Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The ONLY accounts that should ever be archived are those that have no paid content whatsoever, and even then, only archived, not deleted.
With storage costing so little, and accounts realistically taking up so little space, there really is no need at all for deletion of anyone's account.
And WHY should Valve delete inactive accounts?
What benefit does it bring?
Who does it help?
Why bother with all the nonsense that would be involved to check all these accounts, as well as the backlash for deleting them, the negative PR, the loss of faith in the platform which NEEDS the trust of it's customers, as well as the potential for mistakes and the resulting extra backlash, fear-mongering and threat to Valve itself that such an accident could cause.
It's a recipe for disaster, following in the trails of less successful companies who are desperately penny-pinching to make their shareholders feel better.
thats bs:
the value of games, as any other form of art and-or entertainment is beyond monetary for those that "consume" it for enjoyment rather than presumption or "showing their class" (and "acquisitive power") to others.
Your thread isnt about piracy, but the fallacy about misuse of resources behind "account deletion" is in fact actually part of the root of the issue about piracy consumption (its actually just a poor argument to try to keep pushing "programmed obsolescence" to promote consumption of "disposables", and also push bs like "software as service"). Valve through steam store may have address partially the problem through "adaptative regional pricing" (dont know if this how they call it), but not completely since they still dont offer a easy way to backup copies of games with installers, so "users" have the possibility of installing their games offline, or without depending in the existence of steam online.
Maybe thats what you were trying to fish with this thread, and if so, you should actually make a thread specifically about that (which is fair under steam and valve rules, as long as you arent promoting piracy, tools, etc.; the discussion of the topic is valid, even if most assume it as a taboo, thanks to a few misinformed moderators that may claim some words related to the topic shouldnt be used, like "emulators", which btw are also available in steam store, including officially used by companies like sega for retro gaming).
Anyway, the point those who pay for a product, should be able to keep control and ownership of such product, rather than the licencing model many are pushing to decrease the freedom and control what people can do, learn, think about and discuss. what you suggest goes against that, and is part of a toxic culture.
I merely stated that there are other companies getting a LOT of bad press and attention for merely talking about this, never mind actually doing something so anti-consumer.
Deleting accounts with purchases not only goes against the things Valve has assured the community since Steam's inception, which has engendered the trust that most other platforms lack, but can ONLY cause bad publicity and a total lack of trust that is needed to keep any store thriving.
Merely speaking about deleting accounts has caused a massive uproar upon Ubisoft, for no benefit at all. And you are suggesting this is a good thing for Valve to do?
Are you a CEO, or someone that believes the fallacy that "all publicity is good publicity"?
Your claim that hackers could get into accounts and do naughty stuff is a really lame fall back position, as that is ALWAYS the case with accounts.
What's next, you expect Valve to shut down ALL accounts, just in case a hacker gets into one?
Not all accounts are fully secured by all of Valve's tools, and they know that.
No security is ever 100% safe, and anyone who's worked in any form of security knows that.
But your "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist is like a bank closing accounts because someone could funnel money through it.
It defeats the whole purpose of the company, shakes faith in consumers, and shows those who have paid for games on the service that their purchases are NOT safe in any way, and that Valve could AND WILL take them all away at a whim.
That looks like nothing more than a really fast way to destroy the company in my view.
And even if they accepted your scheme, how long should an account be inactive before deletion?
How much should they pay to the account for the games purchased?
Full price?
Present price? Even if there is a sale on?
If the account got the keys from a 3rd party, how much do you pay them then?
And to where?
You clearly want to see accounts deleted, for whatever reason, but have not thought through ANY of the consequences of methods of doing so.
And what are the benefits to Steam/Valve for all this bad press, negative community feeling and abandonment of trust? Considering Valve is seen as pretty much the only real good guy in PC gaming, what is the value in making themselves appear as underhand, untrustworthy and unreliable as Ubisoft, EA or any of the other toxic and malicious PC games publishers?
Saving a little bit of server space? LOL Yeah, I'm sure THAT is worthwhile *eyeroll*
Sure, delete long untouched accounts that have no paid games on them, no one will really grumble about that, but deleting paid accounts is folly.
Block me if you like, you are just proving that you cannot answer ANY questions about your assertion.
I notice that you have changed your original post now.
Moving the goalposts indeed!
Changing your post after you've had it pointed out how negative your idea is?
How very courageous of you, blocking anyone that disagrees with you, and changing your argument when called out on it.
