A comprehensive guide to help Steam remain competitive in the modern gaming landscape.

[FOXDUDE69]

Hello, everyone!

Like many of you, I love Steam and I want to see it remain successful in the future.
There are many wonderful guides on Steam but they are typically meant to help players, so I think it's about time someone makes a guide to help Valve.

Let's Start!



𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐎𝐖 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐎𝐅 𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐍𝐓-𝐒𝐔𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐋𝐃 𝐀𝐂𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓𝐒

You can't technically make an account for a child under 13 on Steam.

Meanwhile all of Steam's biggest competitors allow you to create a parent-supervised child account for your offspring.

This includes the Epic Games Store, where my offspring are already building a significantly large library of free games and enjoying matches of FORTNITE with their dad, while at the same time not being allowed to play RAFT on Steam with their dad because they haven't reached the arbitrary age of 13 despite the fact that they've been gaming since they were toddlers.

Since they aren't allowed to have an account, the only games they can play with me on Steam are shared screen or split screen games, both types of games that, let's be frank here, are more comfortably enjoyed though Playstation/Xbox on our 75" TV (Steam link introduces lag and visual artifacts so that's not a real solution).

What all of this is guaranteeing is that the vast majority of their childhood gaming memories will be dominated by consoles and the Epic Games Store.

The Epic Games Store already has the future advantage here, due to the fact that they've captured the attention of the next generation of gamers with the insane popularity of FORTNITE, a generation of gamers without an ounce of loyalty towards Valve like the Counter Strike generation had, and this backwards policy of only allowing children over 13 to create accounts is further increasing the advantage they'll have in the future.

When a child can have an Epic account stacked with hundreds of good free games and making countless, priceless childhood memories on their platform long before they are even allowed to make a Steam account (6 more years until my oldest is allowed to have an account), Valve is just letting Epic race by them while they are stuck in reverse.

Lastly, developers that lock their games to Steam are leaving money on the table because of this nonsense, too. The aforementioned RAFT has no ESRB or PEGI rating, but Subnautica is very similar in the type of content it features and it has a ESRB of 10+ and PEGi 7.

So if RAFT was on Epic or Playstation these developers would have made additional sales from parents of children 7 and up. Instead, and because RAFT is locked to Steam, these children are not technically allowed to own a game that's appropriate for their age. It's an absurd situation.



𝐑𝐄𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊 𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐀𝐌 𝐏𝐎𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐎𝐅𝐅𝐄𝐑 𝐀 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐄𝐓𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐋𝐎𝐘𝐀𝐋𝐓𝐘 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐌

Another thing that Valve is sorely lagging behind is with their laughably inferior loyalty program.

Yes, it's fun to customize your profile with some silly stuff but it doesn't hold a candle to using points to redeem actual games like you can on Playstation, Nintendo and even the Epic Games Store now.

The Steam points system should be reworked to give users the ability to redeem their steam points for full games or partially pay for the purchase.

This would also naturally make Steam points far more valuable, meaning Steam Awards would become more meaningful, which is a good thing in my opinion, and the "Jester problem" would basically take care of itself.

The items currently on the Points Shop would then also have to be greatly reduced in cost as their value relative to the value of a partial or full purchase of a new game is remarkably inferior.

But what we would be left with would be a loyalty program that actually encourages users to spend directly on Steam instead of third party key selling sites like Humble Bundle.

Additionally, every purchase on the Steam store should heavily contribute towards your Steam level. It just makes perfect sense.



𝐅𝐈𝐗 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐀𝐁𝐘𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐋 𝐂𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐌𝐄𝐑 𝐒𝐔𝐏𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓 𝐄𝐗𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄

Steam customer support is infamous for how terrible it is.

From personal experience and from what I've read online through the years, the average customer support experience on Steam seems to go a lil' something like this:

You write in your problem and wait multiple days for a generic answer from someone who didn't even bother reading your ticket.

Sounds familiar?

Compare this to other videogame services which allow you to livechat or even call... Services where you communicate to people who are actually trying to solve your issue instead of stonewalling you in hopes you give up and close the ticket.

This behavior reduces trust in the platform.

