481
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world to c/steamdeck@sopuli.xyz

Noticed this update got pushed just now.

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

all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] bassomitron@lemmy.world 180 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 72 points 2 weeks 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.

[-] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 2 weeks 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 67 points 2 weeks 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

[-] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 38 points 2 weeks ago

And that seems entirely reasonable to me. Unless I am missing something

[-] Grenfur@lemmy.one 16 points 2 weeks 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.world 27 points 2 weeks 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 67 points 2 weeks 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 33 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 16 points 2 weeks 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 9 points 2 weeks 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.xyz 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 5 points 2 weeks 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 4 points 2 weeks ago

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

[-] taiyang@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks 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.

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 32 points 2 weeks ago

Honestly really pisses me off how often I see people try to normalize forced arbitration clauses.

It isn't normal, and should never become normal, and in many cases should be outlawed.

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 27 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)
[-] ulterno@lemmy.kde.social 4 points 2 weeks 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.

this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
481 points (99.6% liked)

Steam Deck

14651 readers
123 users here now

A place to discuss and support all things Steam Deck.

Replacement for r/steamdeck_linux.

As Lemmy doesn't have flairs yet, you can use these prefixes to indicate what type of post you have made, eg:
[Flair] My post title

The following is a list of suggested flairs:
[Discussion] - General discussion.
[Help] - A request for help or support.
[News] - News about the deck.
[PSA] - Sharing important information.
[Game] - News / info about a game on the deck.
[Update] - An update to a previous post.
[Meta] - Discussion about this community.

Some more Steam Deck specific flairs:
[Boot Screen] - Custom boot screens/videos.
[Selling] - If you are selling your deck.

These are not enforced, but they are encouraged.

Rules:

Link to our Matrix Space

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS