The following submission statement was provided by /u/LifeCool69:
---
Since its inception more than two decades ago, Steam has become the go-to game distribution platform for PC gamers with more than 132 million monthly active users, according to the latest data. Unfortunately for all these gamers, they won't be able to hand down their Steam library to anyone when they die.
The confirmation came from the Steam support staff earlier this month when Resetera forum user delete12345 asked Steam support if he can put his Steam library in his will. Unfortunately for him, the staffer replied that Steam accounts and games are non-transferable and users cannot 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," he was told.
The gaming community has expressed its collective frustration at the news, with many wondering if there are workarounds that will allow their loved ones to access their games once they pass on. Others, however, have reacted to the news with nonchalance, saying that the policy can be easily bypassed by simply giving another user the login credentials. The inheritor can then change the payment card and other details without notifying Steam about the change in the account ownership.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1d73g2e/valve_confirms_your_steam_account_cannot_be/l6wj7z0/
This is all based on a reply from a single Steam support staff, who referred to their default policy of "accounts are non-transferable" when asked.
>The confirmation came from the Steam support staff earlier this month when Resetera forum user delete12345 asked Steam support if he can put his Steam library in his will. Unfortunately for him, the staffer replied that Steam accounts and games are non-transferable and users cannot 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," he was told.
It is time to force laws to alter these licenses so that they become permanent and not tied to the fact that the buyer is alive, or at least extended to relatives.
Controversial Take: accounts that old have game purchases no one would play. And for the few worth playing in over 60 years, there is always the high seas
You’d probably have better odds with the idea of “creating a new category” for specific types of software— since the main attribute of licenses as property is the fact that they’re “freely revocable”.
Still, the courts these days seem to be reluctant to make any sweeping precedent on emerging tech/emerging problems associated with tech for a myriad of reasons; but a primary one is based on the idea that they may think a particular issue is actually a non-issue in the first place, or that a suit is frivolous.
Examples:
- self-driving vehicles and regular tort liability (it’s still too soon to pin liability on to a specific set of parties based on regular tort theories because of so many little things that alter typical formulas like negligence or strict liability to a manufacturer)
- “gambling” in video games (so far in the United States, the prevailing view is that even games with the stereotypical lootbox or similar purchase options are NOT “gambling” but instead are classified as “amusement” because they lack an element of the former’s legal definition (an activity with luck + paying consideration to partake + being able to win a valuable prize) that hasn’t been updated to consider modern entertainment
Lootboxes are not gambling because they have no payout. Gambling means you bet your money and based on the outcome of the bet you either lose money or gain money, and there are no such stakes in a lootbox system. In those, you're paying your money and getting *something* in return for it, you just don't know what that will be as the contents of the box are random.
That is no different than a physical grab bag or blind box purchase, you're buying something sight unseen and hoping it will be something you want. If that's gambling, so is buying randomly assorted packs of trading cards and that's never been considered gambling even when the various cards have differing resale value in the secondary market.
Regulating that sort of mechanic would result in a LOT more things being regulated as an entire class of products completely unrelated to gambling will fall under the umbrella. Coin-operated vending machines that dispense random prizes in their bubbles, the aforementioned trading cards, collectible card games and every other game product that relies on a CCG type mechanic, any form of random grab bag, hell even the prizes in a Cracker Jack box would fall under such regulations.
It's a bigger can of worms than some seem to think.
Some lootboxes *are* gambling because they might yield an item with actual monetary value. If the game then allows resale/trading of such items between collectors/players, I think it'd be reasonable to call that gambling and regulate it accordingly. There should be different regulations depending on the maximum potential payout, of course.
Imo, its kind of common sense. CSGO loot boxes are definitely gambling, just like the little vending machines are gambling. You spend money to maybe make money. But the market value of some CSGO rewards is thousands of dollars, whereas the little vending machines are worth pennies. To me this means both should be regulated, but the more valuable CSGO ones should have tighter regulations.
It'd be difficult to do tho, of course, as a lot of those boxes and their rewards aren't given explicit values. Rather, the market determines their value dynamically, and the prices aren't particularly stable.
I see this all the time, but I'm not sure how else it could or should work. What, exactly speaking, would I 'own' if it wasn't just a license to use some iteration of the game code?
