Valve bans developer for suing people that didn't like their shit game

>nonn approved assets
what's a non approved asset

Too bad the guy is a literal autist.
He could make so much money with all this exposure if he just made one good game.

he use a random blood splatter picture from google images and all the autists are flipping out over it

>what's a non approved asset
In the modern world anything you don't have a license for (either direct or an applicable Creative Commons type thing) and isn't explicitly Public Domain. Under the Berne Convention (which is in force nearly everywhere, and everywhere in the first world) everything is automatically copyrighted by the author, registering is just for extra damages and certain bonus legal stuff. So if you don't get permission, and you use it in a project, that's copyright infringement. Not that anyone is likely to care for some random open source project or school display or some shit, but if a commercial operation is doing it (particularly if they're litigious dicks) then it can become an issue.

The word we use in English is "stolen"

where is Jim Sterlings video review of this game? I cannot find it.

Is he cucked and removed it?

Not everyone spends 24/7 on Cred Forums user. If it's current vidya news and there aren't already threads up (and I did actually check for digital homicide in the catalog) get used to it popping up over the course of a day. How new are you?

>getting offended in the game industry
2006 went everything to shit. casuals was a mistake!

No it's not.

delet this or I'll sue you, Anonymous

>doesn't browse Cred Forums 24/7
>how new are you

You're a dumbass.

You can't prove it was me. There are over ten people on Cred Forums it could have been any of us and you can't sue us all!

>That paragraph in the suit about how if they couldn't pay damages they would have to delete their account
>An actual "delet this" in legal terms now exists
>Not as a joke

It's too beautiful to be true.
But it is.

>$475/$75000
And people paying 1$ and making paypal do payback ends up charging the PB 20$

>now take your e-drama back to l.eddit
You had a legitimate point until you typed that user.

I wonder who is behind this analogy

The sterling case got upped to 15M, bruh.

>where is Jim Sterlings video review of this game? I cannot find it.
youtube.com/results?search_query=jim sterling digital homicide

only literal retards would care about some random picture

Only literal retards would care if people sad bad things about your game on the internet.

So they are in good company at least.

he said "fat" though so it actually doesn't seem like a bad analogy. shitty devs are desperate for the valve D but like to pretend they have self respect, pride, and that anyone else would give them the time of day. result is impotent bitching on the internet while irl valve tells those sluts their holes are not for talking with.

>1 year ago
>Not even a review
>not even about the latest game in question
its fucking nothing

I have your nickname, Anonymous, I am contacting moot right now, to give me your real name you better delet or your gonna get it. The days of you and John Doe bullying innocent devs end here.

Digital Homicide are shitheads and it couldn't happen to more deserving people, but at the same time, if people needed to be reminded of why Valve is having developers/publishers by he balls, being both the Gamestop and Wallmart of the digital space, well here it is.

And it's not a good thing in the long run.

>only literal retards would care about some random picture
Or lawyers on behalf of whomever got infringed upon who sense a chance for money and/or revenge. If it was my blood splatter sure I'd go for it, why not? Guy is a retarded dick and from what we can see he does have some financial assets like vehicles and homes, maybe some money in an account. No one would care if he wasn't trying to sue everyone on zero legal grounds but he is, and fact is he violated a lot that has *statutory* damages and made an open-shut case. Show you made the thing, ask him to show he has a license. He doesn't. He did it willfully in a for-profit product. Boom, bankruptcy.

As for the rest of us it's hardly new that people would be amused/irritated by a litigious jackass who turns out to play fast and loose with the law themselves.

Okay. Why should I care that Valve is actually helping out the consume and fucking over a terrible Developer? This is nothing new. Go see the original developer of Paranautical Activity sending Gabe Newell a death threat over Twitter and getting his game pulled from Steam until a new Developer bought the rights to it.

They removed games Themselves because They won't stand cyberbullying (that is illegal may I ask) of steam users. They're talking to Gabe right now who is begging me bring them back.

how much damages is having a PROBLEMATIC forum worth though?? could this be the end of Cred Forums!?!??! someone needs to murder digital suicide with a wooly gromet before its too late!!!

This is what happens when the only game you had as a kid was Action 52

>Digital Homicide are shitheads and it couldn't happen to more deserving people, but at the same time, if people needed to be reminded of why Valve is having developers/publishers by he balls, being both the Gamestop and Wallmart of the digital space, well here it is.
I don't agree. Like an early user said it applies most to shitty devs, emphasis on SHITTY. Well known ones have plenty of brand power on their own and can either bypass Steam if they have to or negotiate hard, and there are other digital stores out there. The barrier to entry actually isn't that high, and Valve doesn't own much of the content on Steam, if Valve truly went off the reservation enough to get a bunch of major devs truly mad they'd have a lot of power. They could for example go with some other service and then do a "If you got it on Steam before you get it here for free plus these DLC bonuses" type offer for example. EA is shit and Origin is shit yet they've still made it go along just on their own catalog. GOG or some of the others (or even a new one entirely) are always possibilities. And then of course there is the entire console market where Valve's weak attempt to disrupt it failed miserably.

So yeah, Valve is powerful, but their power is heavily based on maintaining decent good will amongst their userbase and being at least somewhat justified when they come down on a dev. It's better for Valve (and their profits) not to be too involved and be generally seen as a benevolent dictator. This ain't no telephone monopoly.

>And it's not a good thing in the long run.
Slippery slope seems a fallacy here due to above sorry user.

I've spoken to my lawyer and you and Cred Forums will have to pay 7mil. Each. If you're lucky, kid

Imagine being the one who had to look over this.

>Origin is shit
From what I've been seeing, they're trying to improve it, they're doing a terrible job, but they're doing it.
Plants Vs. Zombies Garden Warfare 2 is unironically the best game on Origin.

>POO FLUNG DOO

wat? is that the name of the ape? idgi

You know, there had to be dozens of other profiles they could have taken pictures of.

But some guy in some law office came across this and knew he could become the legend to make use of the words "Sebastian Von Fappy Wank" in the court of law.

>it is ok when valve does it!

Who are the assholes that gave him $475
We should sue them for being dumb

Shane it look lawsuits for Valve to remove this meritless garbage from their platform

Valve actually broke a contract by doing this you realize.
If I were valve, I would've done the same thing too, but still, just letting you all know.

As opposed to them removing anything they dislike?
Glad you aren't in charge of what can and can't be on Steam.