Valve's customer service is one of the worst I've experienced in my life and it's the main reason I've started significantly reducing the amount of money I spend of Steam and no longer recommend the service to friends and co-workers like I used to.

Trust is very important, and in the age of digital gaming, where you don't physically own the product you are purchasing, trust is paramount. So if you can't trust the entity selling it to you... Money will go elsewhere.



𝐃𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐋𝐎𝐏 𝐆𝐎𝐎𝐃 𝐆𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐒 𝐀𝐆𝐀𝐈𝐍

Let's face it, the Valve we fondly remember does not exist anymore, that's why you don't have a Half-Life 3 or a Left 4 Dead 3 or a Portal 3.

Yeah, yeah, Valve can't count to 3, very funny, I know.

But the underlying issue causing this "inability to count to 3" is not funny at all, it's ugly and downright disgusting.

Instead of continuing to work on their beloved franchises and innovate and develop new ones, Valve elected the way of easy greasy money.

They elected to focus on esports and played a significant and pivotal role in the normalization of lootboxes and gambling. Vast amounts of money for relatively little work.

And I do mean little work because even by esports/live service standards, CSGO and DOTA2 are quite pathetic. Fresh content is extremely rare... But lootboxes for young teens to gamble with... That's always rolling out.

Valve should turn back and try to live up to the reputation of being "the good guy", a reputation they've long stopped deserving but could deserve once again through hard work and a decision to start once again contributing to videogame history in a much more positive way.

Valve should apologize to their fans for abandoning their beloved franchises for lootbox money and promise to do better in the future. They should cut off API access to all the gambling websites that they like to pretend they can do nothing about. Make a clean break from the sleazy stuff, and then they should take the vast amounts of money they have and make good single player and co-op experiences.

Take a page out of Sony's Playbook and buy up smaller but promising studios with talented and passionate developers and with time and money, turn them into your own Insomniac, your own Santa Monica, your own Naughty Dog.



𝐈𝐌𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐕𝐄 𝐐𝐔𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐋

Quality control on Steam or the lack-there-of is an ever-present issue that we've just "learned" to accept. The Steam Store is filled with trash that couldn't even be described as shovelware and we've gotten used to seeing it so much that we "trained" ourselves to ignore it.

At least that's what we think, until we start browsing other stores and immediately notice that, while there some junk titles here and there, it's a much more pleasant experience to browse through content.

In my experience, the significantly reduced amount of trash on a store greatly helps in discoverability of smaller, low profile but legit indie titles which would otherwise be swimming at the bottom of a pool of trash. It's remarkably refreshing browsing through other stores compared to browsing on Steam.

Yes, we know those games sell because of Steam Cards, but is this worth your reputation, user experience and discoverability for smaller legit devs? The only sane answer is no.

If you care about your reputation and user experience, you have to curate your store.
You got away with ignoring this issue throughout the years, but as competition stiffens and other platforms offer a more curated experience, continuing to ignore this issue is foolish.


Thank you for reading!

[Squirrel With Acorn]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mad Scientist:

You should seriously read the parts about resolving disputes between an accuser and Valve.

COPPA violations are not something to be arbitrated between store and customer, it's something that goes between the store and the government. FTC states to report COPPA violations to the FTC, so that is the proper procedure.

[Squirrel With Acorn]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από SlowMango:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mad Scientist:

You should seriously read the parts about resolving disputes between an accuser and Valve.

I've always found this interesting when stuff like this gets 'brought to light'. No one every seems to actually take such a slam dunk case to court.

It's always done as theatrics on the forums(which actually works in Valves favor if brought to court) instead of proper channels.

It's like it isn't a genuine concern.

Reporting COPPA violations to the FTC is the proper channel, going through arbitration is not the proper channel.

Also, remember, I am on the side that Valve's statement in the Family View FAQ isn't about creating accounts for under 13 year olds, but it's about creating accounts for children between 13-17. If Valve answers my support question with a Yes, which I highly doubt they will answer with a Yes, then I'll go through the proper channel of reporting the COPPA violation to the FTC.

[Tanoomba]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlueCanine:

Since Valve does not have procedures to obtain verified parental consent as per COPPA laws, an account for the child cannot be made.

