re:
Costs have to be the smallest concern.
“Hey, add these entries to that customer’s list and remove them from the other list”
They don’t have to hand-carve raw bits to order.
Re:
I don’t know why, but the account agreement is absolutely clear: when people sign up, they agree that Valve can arbitrarily change the contract at any time (Darth Vader style). And if one doesn’t accept the new terms, one will forfeit access to one’s account and any “contents” one might have regarded as “property”.
That sucks. That’s the real problem—that, and copyright and its pretenses in general—not the lack of post-death service.
Banks have generally-shitty agreements too, but none would dare try to say “if we change the terms of this contract, and you don’t accept the new terms, the contents of your account are forfeit to us”. Nor would they get away with it in court.
And to think, this wouldn’t be an issue 90% of the time if copyright terms hadn’t been ratcheted up so high in the first place.
But what if....
Now hear me out, what happens when Steam finally fails? If they say that I will need to move it all to another service, right there breaks their own ToS. I think we could get a judgement saying we own the rights to the games we buy. The lawyers will get 90% of that judgement and we will all get $.75
Re:
The ToS says they may cancel your “subscription”(which is just your account) or a license if they stop providing the content or you violate their rules. You accepted that when you created your account.
It sucks, but it’s the way things are right now, and I doubt a lawsuit would change that.
You know what this means?
If you have the options, buy on itch.io or GOG whenever possible for posterity. They have no DRM, so they can be accessed by future generations!
That being said, I have no future generations, so I’ll stick with Steam and my Steam Deck. At least it runs Linux, so…
Re:
But think of the children!
If it says “buy” / “purchase” and all you get is a license, that’s fraud.
Re:
If I remember correctly, there aren’t actually any buttons that say “Buy” or “Purchase” on the platform. There’s “Add to cart”, “Continue to payment” and “Pay”.
And the ToS states:
So Valve are probably more open about it than a lot of other platforms, but the general situation is still ridiculous.
Re: Re:
Is “Add To Cart” near a picture of a game or a picture of a long legal document? When you open your cart to pay, do you see a game or a legal document? Pretty sure most people think they’re paying for a game, not a legal document.
Re: Re:
I’d still bet on most people believing they bought a copy of a game instead of a license to the game, though.
Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely.
Re: Re:
Even then, the ability to pass on the use of a license is something that a will can handle, and should be allowed to handle. (Or better yet, a trust, but that’s getting a bit deep for the intents and purposes of this discussion.)
Re: Re: Re:
Is a trust or other corporation allowed to be a Steam subscriber? They’re reasonably well known (if not common) in other contexts, such as having a trust own a home to avoid land-transfer taxes; or having it buy a lottery ticket so a person’s picture and name aren’t published on winning.
As I understand it, a will can specify what’s to be done with transferable licenses. Steam licenses just happen to be non-transferable, quite explicitly, and I’m not sure there’s much precedent for a court to force a transfer despite that.
As a point of reference, my parents own a share of a residential corporation that gives them the right to occupy a specific unit. The right is not transferable on death, and while heirs have apparently complained about it, there doesn’t seem to be much they can do. The corporation sells it at their discretion and pays 95% of that income to the estate.
Re: Re:
The same as Amazon, where I get keep what I pay for in perpetuity. Your point?
Unpopular opinion:
This is just Valve not wanting to get involved in legal matters that it shouldn’t have to. Imagine all the fraudulent notices they’d have to sift through when fraudsters try to steal people’s libraries worth thousands(+) of dollars.
They can’t stop you from transferring passwords, and there’s no indication that they’d try. Putting in place any sort of automated system of account transferal would be fraught with all the impossibilities of content moderation, but with the added pitfall of real-world theft. Doing it manually would be even worse.
As long as they just let people handle this on their own, everybody is better off. And having been around for over 20 years now, we would have definitely heard if there were mass bannings for “unauthorized transfers” that have most assuredly happened many, many times.
So no more ghost car stories
Several years ago a grieving son found a saved game in racing sim that used a ghost car for the fastest player, so he spent months racing his deceased father until he almost caught the ghost car.
If buying isn't owning...
The people on your man o’ war
Are treated worse than scum
I’m no flogging captain
And by God I’ve sailed with some
Come with me to Barbary
We’ll ply there up and down
Not quite exactly
In the service of the Crown 🏴☠️
— Mark Knopfler