Not a slippery slope argument here. It's more if they have that power, they will use it. And sooner or later people won't like it, because the interests of the company and its various customers don't always intersect.

>if Valve truly went off the reservation enough to get a bunch of major devs truly mad they'd have a lot of power.

*Major* being the central word - and even then I'd think *publisher* more than developer (the difference is growing thin, but it still matters methinks). If you're not a major player in that game, you have no significant recourse.

family and friends
or just himself

Right, but my point is that it hasn't collapsed even though its very name fills me with rage, even with its flaws, and even being mostly just EA, because Valve is not omnipotent here. And more industry-wide effort could do better. And Valve is making lots of money as-is, and actually getting heavy handed itself costs money. Lots of human moderates is pricey, dealing with lawyer shit is very pricey, etc. They have no incentive to rock the boat except when it gets egregious enough that the boat is already rocking badly. Booting out a possibly criminal universally hated shit dev who files baseless lawsuits against Valve's customers is not the start of a slippery slope.

>Valve broke a contract
The contract was broken when the developer in question began harassing their customers with frivolous lawsuits that would have 0 merit in court. If it was a legitimately serious issue such as someone intentionally DDOsing an online game's servers and then getting sued by the developer/Publisher and Valve dumped them, it'd be wrong. But lawsuits based on potential lost sales is not permissible in court and is simply a little man trying to express what little power he thinks he has needlessly.

There is nothing wrong with decent quality control. Steam is the worst of all worlds, not an open market with transparent approval like phones but having zero quality or support. It's a fucking shitshow.

Yes, they used to be a bit too strict in disapproving Handball and Truck Sins but it's really hard to argue its current state is anything short of embarrassing.

>Right, but my point is that it hasn't collapsed even though its very name fills me with rage, even with its flaws, and even being mostly just EA, because Valve is not omnipotent here.

It still exists BECAUSE Valve is so powerful. Big publishers need that exit gate to exist to maintain a leeway of negotiating power. Those clients are to Steam what SteamOS is to Windows, something the creator would rather not have to go full length in support (and you can see that in complete absence of courting third party developers to move to the platforms), but still need to exist in case things go wrong.

As someone who's made an effort to explore the depths of the garbage on steam, it actually does a fairly decent job of making sure the literal garbage stays burried, deep.

What the other guy said. Have you ever gone diving before? You have to actually dig to find something truly terrible without putting an exact name in the search bar.

>Oh look, more gypsy-tier garbage about vidyas

>store.steampowered is full of crap abloobloo

Feel free to shop at other fine establishments such as bundlestars, indiegala and humble

>Valve actually broke a contract by doing this you realize.
lol. You have a copy of the steam dev contract user? You think it doesn't have a standard "this is our sandbox" clause boiling down to "we can boot anyone we like any time we like for any reason" that every single other digital store ever has? Please.

I've seen plenty of popular indie devs make tons of money on their own sites and other places like GOG, Humble Bundle, etc. It takes more work but it's doable. For single player games it's just not an issue. You are definitely making a slippery slope argument.
>It's more if they have that power, they will use it
There is no sign of Valve or other for-profit businesses in generally doing things "just because", they're after money. If anything a more valid and common complaint about Valve is that they use their power to do too LITTLE, that they will permit basically any shit whatsoever on Steam at this point, that devs flagrantly manipulate reviews with little response, that the forums are generally a shithole, etc.

Seriously, Valve is not Nintendo or Sony or MS or Apple. They don't have that kind of lock-in at all. They have power but they have direct financial incentive to be judicious in using it. You need to argue how them going full crazy would actually make them more money vs their current practices that got them this far if you want to not be slippery slope.

...

>I've seen plenty of popular indie devs make tons of money on their own sites and other places like GOG, Humble Bundle, etc.
like...?

Not him.
>The Room games
>Windosill is a top notch example
>>>>MINECRAFT

>Pouch2pouch
Why do i feel like this is similar to the ass to ass scene from requiem for a dream.

This is what it looks/plays like, by the way:

youtube.com/watch?v=ySo8BNjn654

...

How come no one ever points out the fact that this is Valve's fault to begin with? Steam is flooded with so much shit nowadays it's like the fucking Android marketplace. How come people don't parade for Valve to add some fucking quality control?

Yes, I own 1800+ titles on Steam, I fucking know how Steam works. Trying to hide trash from my library is an ongoing problem. Trying to figure out what classic titles actually work is too.

The problem is that places like Amazon/Steam/eBay have never managed to figure out how to create and filter the absolute dogshit. This wasn't much of a problem before Steam added shit to the store and tried to use its awful kid-centric user base as a filtration mechanism.

I seriously miss the era when everything on Steam was decent and actually fucking worked.

>I've seen plenty of popular indie devs make tons of money on their own sites and other places like GOG, Humble Bundle

I've seen *some* too. They're still majorly an exception. I could as well accuse you of anecdotal fallacy, if we have to play that game.

>There is no sign of Valve or other for-profit businesses in generally doing things "just because"

Which isn't what I said. I didn't imply they would do without proper reason. I just stated they would do. And they will.

*curate

>I own 1800+ titles on Steam
And how many of those did you actually go through the Steam Store and find and not just nab them off Humble Bundle, Indie Gala, Bundle Stars, or wherever else?

Looks good. How's the story?

Why would you oppose a free market? Consumers can decide a game's quality and whether it will be a success or not, so what if Steam is 90% shovelware, somewhere in that mess is a hidden gem like Bad Rats.

A major problem is that Valve is too busy with the store and junk nobody uses (VR, Steam controller, Streaming, Big Box) that they have neglected to core functionality. They still don't have fucking boxart or even a gallery mode that works properly.

Fuck, I'd kill for them to being back the "see in store" button

A philosophical tour de force revolving around one of mankind's most fundamental of questions: Should I shit or piss on the corpse?

>he claims he "received a pile of feces in the mail" and that he had had messages saying things like "Your wife is a whore," and "I hope you die in a fiery car crash."
kek

>Steam controller

Remember when this was going to kill off regular controllers and joysticks?

>consumers can decide a games quality
Now if you're gonna tell me that 80% percent of people aren't functional idiots I'll commend you on the bants

because some people will actually buy shitty flash games for 20$ (now on sale) and valve make money on that.
This particular developer has made the mistake of suing their costumer and obviously valve doesn't like that.

