Sixth Tone reported that a Beijing court ruled in favour of a mother seeking to inherit her late son's 87 online gaming accounts. The court selected the case as an example to guide judges in similar future disputes over digital assets. On r/gaming the story passed 25,000 upvotes.
"Example for the rest of the world"
The top replies were short and positive: "Good for them" and "Example for the rest of the world." One commenter noted that, according to the article, this was also a matter of livelihood for the mother, and that if someone invests real money and time into something, their family should be able to inherit it.
Many expected similar cases elsewhere. "People spend too much time and money on digital assets now," one person wrote. Another thought the EU might follow but would not hold their breath for the US.
Accounts are not the same as licences
The more thoughtful replies pointed at a limit. One commenter said they would much rather see individual game licences become transferable or sellable, calling the ruling "the best we can hope for" for now. Another noted that the ruling is about ownership of the account, and publishers can still decide what happens to the individual game licences inside it.
That raised an obvious follow up: if an account can pass to your family, why can you not gift or sell a single game you bought? As one commenter put it, the inheritance question is knocking on that door.
The lighter side
Not every reply was serious. One person said their dad's Star Citizen fleet is going in his will. Another replied that the game might still be in late stage beta by then.
Why this matters for physical games
With a physical game, none of this needs a court. A cartridge or disc can be handed down, lent, sold or traded without anyone's permission. The Beijing case is a step forward for digital buyers, but it also shows how much ownership you give up when a game only exists as a licence on an account.