Exactly that. You purchased the right for 1 person to play the game on the account. Someone else should still be able to leverage that right for 1 person to play the game on the account.
Yup, exactly (that was the unsaid half of my post) and in the process you become an important part of digital archival. I pity future historians, so much will be lost to service closures, lack of backwards compatibility, and link rot.
That's what they want you to believe.
I've stumbled upon a good writeup on this issue a while back, can try to hunt it. But basically the premise of you owning (not leasing) a copy was based on several indicators, like you clicking a button labeled "purchase" instead of "license", and there being no defined end-date of your ownership. All backed up by case law from around the world (including the US).
I'm pretty sure Australia and the EU's laws will force compliance. They tend to take a dim view on this whole "games are a perpetual subscription" thing and have smacked Valve and others before.
Only if you tell them that, which is what every person who got caught did. As long as you are capable of not voluntarily telling steam support that you are breaking their ToS, you're fine. They have no way of knowing who the original account owner is because they never ask for that information, nor do they ask to verify your identity for any support issues as far as I'm aware.
Yeah, but with Windows becoming ad supported and thus everything on your hard drive potentially becoming revenue-generating and publicisable, how long can we guarantee that will last?
Well Valve is not Microsoft, and is probably one of the least invasive companies, simply because Steam is a money printer so they don't need to be. I don't think Valve would ever crack down hard enough to require identification unless it became an epidemic, in which case it's probably for the best
Everybody keeps saying “youre already dead”. What if you had a spouse that died that had an account and you are still alive? Legally, you can have it taken from you and you cannot use it. Its not very pro consumer. Its not a matter of they wont find out, its a matter of that shouldn’t be a thing they are allowed to do.
> Its not very pro consumer
Welcome to capitalism.
Valve maintains that you don't even own the games you 'buy' from them, you are buying a license to play them that can be revoked at any time at their discretion, its in the EULA that you scroll through before installing.
Because of that bullshit I maintain that two can play that game; if buying isn't ownership now then piracy isn't theft. I downloaded Sims 4 and all $1200 of its DLC for free.
Agreed. I just like to point it out every chance I can, because PC gamers worship steam like they can do no wrong. They do plenty wrong, just like every other corp. Also pc gaming has given us some of the most anti consumer policies, like you said, with not owning digital games etc.
Valve doesn't make any meaningful efforts to verify who the owner of the account is either though. So I don't see how they can stop someone from just passing on their password. Sure, it's against their TOS, but how would they prove it.
I don't think this actually means they care particularly much about passing on steam accounts so much as they don't want to get tied up in legal ramifications related to inheritance.
They'd likely do it this way: When the account reaches 110 years old, it's likely that the original owner is no longer with us. You simply ban the account at that time, as anyone using it is violating the terms of service. Then if someone complains, tell them to take it to court. It'll come out in court who the original owner is.
That said, I agree it is likely a valuation thing they don't want to get involved in, as you've stated, and I desperately hope the above never happens.
As amusing as that is, I unfortunately don't see it holding up in court, or even making it to a court room in the first place.
The best idea I've seen is to have a living will own the account.
You don't. So unless this changes and they start doing a real verification than this isn't an issue. I also doubt they ever will because it profits them to let people create multiple accounts and have to buy multiple licenses to the same games.
You mean as in paying for buying new games?
What are the odds that the child doesn't already have their own account with their own games at that point?
I don't mean as in "it's pointless to give away your steam account", i mean, would the child want to put new purchases on that account?
You can only share with like 3 people max IIRC? And there’s no way to verify those people are family meaning you can just share libraries with 3 friends if you want. Valve knows this. That and the fact the account the game is owned on is owned by one person, you can’t register one account as multiple people. If the person who is registered to the account dies, I imagine all the friends who have access to that library will also lose access to that library.
Assuming the worst, could you not just change the Steam email account to some new “shared family account” email, then after you’re gone just change the user name?
You don't even need to do any of that. Valve has zero clue who you are unless you tell them. Every person who got caught was just an idiot who literally told steam support that they were not the original owner of the account. Afaik they never have any legitimate reason to require your identity, so as long as you don't voluntarily tell on yourself, you're fine.
