It did, and they did. That's probably exactly why they allowed it like that in the first place - if the transaction is fraudulent then simply remove the user's entitlement, but offer instant access for better experience.
Doesn't seem like a good user experience. All to get a free hour of gameplay?
There are easier ways of pirating games. The only possible usecase for this kind of fraud would be if you can buy digital items, transfer and then sell those digital items.
But even then, that might be difficult to do all in 10 minutes.
My comment was intended to point out that it's parent comment didn't bother to read the grandparent comment, which had clearly answered the question it was asking.
But then the parent comment author edited themself, I assume to avoid looking foolish. So I guess it's irrelevant now.
Ok, so then I guess it isn't really a problem then. The whole just ban them "ad infinitum", is totally a reasonable solution to all of this.
No, its not. If an account gets banned after an hour, all that happened is that the user got is 1 free hour of playing a video game. There are easier ways of pirating videos games than that.
So really, thats good enough.
You tried to claim "The fraudster scales up their account creation". And I am telling you, that if a fraudster wants to play a video game for free, there are much easier ways of doing so. By just pirating the game, for example.
So that specific point is wrong.
> or so say the guys sitting in the cheap seats
Actually, it seems like you are the one sitting in cheap seats. Because you have already straight up admitted that you don't really know much about the industry. Whereas, people like me, who do work in the games industry, do know about what a good user experience is for people playing video games, actually know more about this than you do.
So, in other words, you actually should "care how well it would work". Because how well it would work, is integral to the attack vector.
> > In practice, it may well be more complicated than that
> No, its not...
You keep assuming that the information you already have is ALL of the relevant information about this issue. You're just a Monday Morning Quarterback, and you have no way to know whether the situation is more complicated than this. So you can't possibly make absolute statements about this... Unless you happen to work at Valve, on something that has given you actual experience with the Steam account system.
I already told you the answer to this.
There are easier ways to pirate a game than this, as getting banned after an hour is not a good user experience, and the user would be better off just pirating the game.
For which you had no response.
The only specific reason that you gave, which was "they could just make more accounts" I refuted by describing how it would be easier to just pirate a game.
And then you refused to address the refutation, because you didn't have a response.
If you didn't have any specifics arguments about that point you could have just said so.
Because I was talking about the actual, specific arguments, about why your previous statement of "make infinity accounts" was wrong, and you are now continuing on being incapable of giving a response to that specific statement.
This website is just surreal.
Most of the “tenacity” parts implied there are automatable, so it's mostly about “can people enjoy the paid-for experience of a game with ephemeral rather than durable accounts”, which, well, really depends on the design of the game.
The BTC acceptance didn't even vend keys, it was just access on the primary steam account.