Noticed this update got pushed just now.

Edit: Seems they’re doing this to prevent costs from arbitration. Read comment below.

  • bassomitron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    172
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    They’re only doing this because of the class action being brought against them. It’s cheaper to let this go to court than to try and settle tens of thousands of individual arbitrations. In fact, there are plenty of companies now reversing course and realizing how badly forcing arbitration can backfire.

    Edit: For those unaware: https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/video-game-giant-valve-hit-with-consumer-class-action-over-pricing-2024-08-12/

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      72
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s a little hard to square “steam is over charging for games” with “look at all these games I bought for 80% off ($5) off”, but I guess there’s more to it.

      • Hugucinogens@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        After a short read, the case is specifically “Steam is prohibiting developers from selling their games to other platforms, at a price lower than that of steam, and then pockets the 30% platform cost, due to effective monopoly power”.

        Which, if true, is super bullshit.

        • Orygin@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          63
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s false if I remember correctly. Steam prohibits you from selling steam keys outside the store for less than the price on steam. They don’t forbid you from selling cheaper elsewhere

            • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              20
              ·
              2 months ago

              Why is that reasonable? Storefronts don’t get free keys from Steam, they have to buy them. After they pay Steam, they should be allowed to sell them at any price they want.

              Imagine if Ford said you couldn’t sell your car for less than what Ford dealers charge for used cars.

              • zod000
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                40
                ·
                2 months ago

                I am almost certain that steam keys are actually free to developers, which is the whole reason for the policy.

                • Grenfur@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Exactly! Pirate Software talked about this a while back. Steam doesn’t want you cutting them out, and then them still being responsible for the bandwidth to download and host your game.

                • woelkchen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  I am almost certain that steam keys are actually free to developers, which is the whole reason for the policy.

                  Yes, they are. That’s what many of the Kinguin etc. keys are. People/bots pretend to be game reviewers/streamers and ask for free keys. I have a “Game Press” license for a game because back then I didn’t know of that method. I was under the impression those were keys sold by the developer in foreign markets for adjusted prices. Now I know better.

          • Grenfur@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            2 months ago

            Its this one. And the reason is that if steam sells a game at $10 and humble sells you a steam key at $5, steam gets no profit and is 100% responsible for the bandwidth when you donlload it, for hosting the page, for the market, etc etc. Basically steam doesn’t want to assume all the work with none of the reward. Which I don’t really see an iissue with.

    • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ah that makes sense, it’s oddly suspicious they’d do this out of the blue. Though I am curious at the arbitration. Can they not include a clause that just says that the forced arbitration can be waived by them when they so choose? I feel like they would make carve outs for these big cases if they could to where they can still arbitrate on smaller cases which costs them less.

      (Also updating my post text, thanks!)

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    2 months ago

    Seems like a good thing?

    I was wondering if it was related to anything passed recently, because another service had to change privacy rules to opt in over a rule change in Cali. I just assume if it sounds like a good thing for consumers, it probably wasn’t their choice, lol, but I guess in this case it’s just a cost cutting measure.

    I at least appreciate them being pretty clear about what’s different now.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I think there’s a bit of a sea change in business generally where arbitration ended up being worse for corporations if too many customers/employees used that option because it meant paying a bunch of money for each case instead of dealing with one class action suit.

      While the arbitration courts themselves are generally biased to corporate interests, it’s not enough of a thumb on the scale to make up for the huge downside.

      • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ve seen some arbitration agreements stating that you can’t collaborate with other customers who are affected by the same issue, requiring each customer to have a different attorney.

        Some companies really want to make it impossible for you to win any significant damages against them.

        At that point, they are just telling on themselves.

        • ggppjj@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’ve seen some arbitration agreements stating that you can’t collaborate with other customers who are affected by the same issue, requiring each customer to have a different attorney.

          Oh no, I did it anyways and collaborated with other customers online. Oh well guess we gotta arbitrate that now.

    • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyzM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      From what I’ve read, it can go either way (note: not a lawyer).

      Arbitration is easier for people to seek compensation, but it usually prevents any significant damages and doesn’t set a legal precedent that others can use to easily get compensation.

      Court cases are harder to start and generally require a lawyer, but if you win you can get significant damages and it can set a legal precedent.

      So it’s usually best for the consumer to have a choice on how to pursue issues. I have seen a lot of companies lately update their terms for arbitration only though, so this is at contrast with how most companies I’ve seen are handling things.

      • taiyang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Having been sued by copyright vultures, I definitely get the difficulty with court. The minimum just to have a lawyer retainer was 2500. The vultures told us to essentially give them 2400 and the problem would go away (a strongly worded email managed to get them off my back, but mostly because they clearly used bots).

        I can see it weed out small cases less than that. I guess it’d help if I knew what people were sueing over.

        • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          Should’ve gone with a much lower number. The difference of 100 dollars means nothing to my burning spite.

          • taiyang@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            That was technically my thinking too, haha. If you’re ever targeted by this (and it can be as simple as having a Google image placeholder in an unindexed page) you just need to be stubborn and spiteful. It’s not worth their time with so many other patsies, haha.

  • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    So you realise that when a lawsuit has a larger corporate backing, they get to bribe the arbitrator more than you and now you back off from arbitration.

    Sad that this cannot be done to companies that already agree with others.