I think your mistake is believing it's a foregone conclusion that what Vale does doesn't count as obtaining verified consent. Here's what your link says (emphasis mine):

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από link:

Before collecting, using or disclosing personal information from a child, you must get their parent’s verifiable consent. How do you get that? COPPA leaves it up to you, but it’s important to choose a method reasonably designed in light of available technology to ensure that the person giving the consent is the child’s parent.

It sounds to me that companies have to make reasonable efforts to ensure they get parental consent for accounts that will be used by children. It also seems to me that requiring the parent to be the one creating the account in the first place makes it pretty clear that they are giving their consent.
And when they say:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από link:

Acceptable methods include having the parent:

... the use of "include" implies this is not an exhaustive list, but merely a series of examples of acceptable ways to demonstrate parental approval.

I mean, if it's up for interpretation at all (and it seems very much to me like it is), then it's not the slam dunk you seem to believe it is. And that's not even going into whether it makes a difference if they "meant" 13-17 or under 13, which I don't think is relevant if it's not stated explicitly.

[Gambit-3k]

basically epic didn't set up a few popups telling kids they need their parents permission to create an account, because that would also require parental management tools (since mature games also existed on the site) that weren't ready to deploy. got sued because it's fairly impossible to argue your game isn't marketed towards kids when it's the most popular topic in schoolyards across the country; hence the knowingly collected information from children. and now want to deflect blame by pointing at others and misrepresenting what coppa is and how it works.

I think the dark marketing was far worse than the coppa crap, cause to be fair I don't think epic actually knew fortnite's largest audience was going to be children when it launched. which is a big deal with coppa as things aimed at children and consumed by children are two distinct things. I imagine they would probably do it all the same again, cause the goal is to build the platform at all costs, deal with the consequences later using the pile of cash generated.

[Leonardo Da Pinchi]

Only way Steam would allow points to buy games or coupons is they separate gifted steam points from ones rewarded from purchases, then make it so only points gained from purchases eligible to buy the coupons/games.

Too easy to get steam points currently to warrant anything of the sort otherwise.

[Squirrel With Acorn]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Tanoomba:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlueCanine:

Since Valve does not have procedures to obtain verified parental consent as per COPPA laws, an account for the child cannot be made.

I think your mistake is believing it's a foregone conclusion that what Vale does doesn't count as obtaining verified consent. Here's what your link says (emphasis mine):

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από link:

Before collecting, using or disclosing personal information from a child, you must get their parent’s verifiable consent. How do you get that? COPPA leaves it up to you, but it’s important to choose a method reasonably designed in light of available technology to ensure that the person giving the consent is the child’s parent.

It sounds to me that companies have to make reasonable efforts to ensure they get parental consent for accounts that will be used by children. It also seems to me that requiring the parent to be the one creating the account in the first place makes it pretty clear that they are giving their consent.
And when they say:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από link:

Acceptable methods include having the parent:

... the use of "include" implies this is not an exhaustive list, but merely a series of examples of acceptable ways to demonstrate parental approval.

I mean, if it's up for interpretation at all (and it seems very much to me like it is), then it's not the slam dunk you seem to believe it is. And that's not even going into whether it makes a difference if they "meant" 13-17 or under 13, which I don't think is relevant if it's not stated explicitly.

You are wrong in what you are thinking here. The law actually spells out what is considered as verified parental consent. First of all, simply clicking a button saying "I am 13" is not parental consent at all, not even close. Second of all, look at the actual law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/312.5

Existing methods to obtain verifiable parental consent that satisfy the requirements of this paragraph include:

(i) Providing a consent form to be signed by the parent and returned to the operator by postal mail, facsimile, or electronic scan;

(ii) Requiring a parent, in connection with a monetary transaction, to use a credit card, debit card, or other online payment system that provides notification of each discrete transaction to the primary account holder;

(iii) Having a parent call a toll-free telephone number staffed by trained personnel;

(iv) Having a parent connect to trained personnel via video-conference;

(v) Verifying a parent's identity by checking a form of government-issued identification against databases of such information, where the parent's identification is deleted by the operator from its records promptly after such verification is complete; or

(vi) Provided that, an operator that does not “disclose” (as defined by § 312.2) children's personal information, may use an email coupled with additional steps to provide assurances that the person providing the consent is the parent. Such additional steps include: Sending a confirmatory email to the parent following receipt of consent, or obtaining a postal address or telephone number from the parent and confirming the parent's consent by letter or telephone call. An operator that uses this method must provide notice that the parent can revoke any consent given in response to the earlier email.