>Which isn't what I said. I didn't imply they would do without proper reason. I just stated they would do. And they will.
You compared Valve to Walmart and said that it was "not a good thing in the long run". That absolutely seems to imply to me that you're arguing they'll start abusing their power, ie., doing things *without a proper reason*. If they've always got a proper reason, then explain why it would be a bad thing? Most of us aren't dank anarchists, we don't want major powers abusing us but we don't want little bullying dicks able to freely abuse us either, and major powers can be on our side too if the incentives are right.

Valve stomping on devs like this is something we WANT them to be doing, and that requires them having the power to do it. Them going out of control would be a concern if they had some fundamental lock-in, but they don't seem to, so there isn't any reason to expect they won't continue to be mostly hands off semi-dicks at worst rather then constantly going in without lube.

Wal-Mart deciding not to sell broken products is not "the free market" apparently.

The idea that companies shouldn't sell broken or zero-effort low-quslity shit should not be controversial.

Because the market isn't free, Valve controls it. If you have to be put under the control of a company, might as well have the benefits that come with it - a curated market being one.

Not saying I agree with that, but the point makes sense.

Not quite.
You cant stal an internet image, it would be the sasme as taking a photo of someone and then saying you stole their face.

You cant steal on the internet((outside of money), you copy and use it inlawfully.

Except there's next to no broken games on Steam. The zero-effort low-quality one is subjective.
Really, the only actually broken games I can think of on Steam at the moment is Bulletstorm.

If Wal-Mart sells you a broken product you're free to return it for a refund, same as you can do with a Steam game.

For a controlled market, it is the most free one out there for games. Games like Hatred or porn games would not be sold on most game stores, but Valve gives it's customers the freedom to choose games that others would say are too "controversial".

Really though, if you dislike how Valve does business, why not just go somewhere else? Origin or GoG are perfectly viable alternatives if you want something with more corporate control.

>Except there's next to no broken games on Steam.
no mans sky

>arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/09/valve-bans-developer-steam-lawsuit-customers-bad-reviews/
Where's the pastebin/archive link?

>Really though, if you dislike how Valve does business, why not just go somewhere else? Origin or GoG are perfectly viable alternatives if you want something with more corporate control.
Because people hate having to change something rather than having someone else hsnd it to them on a silver platter.

I like the idea of that Sterling loser getting sued but fuck everything else

fuck the dev
fuck me I lost interest in this after 2 seconds

>You compared Valve to Walmart and said that it was "not a good thing in the long run".
>That absolutely seems to imply to me that you're arguing they'll start abusing their power, ie., doing things *without a proper reason*.

So, by your own account, companies *do* act without proper reason, is that what I have to understand here?

Seriously though, I compared Valve to Wallmart because there are similarities in the positions they occupy in their respective markets. You're reading things that aren't there.

>If they've always got a proper reason, then explain why it would be a bad thing?

As I already stated:
>because the interests of the company and its various customers don't always intersect.

Just because there is a proper understandable reason to their action doesn't mean customers will be ok with it.

There is a perfectly understandable reason why Valve isn't putting more money and man power unto customer support. Customers don't care and don't agree with it. And overall suffer for it.

>Except there's next to no broken games on Steam.
Lol, not true, lots of old-ish games outright do not work out of the box. Descent Freespace or Crysis, for example.
>The zero-effort low-quality one is subjective
So? We accept a level of "subjectivity" from almost everyone else - what your local shops sell, what movie theatres show, what news newspapers report. Amazon and Google providing any old shit and that being acceptable is a new.phenomenon

Because:

a) all your bought games are still tied to the platform, you're not "free" to leave.

b) For a vast array of products, you have no choice, they're not being sold anywhere else, or even if they are, you're still being forced in using the platform.

That's unity.

>"owning" steam games

and this is also unity
youtube.com/watch?v=gUI-eXtzN10

I love it when Cred Forums idiots try to sound smart in an argument

I think all their games are Unity, even the 2D ones.

Did I hurt your feelings user?

>For a controlled market, it is the most free one out there for games

Apart from the ones we have that do not enforce any client interaction, game authentication and account tying you mean?

>Amazon and Google providing any old shit and that being acceptable is a new.phenomenon
It's also an improvement.

>posting Cred Forums memes on other boards

You guys really are worse than mlp.

...

>See this thread
>Google Digital Homicide
>Go to their website
Holy shit is this company ran by retards or 13 year olds?

All signs point to the former.

You have to go back.

>studios

This had better be b8. Either that or I'm getting old and getting frustrated by the kids

How autistic do you need to be to make this image.

About as much as a traditional /v poster?

>googled hq locations
>was ready to shit on slavs for spewing garbage on the market
>Yuma, Arizona
What are these, rednecks? Way to go murica!

>All signs point to both

ftfy

I suppose, given that it's a US-based lawsuit, that it's unlikely that this idiot will be forced to fork over youtube/Sterling/whoever else's legal fees when they get laughed out of court.

The main dev is in his 30s. I don't know about his brother, though.

>only literal retards would care about some random picture

Slippery slope. Let one slide, it will never stop. Which is why most companies like Sony or Nintendo often issue takedowns for unlicensed copyright use; even if it seems harmless, letting even a single one by sets legal precedent for others with perhaps more damaging intentions to follow.

Even for a fucking blood splatter gif.

>You have to go back.

Containment boards exist for a reason, stick to your own.

>This had better be b8.

Not in the slightest; /mlp/ knows no one wants to see their shit on other boards. Cred Forumsacks are the only ones constantly leaving their containment board to shit up other boards with their stupid conspiracy theories and jew memes.

Yeah but they were shitting out these turds and people were buying 'em.

>Seriously though, I compared Valve to Wallmart because there are similarities in the positions they occupy in their respective markets.
But you're wrong, they aren't in similar positions. You have a typical incredibly shallow understanding here and have failed to actually think much about it either. A physical store and distribution like Walmart has represents an IMMENSE amount of capital, hundreds of billions of dollars. Valve is worth a few billion and as of a couple yeras ago (last I could find records for) had around 330 employees.

Walmart employs 2.3 million people, has ~11,500 physical locations, and REVENUE (not worth) of nearly $500 billion. Billion. Per year. Their yearly profits are multiple times the entire value of Valve. And Walmart actually HAS for real used their power in flat out open censorious ways, because they have the power to and because their biggest most dedicated customer base appreciates "family friendly" branding. So to say there are "similarities" between Walmart and Valve is so fucking ludicrous it borders on parody if it wasn't clear you were being entirely serious. Stop that shit user.