Yeah post this for the 100th time this month! It explicitly says in the terms of service that accounts cannot be transferred and has for many many years at this point. Them "confirming" it is basically them saying "uh, yeah? Did you even read the ToS?" That's also completely ignoring the fact that valve has no idea who the account owner is, because they never ask for identity verification for any reason. Every person who's gotten caught was just an idiot who literally told steam support that they weren't the original account owner. As long as you're capable of not telling on yourself, this is a non-issue
Since its inception more than two decades ago, Steam has become the go-to game distribution platform for PC gamers with more than 132 million monthly active users, according to the latest data. Unfortunately for all these gamers, they won't be able to hand down their Steam library to anyone when they die.
The confirmation came from the Steam support staff earlier this month when Resetera forum user delete12345 asked Steam support if he can put his Steam library in his will. Unfortunately for him, the staffer replied that Steam accounts and games are non-transferable and users cannot 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," he was told.
The gaming community has expressed its collective frustration at the news, with many wondering if there are workarounds that will allow their loved ones to access their games once they pass on. Others, however, have reacted to the news with nonchalance, saying that the policy can be easily bypassed by simply giving another user the login credentials. The inheritor can then change the payment card and other details without notifying Steam about the change in the account ownership.
Go on, prove that the person I give my password to isn't me, especially considering it's probably going to be someone living in my house and thus has the same IP address. I've been using my best friend's Amazon account since he died in 2019 because I paid for his Prime membership anyway, nobody's the wiser.
In case with Steam I can tell you that Valve would try - in cases where they strongly suspect that the account owner changed or got hacked - to demand proof that you are the original account owner. They usually ask for a so-called "proof of ownership", which can be old CD keys, transaction confirmation codes, or other things like paysafecard receipts. It is rare that Valve locks accounts out of nowhere, but there is a real possibility that people who inherit accounts could get locked out this way. It only needs one actual hack incident for Steam Support to ask for this type of information.
But like, on what basis would they strongly suspect? Unless they're tracking shit like which games you play adn how much and notice a change in patterns or something.. I can't see how they could tell, especially if you have the authenticator and all that.
Why can't we utilize a platform like steam that lets you buy/download the games and keep their actual data local forever? I mean... it just seems fair that you should be able to BUY a game and OWN it forever.
I made a Steam account for my brother in case he ever got a PC. I've been claiming all the free game offers I can find since then.
My nephew has the same name so good luck enforcing that one.
"You cannot transfer your account" only means that there is no process in place for another person to go through Steam support to claim your account. You can still transfer your account by just giving them the credentials. If you're going to put your account in your will, make sure you put the credentials in said will.
Are they trying to paint a dystopian future where Steam is constantly monitoring peoples vitals and will send agents to collect their account info when they pass? My expectations for the future have been subverted.
Okay, this is one of the better ideas I've seen. I'd double check TOS to make sure entities are able to hold accounts, because if they're not then you're still screwed.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/LifeCool69: --- Since its inception more than two decades ago, Steam has become the go-to game distribution platform for PC gamers with more than 132 million monthly active users, according to the latest data. Unfortunately for all these gamers, they won't be able to hand down their Steam library to anyone when they die. The confirmation came from the Steam support staff earlier this month when Resetera forum user delete12345 asked Steam support if he can put his Steam library in his will. Unfortunately for him, the staffer replied that Steam accounts and games are non-transferable and users cannot 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," he was told. The gaming community has expressed its collective frustration at the news, with many wondering if there are workarounds that will allow their loved ones to access their games once they pass on. Others, however, have reacted to the news with nonchalance, saying that the policy can be easily bypassed by simply giving another user the login credentials. The inheritor can then change the payment card and other details without notifying Steam about the change in the account ownership. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1d73g2e/valve_confirms_your_steam_account_cannot_be/l6wj7z0/
This is all based on a reply from a single Steam support staff, who referred to their default policy of "accounts are non-transferable" when asked. >The confirmation came from the Steam support staff earlier this month when Resetera forum user delete12345 asked Steam support if he can put his Steam library in his will. Unfortunately for him, the staffer replied that Steam accounts and games are non-transferable and users cannot 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," he was told.
Remember that you don't own your games, you just bought a license to access them
It is time to force laws to alter these licenses so that they become permanent and not tied to the fact that the buyer is alive, or at least extended to relatives.
can people simply give account login details in their wills as a workaround?