(3) Safe harbor approval of parental consent methods. A safe harbor program approved by the Commission under § 312.11 may approve its member operators' use of a parental consent method not currently enumerated in paragraph (b)(2) of this section where the safe harbor program determines that such parental consent method meets the requirements of

Valve does absolutely none of those. And everything Valve does has nothing to ask for consent at all, implied consent when they have no idea if the person is actually the parent or not is not sufficient to cover the law. It is an absolute fact that Valve has nothing to ask for parental consent as per what the law requires. Nothing that Valve does can be considered as getting verified parental consent at all. if what you are saying is true, then absolutely everyone, including Epic, Microsoft, Google, and everyone else hit with COPPA could have easily got away with it because they all used to do the same exact thing as what Valve does now, and what Valve does now is not sufficient for knowingly collecting children's data.

So your entire point here is wrong.

[Squirrel With Acorn]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Gambit-3:

basically epic didn't set up a few popups telling kids they need their parents permission to create an account because that would also require parental management tools (since mature games also existed on the site) that weren't ready to deploy, got sued because it's fairly impossible to argue your game isn't marketed towards kids when it's the most popular topic in schoolyards across the country; hence the knowingly collected information from children. and now want to deflect blame by pointing at others and misrepresenting what coppa is and how it works.

I think the dark marketing was far worse than the coppa crap cause to be fair I don't think epic actually knew fortnite's largest audience was going to be children when it launched, which is a big deal with coppa as things aimed at children and consumed by children are two distinct things. I imagine they would probably do it all the same again, cause the goal is to build the platform at all costs, deal with the consequences later using the pile of cash generated.

the "dark patterns" thing has some strange things to it though, not all of it was strange some of it was legitimate, but the FTC even complained by the fact that (as an example) the B Button on a controller was used to do something on a menu, but was used for like switching weapons in the game, and they considered that as a dark pattern too.

And yes, if Valve's statement on the Family View FAQ does in fact mean creating an account for a user under the age of 13, it would mean that Valve is knowingly collecting childrens data, and they would be doing it illegally since they do not do anything to suffice COPPA laws.

[Gambit-3k]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlueCanine:

And yes, if Valve's statement on the Family View FAQ does in fact mean creating an account for a user under the age of 13, it would mean that Valve is knowingly collecting childrens data, and they would be doing it illegally since they do not do anything to suffice COPPA laws.

I think the important things to consider are that Valve doesen't know the age of any individual, so they can't be sure the age of any info they have, which is important to coppa cause it deals with marketing towards children under 13. Valve doesen't know which accounts are which, just that everyone is either old enough to consent or got permission from their guardian. One thing failing to get mentioned is with Fortnite, the reason they are "knowingly collecting" that data is because the users that were children are in high enough numbers, that Epic can look at that data (holistically) knowing it is likely representative of children; or maybe more accurately can't not know. Which brings huge marketing implications and rules that now apply to you, and not other products that cater to general audiences that may have children among them.

of course this is the part I admit I'm not a lawyer, big surprise right, and acknowledge I probably have no freaking clue what I'm talking about.

[FOXDUDE69]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από SlowMango:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από cinedine:

I mean, what do you expect?
Selecting "no we do not need nor want better child protection on Steam"? How people even argue stuff like this ...

... oh yeah right. Those people have no children and think "just monitor your child 24/7" is an adequate solution.

Are you really trying to twist this into a "for the children" thing?

Oh, that's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ rich.

Who else are child accounts for?

[Start_Running]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlueCanine:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Start_Running:

Yes they can, so long as the parentb is the one who permits it, and/or creates it.
Parental COnsent is a thing. This is why you can have child actors The CGHild cannot enter into contract but the parent can on behalf of the child. Same goes for medical consennt etc etc.