>Just because there is a proper understandable reason to their action doesn't mean customers will be ok with it.
This seems like goal post shifting or autism. "Proper reason" here was clearly being used to mean "things customers would approve of." Stop being such a fag.

>letting even a single one by sets legal precedent for others with perhaps more damaging intentions to follow.

No it doesn't.You're mistaking Copyright and Trademark, and even then, it's pretty hard to lose a trademark for becoming generic.

This is the definition of biting the hand that feeds you. You can piss on Valve from a safe distance when you're a big boy with popular franchises, but when you're completely dependent on the mercy of Valve and the Steam community, you don't pull dumb shit like this.

Slavs usually make good games, not this trash m8

>Digital Homicide
>decide to visit site
Amazing.

You haven't seen the shit I've seen then

Slavs have never made a good game

awesome.

>I suppose, given that it's a US-based lawsuit, that it's unlikely that this idiot will be forced to fork over youtube/Sterling/whoever else's legal fees when they get laughed out of court.
It's not about being US-based it's about the state law right now. See
>anti-slapp.org/your-states-free-speech-protection/
and check your state. Unfortunately Arizona doesn't have a very good one.

I know
>serious business
>Cred Forums
is the general rule but seriously, for any fellow 'murkans reading this, if you get the chance write your reps and tell them you support federal Anti-SLAPP legislation. This is a long running fight, this
>anti-slapp.org/recent/american-bar-association-supports-federal-anti-slapp-legislation/
is from 2012, but it's important and should be bipartisan. Won't happen during an election year obviously but it's got decent momentum otherwise and reps do in fact pay attention to the very, VERY rare people who actually bother to write them (that's how SOPA got knocked down). If you see it come up again next year it'd be worth a few minutes of your time.

>m-muh safe space
fucking retards

YOU never made a good game

Their games really are terrible though, someone gifted me one as a joke and it was horrendous.

the difference is that i'm not a game dev and have no future plans to ever be one.

My sides are in orbit

The mastermind behind Digital Homicide told in a interview for Jim Sterling that he's 35.

>I'm somewhat relieved that I'm hearing the voice of an adult man. I was not expecting to hear the voice of an adult. Makes me feel a little bit better about things.
>I have three kids and I'm 35. I'm definitely an adult.
>Oh, dear.

>But you're wrong, they aren't in similar positions

You mean they aren't the one over-inflated major player each for their respective markets?
Certainly the scales are different, but last I checked Valve was what, more than 70% of the digital game market?

>"Proper reason" here was clearly being used to mean "things customers would approve of." Stop being such a fag.

You're reaching the purely tautological there. "Proper reasons" are "things customers would approve of", they will approve of them because they are "proper reasons". Had I used proper reason with such a definition, it would have made no sense in context (and I'm the one that introduced "proper reason" in that conversation).

itch.io/s/4819/super-mega-bundle

holy sheet this is gold

You don't own console games either, you own the license to the copy of the game. This can be revoked at any time. Since all consoles have a account system now and people have been banned for names such as Jihad, you're in a worse position than PCfriends.

delete this

>You don't own console games either

In the sense in which you're using "own" not even the publisher/developer owns the game.

What you own is your physical *copy* of the game, to do with what see fit under legal circumstances. And contrary to the digital platforms, the conditions of that ownership cannot be modified post-sale (well, less ad less so with consoles slowly turning into sub-par PCs, but, still)

Sorry user, I don't think you're a shitposter, you seem to be a lot more serious about discussion then most of Cred Forums usually is. But if you genuinely don't even understand basic concepts like the role of barriers to entry in monopoly power discussions or how to properly define a "market" then I don't think we're going to be very productive here and I don't really want to put in any more time. Particularly since I dislike Steam for unrelated reasons and so I definitely don't want to carry the torch here too much, if you want to go elsewhere I certainly support that. I just have zero concerns about them on the grounds you raised and don't think they will ever turn the way you suggest due to fundamental differences in relative market power, customer base, profit incentive, asset ownership and capex/ops requirements.

Holy, fuck. All these titles.

>Merle Wizard Extrodinaire
>Extrodinaire

WELL YOU HAVENT MADE A GOOD GAME TOO

HOW DARE YOU INFRINGE HIS COPYRIGHT ON HIS TOPPEST LEGAL WORKINGS!?

well we can make a good game together then, user :3

Cred Forums is literally the new furry. They think they're offending us by saying "nigger" or edgy racist comments when we don't give a shit.

Just like no one cares that furries masturbate to bara fox and dog characters, it's just annoying how obnoxious they are about it.

I love how they try to maintain the anonymity of the dev in the title just to avoid getting sued too

Digital Homicide is the cancer of my library

Nah, I'd rather you go make me a sandwich and I sit here and keep shitposting

>itch.io/s/4819/super-mega-bundle

youtube.com/watch?v=r4vT-9umA7w

Cred Forums is literally the new reddit

>Just like no one cares that furries masturbate to bara fox and dog characters, it's just annoying how obnoxious they are about it.
Well, part of the reason they were/are fun targets is how high a percentage of them are really thin skinned and will react in hilarious ways if you mock their stupid/crazy shit and point out how dumb some of it is.

Which I guess is actually just like Cred Forums too. I'm not sure where I was going with this now.

>don't think they will ever turn the way you suggest

That's where I think the crux of the misunderstanding is, I'm not suggesting they'll "turn" into anything.

They *are* a company. They have power to act on their market. There will be a time (there *is* right now - just look at the review changes) when use of said power will be misaligned with customer interests.

That's not a bold claim.

Now you seem to think that if the clash between Valve and developers interests reaches a certain point they could chose another platform. Which is always possible, but only will have any real pull if they're big enough or numerous enough in the move - and I would say both are needed really to see a real change happen, which is why I'm not seeing it unless extraordinary circumstances.

>plot twist
>Cred Forums has been reddit ALL ALONG

>We recently received a pile of feces in the mail and someone contacted the Jehovah's Witnesses website to have them pay us a visit. This is funny to some of these individuals involved.
Funny to those of us NOT involved too!

>The result of his videos and articles is the direction of traffic to the content shown in those videos store pages where havoc and destruction ensues. Within a matter of hours hundreds of posts of negativity can be seen annihilating the marketability of the game leaving the developer who may have spent months and years on that particular game with an eviscerated husk. We barely survived initial onslaughts of these attacks and were just about to break through to success when the false statements obliterated us.
LIKE A DIGITAL VIETNAM AMIRITE

t. Furry.

