this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024

215 points (96.9% liked)

Gaming

23296 readers

75 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Metallinatus@lemmy.ml

peternile@lemmy.ml

215

Steam doesn’t want to pay arbitration fees, tells gamers to sue instead (arstechnica.com)

submitted 9 months ago by umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml to c/gaming@lemmy.ml

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 51 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Common Valve W

[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 75 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

its not exactly for the positive reason you think. theyre trying to prevent the class action lawsuit going around the (UK?) right now and realized when a certain amount of people take the arbitration, it gets fairly costly, so they reverted on that clause.

regardless fuck arbitration, its like paying off judges but even more transparent about it.

its basically doing the right thing for the wrong reason (reverting arbitration cause not for thr consumer, but for their wallets)

[–] umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml 35 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Still, the effects benefits the consumer, so I would consider this a good thing.

Also, I wonder if we can do the same to other companies and let them revert course.

[+] Stovetop@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (5 children)

[deleted]

[–] LostXOR@fedia.io 42 points 9 months ago (2 children)

One word: Linux.

Valve's contributions have singlehandedly revolutionized the Linux gaming scene. They're the only reason I can play most of the games I own. I don't worship them, exactly, but I do think very highly of them.

[–] sep@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

This for sure. Making games easily accessible on linux have lead to a lot of people not having to deal with windows anymore.
It is the same effect as a kidnapping victim beeing grateful when someone comes to release them fom the torture rack. It is not strange that valve gets a lot of goodwill from their actions.
Would i sish more people did as steam does? Ofcourse! But none do, so we are grateful for steam. I think they saved pc gaming. And not only for linux.

[–] squid@feddit.uk 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Before proton we used wine. And wine will continue development with or without steam.

If anything the open source community did more and gave steam a firm platform to build on.

Edit: And to add an observation steams push for Linux is a reaction to Microsoft becoming a contender in the PC games market place. Its not for our benefit anymore than for valves.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 26 points 9 months ago

A company that makes some good decisions over a long term stands out in a sea of corps endlessly chasing next quarter

[–] verdigris@lemmy.ml 18 points 9 months ago

I'm pretty wary of corporate propaganda, but from the article this sounds like a pretty clear case of some greedy people taking advantage of Valve offering to cover all arbitration costs. Yes, they're doing this to cover their ass, but it's not a malicious move and I don't see how it could be interpreted as anti-consumer.

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Valve Users W

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

It's a win-win situation!

[–] dRLY@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I mostly like Valve, and agree that going too far with Stan-ing over a company is dumb. However I think the majority of people that tend to greatly support Valve comes down to both pushing tech and games forward into better consumer directions, and that they are currently not joining in on the mass enshittification as other companies (but of course all big companies can and will do some level of that given enough time).

With regards to pushing tech, they have done more (in at least the last 10 years) to force Linux to be seen as worth supporting. Their efforts to actually add to projects that were already around has been game changing. And that they kept actually putting time, money, and resources into it even after their initial efforts with Steam Machines and the original SteamOS didn't gain traction on a mainstream level. The Steam Deck keeps outshining the other options even while being technically less powerful specs and they are putting work in to make sure things like drivers are released to help people that choose to install Windows.

But all the positive stuff will only keep happening so long as people don't start feeling locked out or cheated. I forget a lot of the time how bad many users hated them back when the original versions of Steam were released. Many of the issues people had and were concerned about were valid and could have tanked Valve if they didn't do everything they could to address them. If they start pulling shit like EA or really any of the console companies have done. Then it will be their time to see massive losses and get all the hate that is deserved.

[–] cmdr_nova@mkultra.monster 5 points 9 months ago

@dRLY @Stovetop In a world of constantly enshitifying tech, the only question I have for Valve is: Why so many MOBAs

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 9 months ago

I would if it had any lasting power. I mean, can't they just push out another eula update 6 months from now when this change is no longer useful to them?

Fuck arbitration, of course, I'm just not expecting this to really mean anything.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 34 points 9 months ago

Big win for consumers, at least in the US. People tend to do better in courts here than they do in arbitration (where one side pays the judge(arbitrator)).

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 27 points 9 months ago

"Specifically, the named Plaintiffs won binding decisions from arbitrators rendering Valve's arbitration provision unenforceable for both lack of notice and because it impermissibly seeks to bar public injunctive relief."

So none of these stupid clauses are valid? FOO FYEAH!

[–] away2thestars@programming.dev 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Anyone can ELI5 this thing? I'm pretty lost

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Twofold: One, they lost a case in arbitration that basically said arbitration isn't usable.

Two: Lot of companies do arbitration to avoid court, which works fine and is cheaper if you're not getting taken to court much. If 75,000 people that could do a class action suit all go to arbitration though, the benefit is lost. Lawyers threatened that. 3 grand a arbitration case x 75,000 people == 225 million dollars on fees alone.

[–] away2thestars@programming.dev 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Thank you, when does steam need to do arbitration?

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Previously, any time they'd normally go to court, which was fairly rare, per the article.