Since Valve does not have procedures to obtain verified parental consent as per COPPA laws, an account for the child cannot be made.

WHat they have is enough. It reasonable to assume that parents are doing their part in all this. And they have remdy for those cases where a parent objects . that's enough. and if you think it is it and you think you're the first brilliant mind to come up with this idea. You're welcome to go through the motions. And lets face it...no one here thinks for a second that you will.

I mean it's not like GoG, Ea,Google, Amazon, Youtube, etc, must all be in violation as well. Huh. Weird that the FTC would let so, so many, many, companies just ignore COPPA...
or your understanding of it is incorrect. I wonder which is more likely?

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlueCanine:

If the account is created by the parent, the parent is the holder of the account. As per SSA, that account cannot be transferred to the child so the child can use the account for the rest of their life.

Not technically. If I as a parent set up a bank account for my child I am not the holder of the bank account am I? Again. Real world be full of these examples m8. YOu have to be ignoring quite a bit to make these arguments.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlueCanine:

Why don't you ask your own parents how many times they signed consent forms on your behalf.

I'm a parent myself, I already know. I suspect that is also the reason why I have a massively better understanding of everything involved with all of this stuff.

Why you THINK you have an understanding. Buut as said. There's waaay too many companies out there that are some how aalso getting away with this. And yet.. FTC seems oblivious ...either the FTC is incompetent, or you're mistaken. WHich one is it?

Steams doing as much as is required. Same as Amazon, GoG, EA, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, Twitch and literally hundreds of other platforms and sites.

[Squirrel With Acorn]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Start_Running:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlueCanine:

Since Valve does not have procedures to obtain verified parental consent as per COPPA laws, an account for the child cannot be made.

WHat they have is enough. It reasonable to assume that parents are doing their part in all this. And they have remdy for those cases where a parent objects . that's enough. and if you think it is it and you think you're the first brilliant mind to come up with this idea. You're welcome to go through the motions. And lets face it...no one here thinks for a second that you will.

I mean it's not like GoG, Ea,Google, Amazon, Youtube, etc, must all be in violation as well. Huh. Weird that the FTC would let so, so many, many, companies just ignore COPPA...
or your understanding of it is incorrect. I wonder which is more likely?

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlueCanine:

If the account is created by the parent, the parent is the holder of the account. As per SSA, that account cannot be transferred to the child so the child can use the account for the rest of their life.

Not technically. If I as a parent set up a bank account for my child I am not the holder of the bank account am I? Again. Real world be full of these examples m8. YOu have to be ignoring quite a bit to make these arguments.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlueCanine:

I'm a parent myself, I already know. I suspect that is also the reason why I have a massively better understanding of everything involved with all of this stuff.

Why you THINK you have an understanding. Buut as said. There's waaay too many companies out there that are some how aalso getting away with this. And yet.. FTC seems oblivious ...either the FTC is incompetent, or you're mistaken. WHich one is it?

Steams doing as much as is required. Same as Amazon, GoG, EA, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, Twitch and literally hundreds of other platforms and sites.

umm, what?

Google/Youtube hit with COPPA Violation
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/09/google-youtube-will-pay-record-170-million-alleged-violations-childrens-privacy-law

Amazon hit with COPPA violations
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/05/ftc-doj-charge-amazon-violating-childrens-privacy-law-keeping-kids-alexa-voice-recordings-forever

Microsoft hit with COPPA violations
https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/202-3129-microsoft-corporation-us-v

EA has a system in place for parents to set up under age child accounts, the process is COPPA compliant
https://help.ea.com/en/help/account/set-up-child-ea-account/

EA has a system in place for parents to set up under age child accounts, the process is COPPA compliant
https://www.ubisoft.com/en-us/help/roller-champions/account/article/creating-a-young-player-account/000079318

Facebook hit with COPPA violations
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/05/ftc-proposes-blanket-prohibition-preventing-facebook-monetizing-youth-data


Also I feel like you are completely missing what I have been saying, so pay very close attention to what I am going to say next, ok? Valve would only be required to follow COPPA verification, which they currently do not, is if they knowingly have children under the age of 13 personal data. If what Brian stated is true, that would make Valve knowingly collecting child data, and since they do not do it in a COPPA compliant way, they would be in violation of COPPA. But I am on the side that Brian is wrong about what Valve's statement actually means, meaning Valve wouldn't be required to be COPPA compliant because their statement is about 13-17 year olds, and not about 13 year olds.