We fought a long war against then, and it's still not over. While the furfags still draw breath, there can be no peace.

I don't understand, does this guy really don't understand his games are shit?

I see it as the duck dynasty of vidiyas

>There will be a time (there *is* right now - just look at the review changes)
I don't think review changes are misaligned with customer interests and neither do a seeming large number of other customers, though indie devs seem to hate it. I also never suggested Valve would be perfect, all big companies are sometimes dicks. But sometimes they're also dicks ON YOUR SIDE, which matters because the world is full of dicks who aren't on your side. What matters is if they establish a pattern or culture of anti-customer behavior, and that in turn involves both who runs the company, its culture, and its fundamental incentives and what forms its base of power.

You directly argued that this was an example of Valve's power and that in the long run it would be a bad thing. I think you're wrong, and I didn't even touch upon any culture/leadership stuff (I know not the heart of Gabe nor do I expect him to be around forever), but just based on fundamentals. What you made IS a bold claim if you meant it specifically, or else so general universalist as to be utterly meaningless. "Nobody is perfect!" is true but also eye-roll-inducingly stupid to bring into a conversation, complete "no shit sherlock" territory. It's not a contribution it's noise.

The whole point about markets is that there is nothing INHERENTLY wrong with a company like Valve gaining power due to, fundamentally, just doing a decent job. Customers mostly like them ok and find their downsides tolerable. The value equation is net positive. Devs mostly find them alright to deal with. They fuck up sometimes and develop slowly, but that's life and not an issue by itself. To be "bad in the long run" Valve would have to start really abusing that and be able to get away with it, and there is no sign that they could. They lack any of the normal hard locks that bring concern in a classic dangerous monopoly. And them fighting abusive devs DEFINITELY doesn't raise any flags whatsoever.

Hard to say. He sounds crazy and he's acting crazy, so he may genuinely be crazy and lives in some bubble world. Or else this is all coldly calculated, but I doubt it, he's just a fruitcake. He really thinks no one is allowed to be mean.

Would you Cred Forumsirgins quit trying to sound smart? You both don't know what you're talking about so spare us the shitposting

simply ebin

moar liek digitul suicide
amirite?

>I don't think review changes are misaligned with customer interests

Sorry, my bad there, I meant developers.

>Customers mostly like them ok and find their downsides tolerable.

Unless we don't, and then we have no proper recourse (piracy I guess).

>And them fighting abusive devs DEFINITELY doesn't raise any flags whatsoever.

Their doing it no, the way and circumstances under which they're doing it? Good reminder to small developers that they have them by the balls, I'd say. My original point.

>What you own is your physical *copy* of the game
No, you own the physical medium on which there is a copy of a game to which you also posess a license to use, which can legally be revoked for any an all reasons.
>And contrary to the digital platforms, the conditions of that ownership cannot be modified post-sale
Indeed, you will always own this 20 cent plastic and metal foil disk.

>VR, Steam controller, Streaming, Big Box

waaah I dont use it so its trash

wanted to start a new thread, but you faggots probably seen this already :

>But in many cases, the abuse is clear and obvious, such as duplicated and/or generated reviews in large batches, or reviews from accounts linked to the developer. In those cases, we've now taken action by banning the false reviews and will be ending business relationships with developers that continue violating our rules.

taken from their new review policy update shit

kek

>Unless we don't, and then we have no proper recourse (piracy I guess).
What's "proper recourse" in your mind user? There are refunds if something doesn't work. If it does work but you decided you didn't like Valve for some political stance or whatever, you can make future purchases elsewhere. You can keep playing your stuff without ever giving them another cent. Devs are free to go to (or start) competing services, and they can allow those competing services to do free imports/crossgrades of their titles on Steam (as GOG offers for what they can). I don't see what more you can expect from any private market anywhere. And yeah, there is piracy in the background.

>Their doing it no, the way and circumstances under which they're doing it?
Yeah, that raises no flags either. In fact quite the opposite, it makes them look very good. They took a very minimal, conservative stance, they just booted them they didn't sue them or anything (in sharp contrast to the dev in question). And they only did it in response to flagrant violation of the rules and abuse of their customers, not even due to the games being awful and possibly copyright infringing. That is not the approach of some out-of-control power mad actor.

>Good reminder to small developers that they have them by the balls, I'd say.
You'd say wrong. If you want to use Valve's private store (or any private store) you need to actually play by the rules you agree to or you'll be asked to leave? Yeah what a fucking shocker, I'm sure devs totally needed a "reminder" there. "Have by the balls" though would normally be considered shit like exclusivity agreements, not "don't engage in baseless legal dickery." And your "original point" was that this was "bad in the long run."

>just look at the review changes
Is this a meme? Those changes were good.

Unless you were an irrelevant indie dev with sub-10 reviews

I don't agree with digital homicide, they deserve everything that is happening to them
However, a better example of steam being shit is when they removed paranautical activity because steam fucked up and the Dev sperged out and said he would kill gabe, he was just Pissed off and he got fucked for it.

I know some people who would sue for that

>pissing in someones living room
>not expecting to get thrown out
overreacting to a fuckup doesn't excuse that much

wu's time has got to be nummbered right

I wouldn't want to work with people who throw childish tantrums either.

few shitheads don't matter, indies are the last resort for anything surprisingly fun.

still waiting for dat pathologic hd

Yeah like user above me said I dunno man. Steam is not the government and business-to-business commercial relationships are not the same thing as random user/pseudo-user fags shittalking on some forum or imageboard. I'm not sure it's that egregious to expect your business partners/contractors/whatever to not sperg out on you if they want to keep doing business with you.

Like, if some customer did that and Valve took all their already purchased games away? Yeah that would be really bad. Or if a dev reasonably complained or merely took an issue public and Valve went apeshit themselves? Also very bad. But merely holding devs to a slightly higher standard of "no death threats, insane hyperbole or whatever towards Valve or its people in your communications regarding us" doesn't seem like a huge ask to me. Valve is a high impact distribution service, but they aren't enough of a powerful platform to seem like being worthy of concern there.

That's a lot of good press for Valve. It's weird how the developer is acting like a cartoon villain, too.

>It's weird how the developer is acting like a cartoon villain, too.
It's happened plenty of times in the past with nutso individual devs, it just rarely gets to a high enough level to make much press. Sometimes it does though, people still remember DEREK SMART DEREK SMART DEREK SMART.