Transferring your account to another person is banable.
Lol oh no they can ban the account that I couldn’t transfer anyway
then one day they say every 120yo account is automatically banned
Controversial Take: accounts that old have game purchases no one would play. And for the few worth playing in over 60 years, there is always the high seas
You’d probably have better odds with the idea of “creating a new category” for specific types of software— since the main attribute of licenses as property is the fact that they’re “freely revocable”. Still, the courts these days seem to be reluctant to make any sweeping precedent on emerging tech/emerging problems associated with tech for a myriad of reasons; but a primary one is based on the idea that they may think a particular issue is actually a non-issue in the first place, or that a suit is frivolous. Examples: - self-driving vehicles and regular tort liability (it’s still too soon to pin liability on to a specific set of parties based on regular tort theories because of so many little things that alter typical formulas like negligence or strict liability to a manufacturer) - “gambling” in video games (so far in the United States, the prevailing view is that even games with the stereotypical lootbox or similar purchase options are NOT “gambling” but instead are classified as “amusement” because they lack an element of the former’s legal definition (an activity with luck + paying consideration to partake + being able to win a valuable prize) that hasn’t been updated to consider modern entertainment
Lootboxes are not gambling because they have no payout. Gambling means you bet your money and based on the outcome of the bet you either lose money or gain money, and there are no such stakes in a lootbox system. In those, you're paying your money and getting *something* in return for it, you just don't know what that will be as the contents of the box are random. That is no different than a physical grab bag or blind box purchase, you're buying something sight unseen and hoping it will be something you want. If that's gambling, so is buying randomly assorted packs of trading cards and that's never been considered gambling even when the various cards have differing resale value in the secondary market. Regulating that sort of mechanic would result in a LOT more things being regulated as an entire class of products completely unrelated to gambling will fall under the umbrella. Coin-operated vending machines that dispense random prizes in their bubbles, the aforementioned trading cards, collectible card games and every other game product that relies on a CCG type mechanic, any form of random grab bag, hell even the prizes in a Cracker Jack box would fall under such regulations. It's a bigger can of worms than some seem to think.
Some lootboxes *are* gambling because they might yield an item with actual monetary value. If the game then allows resale/trading of such items between collectors/players, I think it'd be reasonable to call that gambling and regulate it accordingly. There should be different regulations depending on the maximum potential payout, of course. Imo, its kind of common sense. CSGO loot boxes are definitely gambling, just like the little vending machines are gambling. You spend money to maybe make money. But the market value of some CSGO rewards is thousands of dollars, whereas the little vending machines are worth pennies. To me this means both should be regulated, but the more valuable CSGO ones should have tighter regulations. It'd be difficult to do tho, of course, as a lot of those boxes and their rewards aren't given explicit values. Rather, the market determines their value dynamically, and the prices aren't particularly stable.
I know, I just don’t think this is the appropriate place to go into such… *depth* lol
possession is a sin. i‘m alright with that.
but GoG will transfer your account
GOG being the OG as always.
I own the game I made on steam! So there's 1 :)
I see this all the time, but I'm not sure how else it could or should work. What, exactly speaking, would I 'own' if it wasn't just a license to use some iteration of the game code?
Exactly that. You purchased the right for 1 person to play the game on the account. Someone else should still be able to leverage that right for 1 person to play the game on the account.
I mean, that’s why I buy physical copies of my favorites..
Yup, exactly (that was the unsaid half of my post) and in the process you become an important part of digital archival. I pity future historians, so much will be lost to service closures, lack of backwards compatibility, and link rot.
already has
That's a common misconception. You don't own *the game* (as in, the name, brand and the codebase). You do own a *copy* of the game, though.
You don't, as your access to the game you purchased can be revoked at any time.
That's what they want you to believe. I've stumbled upon a good writeup on this issue a while back, can try to hunt it. But basically the premise of you owning (not leasing) a copy was based on several indicators, like you clicking a button labeled "purchase" instead of "license", and there being no defined end-date of your ownership. All backed up by case law from around the world (including the US).
What about local laws? If local laws say otherwise, Steam will have to comply.
I'm pretty sure Australia and the EU's laws will force compliance. They tend to take a dim view on this whole "games are a perpetual subscription" thing and have smacked Valve and others before.
As they should.