And if Valve is knowingly collecting child data, what they are doing is not currently enough as per COPPA laws. Every piece of COPPA I have linked to have literally shown the way that Valve does things is not COPPA compliant because they do absolutely nothing to do verified parental consent.

With bank accounts, children under the age of 18 cannot have a bank account on their own, they have to have a parent be on it as a joint account, and the bank sets it up that way. Then when the child becomes 18, the parent can remove themselves from the bank account and the account fully belongs to the now 18 year old. Steam has no such mechanisms, no child under the age of 13 can have an account, the account fully belongs to the parent who per the SSA is not allowed to transfer that account to the child when they turn 13.

Now you think, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, EA, Ubisoft, Epic, all companies who knowingly get child data all get verified parental consent as described in the COPPA law instead of doing it the "way" that Valve does it that you claim is compliant with COPPA. Why would they do that if they could just do it the Valve way of just clicking "I am 13 years old" button and then hand over the account to someone under 13? Thank you about it why would they go through the extra steps and expense if what you claim the way Valve does it is perfectly compliant with COPPA?

[Gambit-3k]

If you notice each of those cases involved applications or services aimed directly at children or where the data was able to identify which accounts specifically belonged to children.

Even if Valves allows children under the age of 13 with parental consent, they still don't know which accounts are which, as they don't ask if the account is for a child. You could say the parental controls could flag that, but that could still be for children 13 and over. So at no point does Valve know the data belongs to a child. For them to knowingly collect the data, they would have to make some effort to identify which accounts belong to children under 13. Simply knowing that some users will be children statistically doesn't matter, you have to be able to identify it to knowingly collect it.

You are right that Valve doesn't have comply on the same level (they do comply though). That has to do with Epic's situation crossing a threshold to where they couldn't not know the data was, as a whole, belonging to and representing children. I don't know what that threshold is, but the FTC thinks Fortnite (meaning Epic) reached it.

Now maybe if I was playing devils advocate, I would argue that Valve could try to figure out which accounts are mostly used by children, by looking at data and playtime of certain titles. However, I would still think as long as they don't actually identify such accounts, and treat all accounts and data in the same agnostic manner, they wouldn't be "knowingly collecting" the data of children. Basically you have to either be able to know specific data belongs to a child, or that there are so many children, it becomes more likely than not. That's my understanding after reading about some of these cases


p.s. Even if you ask support if it's ok, they don't know when or if you will actually do it, and wouldn't know which account you made for them. Now I guess if you are super diabolical, you could tell them the name of the account you are totally 100 percent going to make for your child, and then the FTC could sue them for their ability to see that support message, meaning they must now know that account you named belongs to a child. I would hope the courts wouldn't entertain such a bad faith action, but who knows.

[Squirrel With Acorn]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Gambit-3:

If you notice each of those cases involved applications or services aimed directly at children or where the data was able to identify which accounts specifically belonged to children.

Even if Valves allows children under the age of 13 with parental consent, they still don't know which accounts are which, as they don't ask if the account is a child. You could say the parental controls could flag that, but that could still be for children 13 and over. So at no point does Valve know the data belongs to a child. For them to knowingly collect the data, they would have to make some effort to identify which accounts belong to children under 13. Simply knowing that some users will be children statistically doesn't matter, you have to be able to identify it to knowingly collect it.

You are right that Valve doesn't have comply on the same level (they do comply though). That has to do with Epic's situation crossing a threshold to where they couldn't not know the data was, as a whole, belonging to and representing children. I don't know what that threshold is, but the FTC thinks Fortnite (meaning Epic) reached it

Now maybe if I was playing devils advocate, I would argue that Valve could try to figure out which accounts are mostly used by children, by looking at data and playtime of certain titles. However, I would still think as long as they don't actually identify such accounts, and treat all accounts and data in the same agnostic manner, they wouldn't be "knowingly collecting" the data of children.
Basically you have to either be able to know specific data belongs to a child, or that there are so many children, it becomes more likely than not. That's my understanding after reading about some of these cases


p.s. Even if you ask support if it's ok, they don't know when or if you will actually do it, and wouldn't know which account you made for them. Now I guess if you are super diabolical, you could tell them the name of the account you are totally 100 percent going to make for your child, and then the FTC could sue them for their ability to see that support message, meaning they must now know that account you named belongs to a child. I would hope the courts wouldn't entertain such a bad faith action, but who knows.

The key is if Valve is knowingly collecting that data, and if they are telling parents to create accounts for their child, then they know they are collecting data on children. it doesn't matter if they know what account are child account or not, nobody know what accounts are child or not unless they are told by the one that created the account that it is an account for a child, that is why it is about if with in reason the service knows if their service targets or entices children to have an account, and if Valve is telling parents to create account for their children then that is Valve knowing they have account for children, so COPPA compliance is required, which currently Valve does nothing to be COPPA compliant.

I don't know why you think why a service would have to know what specific accounts are child account in order to determine if they need to comply with COPPA requirements or not, that isn't how it works at all, they just need to know that children are creating accounts in order to be required to be compliant, and if Valve is telling parents to create accounts for their children then that is Valve knowing they are collecting data on children.

If Valve's statement isn't about under age children, then Valve can continue in blissful ignorance that there are children with account, and continue not doing anything that would be required of COPPA if they knew they were collect children's data. And if the FTC ever decides to look at Steam service and if they determine that Valve should have known they were collecting data on children because they provide games that are targeted towards under age children, then Valve will have to deal with that and settle with the FTC like everyone else has been.

[Squirrel With Acorn]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Gambit-3:

p.s. Even if you ask support if it's ok, they don't know when or if you will actually do it, and wouldn't know which account you made for them. Now I guess if you are super diabolical, you could tell them the name of the account you are totally 100 percent going to make for your child, and then the FTC could sue them for their ability to see that support message, meaning they must now know that account you named belongs to a child. I would hope the courts wouldn't entertain such a bad faith action, but who knows.

forgot to mention this

If Valve says it is OK, then that is Valve admitting they know they do collect children data, and since Valve doesn't do anything to be compliant with COPPA that would mean they are breaking COPPA law.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Gambit-3:

If you notice each of those cases involved applications or services aimed directly at children or where the data was able to identify which accounts specifically belonged to children.

Even if Valves allows children under the age of 13 with parental consent, they still don't know which accounts are which, as they don't ask if the account is for a child. You could say the parental controls could flag that, but that could still be for children 13 and over. So at no point does Valve know the data belongs to a child. For them to knowingly collect the data, they would have to make some effort to identify which accounts belong to children under 13. Simply knowing that some users will be children statistically doesn't matter, you have to be able to identify it to knowingly collect it.

You are right that Valve doesn't have comply on the same level (they do comply though). That has to do with Epic's situation crossing a threshold to where they couldn't not know the data was, as a whole, belonging to and representing children. I don't know what that threshold is, but the FTC thinks Fortnite (meaning Epic) reached it.

Now maybe if I was playing devils advocate, I would argue that Valve could try to figure out which accounts are mostly used by children, by looking at data and playtime of certain titles. However, I would still think as long as they don't actually identify such accounts, and treat all accounts and data in the same agnostic manner, they wouldn't be "knowingly collecting" the data of children. Basically you have to either be able to know specific data belongs to a child, or that there are so many children, it becomes more likely than not. That's my understanding after reading about some of these cases


p.s. Even if you ask support if it's ok, they don't know when or if you will actually do it, and wouldn't know which account you made for them. Now I guess if you are super diabolical, you could tell them the name of the account you are totally 100 percent going to make for your child, and then the FTC could sue them for their ability to see that support message, meaning they must now know that account you named belongs to a child. I would hope the courts wouldn't entertain such a bad faith action, but who knows.

Not to mention the only "personal data" required for a Steam account is the email. It doesn't ask for anything outside of that until you make a purchase.

Creating an account for YouTube, Xbox, and Amazon all require legal names, locations, and birthdates.