"dev"

Maybe they heard that there is no such thing as bad publicity and took it to heart. Indies especially are delusional as fuck, even when they aren't intentionally baiting for retweets.

True. I'm mostly thinking about people who make a living out of being publicly stupid and/or curiosities, especially in television. Why not in video games, too? Even more so since Valve needs some good press.

Ok so, I just barely became educated on what this entire event is about.

as to me basic understanding, they've basically buying items from a bunch of piecemeal sources then smushing them together like Ms. Lovett's Meat Pies, and trying to sell them at a profit.

No effort given toward art cohesion, story/plot or anything.

They're literally making "Games" worse then the shit you would find on 2004/8(?) era children's education sites.

Jim Sterling put their asses on blast, despite being an insufferable fat fuck. And Homicide lost their fucking minds collective. And became progressively worse from there.

Am I right nigganons?

Guise this is an inside job.

I bet Sean bought this shitty company and is doing all this shitfest to deviate attention from his failure and No Man's Lies.

Basically, niggabro

>moot
what's that?

>implying

a reverse noot

>You cant steal an internet image

Yes you can. Every single image that you find online is owned by somebody. Posting them on boards like this one is covered under fair use, using them in a videogame is not.

>it would be the sasme as taking a photo of someone and then saying you stole their face.

That's also illegal. You literally can't use a real person's face in your game without their approval (exceptions made for historical figures, nobody's going to complain if you put in a photo of Hitler but if you put in a photo of Joe Schmoe, he can sue you and he will win).

>You had a legitimate point until you typed that user.

Which user did he type? How do you type a person anyway, especially if the person is anonymous?

you type a person like that- PERSON here's another one- PERSON
Now I got two persons. How many do you have, user?

they are literally all trash you mongoloid

Occam's Razor user. There are in fact people who just plain nuts, or total psychopaths or clinical narcissists. It is a thing, and it's perfectly possible to be one and be very high functioning. In fact, the higher up you go in business the more likely you are to encounter them, because high functioning very-smart psychopaths can do very very well in certain types of leadership roles.

The mid functioning semi-smart ones are where you tend to see the most trouble. They're not retarded but they think they're a lot more clever then they actually are, completely in it for themselves, and tend to think they can get away with whatever or are operating outside the bounds of everyone else and no one is on to their shit. They tend to react to criticism or people being negative with bullying, escalation, conspiracy theory, etc. Remember the whole Penny-Arcade & "Ocean Marketing" thing a few years back with the psychopath marketer?
>penny-arcade.com/news/post/2011/12/26/just-wow1
>venturebeat.com/2011/12/27/ocean-marketing-how-to-self-destruct-your-company-with-just-a-few-measly-emails/2/
Classic textbook example. These people are out there, if you do enough business you will encounter them eventually and they can be a nightmare if you don't recognize it fast and deal with it.

I wish I could materialize 425 bux out of thin air.

>What's "proper recourse" in your mind user?

Being able to shop elsewhere for the things being sold.
If I don't want to do business with Valve (or any copycat client), I have to abandon whole swathes of the gaming market.

That's how ridiculous the situation has become, we know have "exclusives" on what was supposed to be an open platform (and it's funny to see Valve claiming their love of openness when they've been such a big offender of enclosing the market.

>If you want to use Valve's private store (or any private store) you need to actually play by the rules you agree to or you'll be asked to leave?

Well, yes that's a problem if the very existence of the private store as it's been set up is what you take issue with.

>In fact quite the opposite, it makes them look very good.

They didn't do anything to protect customers until DH started to meddle with Valve directly, at which point something happened.
Basically "do whatever you want, but don't bother the hand that feeds... or else".

>which can legally be revoked for any an all reasons.

Thankfully, no, companies can't revoke a transaction post sale for any and all random reason.

>Indeed, you will always own this 20 cent plastic and metal foil disk.

And as long as there's no DRM (like Steam's online activation/account tying scheme), that mean I'll keep access to the game.

I'm aware of most of that, except the Penny-Arcade stuff. But sometimes an outcome to a situation is so good for one party, you just have to question it, you know? I'm aware it's borderline conspiracy theory.

If I was a community manager for Valve of some kind and *had* planned and/or incentivised it, however, I would pat myself on the back for a job ridiculously well done.

>us

Go back wherever you came from you fucking newfag.

>That's also illegal

Circumstances and jurisdictions notwithstanding. It's more or less lax depending on countries.

>Yes you can.
Not that user but copyright violation is separate from theft.

>Every single image that you find online is owned by somebody.
No, there is public domain work online. Additionally there is stuff put out under licenses like CC BY or CC BY-SA or CC BY-ND, all of which allow commercial use so long as credit is given (like, in the credits).

>Posting them on boards like this one is covered under fair use
No it isn't, it's just that no one cares. Fair Use is an affirmative defense to an infringement suit and has a bunch of factors to consider. Non-commericial nature is a bonus but neither necessary nor sufficient.
>using them in a videogame is not.
More to the point it's a case where someone might genuinely care and choose to expend resources to enforce.

>That's also illegal.
Merely taking a photo is not if it's in public.
>You literally can't use a real person's face in your game without their approval
Depends on jurisdiction, on whether it's a public figure or not, and on the game's subject matter. SCOTUS said vidya is another 1A medium years ago, so using a politicians face for direct parody or political commentary purposes for example would be A-OK.

From what can be seen of them, I'm thinking those people genuinely are mentally deficient on some respects.

They probably are genuinely thinking they're the "small guy" victim here.

Indie games used to be about one person of strong determination willing a thing into being.

This...

This is just acting like you really should have stayed on Deviant Art.

You will always own it, that's the point. The lisence holders my legally own the data on the disc but there's no way for them to exercise that ownership. With digital they can revoke at any time for any reason and there's nothing you can do about it. They'd have to show up at your front door with the police in order to take your disc away, not going to happen.
It's not trash, Valve is just spending a lot of time and resources on this stuff when in all likelihood only a very small percentage of Steam users actually use these products/services and other core features are still broken or half-finished.

Hmmm

>Merely taking a photo is not if it's in public.

Again, circumstances and jurisdictions notwithstanding. The whole recent Kamiya picture kerfuffle was interesting to watch as people coming from different cultures, with different laws, would react completely differently to the event.

required listening:
thejimquisition.com/special-podcast-jim-sterling-and-digital-homicide-hash-it-out/

he is a genuine idiot.