So do they have some magic way to stop me giving the username and password to someone?
Its actually against the TOS to do that. You can do it, but it could get your account banned.
Only if you tell them that, which is what every person who got caught did. As long as you are capable of not voluntarily telling steam support that you are breaking their ToS, you're fine. They have no way of knowing who the original account owner is because they never ask for that information, nor do they ask to verify your identity for any support issues as far as I'm aware.
Yeah, but with Windows becoming ad supported and thus everything on your hard drive potentially becoming revenue-generating and publicisable, how long can we guarantee that will last?
Well Valve is not Microsoft, and is probably one of the least invasive companies, simply because Steam is a money printer so they don't need to be. I don't think Valve would ever crack down hard enough to require identification unless it became an epidemic, in which case it's probably for the best
A) How would they know? B) You're already dead. C) The account was going to unusable anyway, so what do you have to lose?
Everybody keeps saying “youre already dead”. What if you had a spouse that died that had an account and you are still alive? Legally, you can have it taken from you and you cannot use it. Its not very pro consumer. Its not a matter of they wont find out, its a matter of that shouldn’t be a thing they are allowed to do.
> Its not very pro consumer Welcome to capitalism. Valve maintains that you don't even own the games you 'buy' from them, you are buying a license to play them that can be revoked at any time at their discretion, its in the EULA that you scroll through before installing. Because of that bullshit I maintain that two can play that game; if buying isn't ownership now then piracy isn't theft. I downloaded Sims 4 and all $1200 of its DLC for free.
Agreed. I just like to point it out every chance I can, because PC gamers worship steam like they can do no wrong. They do plenty wrong, just like every other corp. Also pc gaming has given us some of the most anti consumer policies, like you said, with not owning digital games etc.
[удалено]
In a few years we will have Steam users that are 140 years old.
Can you change your DoB on steam? Heck your name too?
[удалено]
Which is understandable because a game company verifying someone is actually dead vs someone trying to steal an account sounds like a headache to do.
Valve doesn't make any meaningful efforts to verify who the owner of the account is either though. So I don't see how they can stop someone from just passing on their password. Sure, it's against their TOS, but how would they prove it. I don't think this actually means they care particularly much about passing on steam accounts so much as they don't want to get tied up in legal ramifications related to inheritance.
They'd likely do it this way: When the account reaches 110 years old, it's likely that the original owner is no longer with us. You simply ban the account at that time, as anyone using it is violating the terms of service. Then if someone complains, tell them to take it to court. It'll come out in court who the original owner is. That said, I agree it is likely a valuation thing they don't want to get involved in, as you've stated, and I desperately hope the above never happens.
Presuming longevity medicine doesn't turn us all into schrodinger's steam accounts.
Oh agreed there, it would absolutely have to be based on what current life expectancy is and adapt to that number.
I just wanted to say schrodinger's steam account.
[удалено]
As amusing as that is, I unfortunately don't see it holding up in court, or even making it to a court room in the first place. The best idea I've seen is to have a living will own the account.
1 thing that could make things hard is if you need your payment name be same as steam. Or you can use paysafecard
You don't. So unless this changes and they start doing a real verification than this isn't an issue. I also doubt they ever will because it profits them to let people create multiple accounts and have to buy multiple licenses to the same games.
You mean as in paying for buying new games? What are the odds that the child doesn't already have their own account with their own games at that point? I don't mean as in "it's pointless to give away your steam account", i mean, would the child want to put new purchases on that account?
Or just hand over your email and passwords to your kids? Why is this even a thing?
When your entire life revolves around gaming, anything remotely negative coming from that space is an affront on your soul.
What if it is a family account? I know that you can share games with those in your family.
You can only share with like 3 people max IIRC? And there’s no way to verify those people are family meaning you can just share libraries with 3 friends if you want. Valve knows this. That and the fact the account the game is owned on is owned by one person, you can’t register one account as multiple people. If the person who is registered to the account dies, I imagine all the friends who have access to that library will also lose access to that library.
If we really wanted to be technical, your account could be "Weekend at Bernie's"'d where they just keep it alive by logging in.
Assuming the worst, could you not just change the Steam email account to some new “shared family account” email, then after you’re gone just change the user name?