I didnt assumed anything: i was "guessing", which is a different position. what i commented was that is a common fallacy (and others you suggested) in that topic, and that was the reason i was guessing that maybe that was "the true angle of the thread".
And thats part of what i actually "assumed" right:
even if you didnt wanted to start a discussion about piracy, the thing is that suggesting its for security, ethical and or financial, is still related to the themes i mentioned, and for the reasons i also listed.
first thing first: every system, no matter how secure you believe it is, is hackable. Nothing is perfect, and the more complex a system is, the more vulnerable to exploits will be. thats rl.
so, back on topic, i will try to "update" you:
if you havent made a bit of research, the topic of piracy, and the themes of "control of data" and your right to backup it (even accounts of "digital goods and services") relates directly to the right to keep backup copies of things you "own", and "the right to repair".
Big corporations, and pro-authoritarian entities (usually supposedly "socialist" sympathisers) want people to continue acting docile towards depending more in goverment(s) rather than having freedom to control assets like money, and goods (including different forms of entertainment and learning).
To that end, they need that most enough people dont complain and adopt things like "software as service" and are unable to "own" copies of goods, and are ok with keeping "limited licenses" to use or even access the services or goods. they also need people to be tolerant about more invasive forms of telemetry and data mining (according to bs "to improve services") so both, private and gov related parties, can have more control over content, so they can have more economic and cultural influence, and therefore increase their power while decreasing what users and "consumers" can do as reaction.
So, in short, you are mistaken:
the arguments that promote and or condone things like account deletion without guarantying a backup of data, freedom to control which data is kept, and "goods", are bs that works to support those other things, because all are related.
in the end is about trying to centralise power in corporations and government related entities. is never about security, company finances or "improving services". Thats all bs to sell the idea, not their actual intention. Avoid repeating their fallacies, and learn why they use them: why they choose specific words.
Even if x only payed once a small amount for z service, he or she should be able to decide if backing up or not the data, and then when it should be destroyed, and companies should be obligated to offer such freedom, and the option to (maybe) keep a physical copy of each user in case they want it later, even if they are forced to kill their servers.
cds and dvds are extremely cheap; also to keep an offline copy in any other form should be a lot cheaper than having a server running all the time, so the economic excuses are also bs: "consumer (user) data" should be treated as valuable as "corporate data".
I agree with everything you said except this bit.
It's nothing to do with "supposedly socialist sympathisers", 'Left' leaning people and groups are more in favour of protecting the rights of people to be able to make backups etc.
Generally, it's more Right looking people who want to strengthen the rights of corporations vs people.
Freedom of the individual goes along with both Left and Right though, because political standing is only simplistically Left to Right. In a slightly more accurate, but still simplistic descriptor, political alignment would also have to take in the Authoritarian to Anarchistic view to provide a more rounded picture.
More authoritarian leaning folk would be in favour of stronger government control over the individual's rights.
Socialism is far too often seen as a bogey-man, but most countries in Europe are socialist to a fair degree and are doing well. Even America with it's fear of anything not capitalist has a strong socialist underpinning to society.
But then, we would be getting further off topic, so I'll leave it as that
half-true, but you are probably mixing themes in an erroneous way, from assuming some things that work in a different way to what you believe you know. this is common, because i also used to fall in similar mistakes.
more government always equals more corruption, less freedom, and certainly worse economics and less "private ownership"; the opposite is also true: less government = more efficient government, with less corruption (less "special categories" for family and friends to work).
Also, the belief we need a powerful government to keep rights is mistaken: what is needed is that most people understand why doing business even with someone you don like is usually a better idea, than not, but that also you or anyone should be forced to be doing business with someone because the government wants to control every behavior. that line of thinking is for authoritarian, absolutists, tyrants; thats what the catholic church did, and why it eventually broke and lost a lot power and influence.
people believe, thanks to propaganda, that most western countries are "capitalists" and have a "free market"; in most cases governments have hijacked the market(s), and hardly follow a capitalist model that respects free will and individuality. Thats why in so many of them there are many crisis related to political abuses from corrupt leftists and corrupt right wingers. As long as governments are allowed to force ideology, and limit access to studies that promote actual critical thinking, you wont see a big difference anywhere.
the real problem isnt capitalism, is what we were told capitalism is (and also the influence of the central banks), when theres another way to do it properly, but which decreases the influence of middlemen, and therefore opportunities for corruption.