>The license holders my legally own the data on the disc

They don't. They have the temporary exclusive right of the making of copies of that data for profit.

May seem like hair-splitting, but it matters. The whole debate is polluted by people treating copyright issues as the ownership issues they're not.

I can't even stand the sound of Jim's voice, let alone that of an autistic manchild who considers criticism on his work "assault".

>Being able to shop elsewhere for the things being sold.
Then you're demanding something that has literally never existed in modern history, digital or otherwise. Retailers don't carry everything, and not every producer wants to do business with every retailer. If the retailer themselves are seeking lock-in that is sometimes an issue, but if a producer simply doesn't feel like bothering with alternate retailers tough shit. That's not the retailer's fault or problem. Take it up with the producer (dev/publisher in this case).

>If I don't want to do business with Valve (or any copycat client), I have to abandon whole swathes of the gaming market.
It's a luxury market, deal with it.

>That's how ridiculous the situation has become, we know have "exclusives" on what was supposed to be an open platform (and it's funny to see Valve claiming their love of openness when they've been such a big offender of enclosing the market.
What's ridiculous is this bullshit from you. What's Valve supposed to do in your mind, PAY devs to release on other platforms? Force them too in their TOS? "To release on Steam you must also release on GOG and the Windows Store"!? WTF user. Valve is responsible for /not/ requiring exclusivity: if they said "To release on Steam you MAY NOT be anywhere else" that would be anti-competitive shit, that's what an "exclusive" is. But if a dev puts their releases on Steam and decides it's not worth their trouble elsewhere? That's not contrary to "openness". Freedom doesn't mean having to do things your way.

As Valve says, the PC is an open platform, which means Valve gets to compete with other stores and direct, which can also do their own things. Open does not mean anyone is ENTITLED to a slot in any given store, it means they can start their own or do without entirely and distribute direct. Which they can. In contrast would be consoles, or locked down mobiles, where you obey the one platform dictator's rules or you are SOL.

if you haven't played the original - have a fun (and also maybe try to get into that HD release, which is different from the remake)

If you did - well, I expect it to just keep spinning an old wheel, which might spoil the experience.

Also, indie devs can genuinely surprise you sometimes (go check out Soma, Solus Project, Fez, Reus, Dropsy, Stasis - they all look stunning, vibrant and control sharply (and also have a bleeding awesome soundtrack)

I can not ask for more (and, definitely, wouldn't expect much from any current AAA publisher who are only good at rehashing old franchises and shoving motherfucking microtransactions, DLCs and mandatory accounts so NSA could track my angry face better)

mfw played all of your suggestions

last time i remember them releasing anything worth mentioning had me involved crawling through a nest, full of dormant homo cthulus

call of pripyat?

yes, indeed

Steam is well-positioned, but so far hasn't truly abused their place. Steam could've tried some greedy shit like monthly subscriptions to play your games. Microsoft, Sony...those greedy fucks HAVE pushed that sort of shit on their DRM consoles.

EA games only put EA games on Origin, and only allow newer EA games through Origin. If you want to sell your asshole to EA and have those scumbags come in and brutally assfuck you every day then Indies could by all means try to whore their cute virgin anuses to EA.

GOG hasn't dropped Quality Control yet. They're accepting in Indies, but only a small handful of actually decent ones who aren't churning out shovelware shit like Digital Homicide. But indies still apparently have some bizarre restrictions since they're Polish so they have Yuropeen restrictions on things. Like, no Hatred on GOG because that game is literally against the law in Germany. The Poles apparently just sort of hate weeaboos too so they'll censor the few japanese titty games that let through, and won't put weebMaker games or Sakurashit clicker games onto the catalogue unlike your average iOS App Store which is awash in them.

Monthly subscription for a service like steam? Or lose access to your games?

Yeah that's not going to go over well at all. I don't think Valve is that retarded.

I mean, Valve and Google alike companies do know, how to provide some useful service w/o annoying general audience with, one might consider, "insidious" ways of making a fortune (Valve does so by having a slice from each transaction, making not the smallest share of their revenue via selling/trading digital items a niche audience seems to be happy to pay for, but at the same time NOT shoving that shit into faces of the rest of gamers not interested in it; that's appreciated)

It was very clear from the subpoena that this would lead to DH directly suing Valve. That's what they've been angling for probably ever since their original business plan (providing the shovelware to fill out third party 'amazing 30 games bundle!' scams) was shot to shit by all the attention. That's why Valve killed them dead, and sure enough, DH is now going ahead with bringing Valve in as a defendant to the suit.

So IOW
>muh copyright

Stalker

I just dont get it. Is DH trying some advanced publicity stunt? Like their head dev who talked to Jim sounded really immature and downright stupid but whats the logic?

Does this lawsuit have even a chance? I hope not.

it obviously doesn't. They will stay at the court all by themselves and, I think they just got little to nothing to lose, since the sales are down.

They had it coming, with a shitshow of ""PR""-approach they had towards anybody with a negative opinion about their """"""creative work""""""

More like the rise of people with incredibly thin skins and massive egos that would give the actual gaming industry a run for it's money was a mistake. There's enough drama and egotism in the indie gaming industry to satisfy the quota for Cred Forums threads for months.

i guess they should change their name to " digital suicide"
Inb4 carlos

>Steam could've tried some greedy shit like monthly subscriptions to play your games
"Tried" being the operative word here. If they actually did try it then that really would get a lot of people to leave, and for that matter make a lot of major devs mad too because it would directly threaten/cut into their potential money. Steam lacks the lock-in for that and can't get it on an open hardware platform, which is why it isn't a concern.

Which is about the dumbest possible move for DH possible, leading too
>Does this lawsuit have even a chance?
Legally it never had a chance, but it might have had an intimidation financial chance if DH had stuck to smaller defendants who might just settle because they couldn't afford the costs to fight it.

But bringing in Valve means DH now face effectively unlimited, determined legal opposition and they don't even have their own lawyer. Which means they'll almost 100% certainly fuck up on some basic legal procedures and thus ruin themselves even ignoring merits. Since Arizona has a mediocre looking anti-SLAPP law if they'd kept it private maybe they could have at least made a big stink but they're committing suicide now.
>logic
oh you user.

Styg is awesome though.

>with incredibly thin skins and massive egos

and, most importantly, no significant talent at game/art-design (or just the lack of arse to spare any significant amount of time with the game development)

Call the developers of Path of Thalamus or Fez however you like - they still made some bloody great titles, worth recommending to people.