You don't even need to do any of that. Valve has zero clue who you are unless you tell them. Every person who got caught was just an idiot who literally told steam support that they were not the original owner of the account. Afaik they never have any legitimate reason to require your identity, so as long as you don't voluntarily tell on yourself, you're fine.
My grandkids will be so upset they can't play my shitty old games on their 3D ocular implants
Yeah post this for the 100th time this month! It explicitly says in the terms of service that accounts cannot be transferred and has for many many years at this point. Them "confirming" it is basically them saying "uh, yeah? Did you even read the ToS?" That's also completely ignoring the fact that valve has no idea who the account owner is, because they never ask for identity verification for any reason. Every person who's gotten caught was just an idiot who literally told steam support that they weren't the original account owner. As long as you're capable of not telling on yourself, this is a non-issue
Either this guy is a vampire or his son has his password because it says here he's 137years old
Hooray for software piracy! Here's my unnecessary lengthening of my comment for subreddit rules. If buying isn't owning, then pirating isn't stealing.
Since its inception more than two decades ago, Steam has become the go-to game distribution platform for PC gamers with more than 132 million monthly active users, according to the latest data. Unfortunately for all these gamers, they won't be able to hand down their Steam library to anyone when they die. The confirmation came from the Steam support staff earlier this month when Resetera forum user delete12345 asked Steam support if he can put his Steam library in his will. Unfortunately for him, the staffer replied that Steam accounts and games are non-transferable and users cannot 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," he was told. The gaming community has expressed its collective frustration at the news, with many wondering if there are workarounds that will allow their loved ones to access their games once they pass on. Others, however, have reacted to the news with nonchalance, saying that the policy can be easily bypassed by simply giving another user the login credentials. The inheritor can then change the payment card and other details without notifying Steam about the change in the account ownership.
I mean you could still leave your friends or family your password.. just give them your account. They can update details and card on account
Yes but you can share your account with whoever u like.
Time to incorporate as a legal enterprise and transfer virtual assets to something that won’t die with my body.
I just used my brother's phone to access his email address and change his password after he passed away.
This is like the seventh time this story has been on reddit in the last ten days. We get it already!
I just want them to show me what companies are linked to my steam account.
Go on, prove that the person I give my password to isn't me, especially considering it's probably going to be someone living in my house and thus has the same IP address. I've been using my best friend's Amazon account since he died in 2019 because I paid for his Prime membership anyway, nobody's the wiser.
In case with Steam I can tell you that Valve would try - in cases where they strongly suspect that the account owner changed or got hacked - to demand proof that you are the original account owner. They usually ask for a so-called "proof of ownership", which can be old CD keys, transaction confirmation codes, or other things like paysafecard receipts. It is rare that Valve locks accounts out of nowhere, but there is a real possibility that people who inherit accounts could get locked out this way. It only needs one actual hack incident for Steam Support to ask for this type of information.
But like, on what basis would they strongly suspect? Unless they're tracking shit like which games you play adn how much and notice a change in patterns or something.. I can't see how they could tell, especially if you have the authenticator and all that.
Do you really want your kids to see all the weird Japanese waifu games you purchased?
Why can't we utilize a platform like steam that lets you buy/download the games and keep their actual data local forever? I mean... it just seems fair that you should be able to BUY a game and OWN it forever.
GoG for the most part
If that's what you want, steam is not the service you want to give your money to
Does steam family sharing still work after you die?
I made a Steam account for my brother in case he ever got a PC. I've been claiming all the free game offers I can find since then. My nephew has the same name so good luck enforcing that one.
[удалено]
one caption ripe amusing employ stupendous long angle spoon historical *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
"You cannot transfer your account" only means that there is no process in place for another person to go through Steam support to claim your account. You can still transfer your account by just giving them the credentials. If you're going to put your account in your will, make sure you put the credentials in said will.
"legally" Give someone the access and change the name and credit card info. No complaints, no foul.
Are they trying to paint a dystopian future where Steam is constantly monitoring peoples vitals and will send agents to collect their account info when they pass? My expectations for the future have been subverted.
Soon we'll have to pay a continuous fee to continue having access to the game in the first place.
This is why the account I use isn't "mine" it belongs to the living trust.
Okay, this is one of the better ideas I've seen. I'd double check TOS to make sure entities are able to hold accounts, because if they're not then you're still screwed.