It's just not as funny the 9th time around.

Still, have your (You).

>Then you're demanding something that has literally never existed in modern history

The PC market as it was before Valve you mean?

>It's a luxury market, deal with it.

It's a luxury market, I'll make any demand I find fitting.

>What's Valve supposed to do in your mind, PAY devs to release on other platforms?

Not forcefully link the shop and the service platform would ne nice for one. But then, yeah, without the DRM...

>As Valve says, the PC is an open platform, which means Valve gets to compete with other stores and direct, which can also do their own things
>In contrast would be consoles, or locked down mobiles, where you obey the one platform dictator's rules or you are SOL.

Which is partly what Steam is, a software console ecosystem on the open platform. So yes, it's good when it's open for them, but enclosing it on users is perfectly fair.

More like Digital Suicide

That Scorpion looks dope. Where's it from?

>The PC market as it was before Valve you mean?
Nope, I mean everything, not the PC market but retail period in the centuries and millenia before the PC was even conceived.

>I'll make any demand I find fitting.
And get told to pound sand when you're a retard.

>Not forcefully link the shop and the service platform would be nice for one.
They don't. Dev can use as much or as little as they like.

>But then, yeah, without the DRM...
Same for this. Valve does not require DRM, they just don't ban it (or even disallow adding on extra layers) like GOG does either. It's up to devs. Personally one thing I really DO fault Valve for is not making this much more clearly marked and also making it something users can filter (preferably by default). But that's a quibble, and again it doesn't at all change the options of developers/publishers.

>Which is partly what Steam is, a software console ecosystem on the open platform.
No, that is a complete perversion of language and the definitions everyone understands. You don't get to just redefine "blue" to mean "green". You sound like one of those people who thinks "Free Speech" means you're owed a soap box too. "Platform" is the hardware and OS that people buy and use to run applications. Hint: to run software for one platform on another platform requires porting or virtualization/emulation/equivalent. Steam is just a distribution and community service, it is platform agnostic. The games it offers are Windows, Mac, and/or Linux on open PC hardware. A dev does not need to do any porting or use WINE or something to take a game they release on Steam and put it on GOG. Or sell it direct. Open platforms mean anyone can develop whatever software they wish on that platform, not that said software is open.

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxWy16HPPmeEDKGGyYYxel199E4i4adJu

probaly, just an elaborate fan work

>They don't. Dev can use as much or as little as they like.
>Same for this. Valve does not require DRM

Apart from Steam itself (and yes , the activation and account tying, that's a DRM scheme)?
Not to mention Valve providing Steamworks on top (and I fail to see how them not making it mandatory is any better, they make it possible)

>Nope, I mean everything, not the PC market but retail period in the centuries and millenia before the PC was even conceived

Your misunderstanding. I'm saying I *could* do that before Steam. I could go to any specialized or not retail outlet shops and buy any game. Which you can't do anymore for many products. *Mass market* products.

>Open platforms mean anyone can develop whatever software they wish on that platform, not that said software is open.

Develop and *modify*.

>I'm saying I *could* do that before Steam. I could go to any specialized or not retail outlet shops and buy any game.
Not him but you're absolutely delusional if you truly believe that.

>Develop and *modify*.
You're missing his point.
Steam is not a platform.
Windows, Mac and Linux are.

>Apart from Steam itself (and yes , the activation and account tying, that's a DRM scheme)?
No. If a game is DRM free, then you don't need Steam period except to install it the first time (and you can copy it around afterwards). It's worse then GOG in terms of ease here since with GOG even the client is optional, but someone who wanted to be a jackass could then just say "oh but GOG still makes me use their website!".

>I could go to any specialized or not retail outlet shops and buy any game.
No you couldn't. Not all shops carried all games. You would have to go to different stores to find them all. They were under no obligation to carry what you wanted. And lots of them had DRM too. What was your point again?

>Develop and *modify*.
I have no idea what you're talking about here either, unless you're channeling RMS and arguing that "open platforms" don't exist at all because they all have at least some proprietary software on them or some shit. Which leads right back to "that's not what anyone means by open platform dumbass, stop trying to redefine language."

>Not him but you're absolutely delusional if you truly believe that.
I hope he doesn't make us go through the utterly boringly predictable routine of
>1. Uh huh yes they did!
>2. Anons name games that weren't
>3. T-those ones d-don't count

Whoa valve did something they should have done a VERY long time ago?
BASED
VALVE ALWAYS WINS!!!!!1!!1!!1
MORE DICKS PLEASE GABE

What you said:
>Cred Forums is literally the new furry. They think they're offending us by saying "nigger" or edgy racist comments when we don't give a shit.

>Just like no one cares that furries masturbate to bara fox and dog characters, it's just annoying how obnoxious they are about it.
What I heard: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH MEN SAY MEAN THING ON TEH INTERNET :(
Keep crying baby.

>Not him but you're absolutely delusional if you truly believe that.

Not *all* games. But any? I certainly think so.

>Not all shops carried all games.

But no game was specifically forcedly sold through only one outlet.

>I have no idea what you're talking about here either

Opened to providers, but not to customers.

Demand-side use openness is part of the openness of a platform.
So, again, openness is good... as long as it's not to end users.

There's literally a Cred Forums pony with it's own story threads. It's not even using pols memes. It's MAKING pol memes

>Not *all* games. But any? I certainly think so.
>But no game was specifically forcedly sold through only one outlet.
I'll redirect you to this post again because clearly you don't understand what he is saying.
Particulary this part:
>That's not the retailer's fault or problem. Take it up with the producer (dev/publisher in this case).
Devs/Publisher are not "forced" to sell through Steam, they're just not willing to put their game elsewhere else.
EA and Origin do that however.

To be a bit more accurate, they sued Valve to obtain the users' information, because they couldn't sue the users themselves without the personal information. We don't know exactly why Valve kicked their games off Steam, but Digital Homicide filing a lawsuit against Valve was probably the biggest cause.

Also, they bumped up the "lawsuit" against Jim Sterling up to $15 million. I say "lawsuit" because in order to call it a lawsuit, they would actually need to file something and attempt taking him to court.

>talk shit
>get told
>keep talking shit about a private company whos terms of use are "talking shit like we wouldnt find out bitch pls"
>get rekt

WOW how where they supposed to know that would happen

Greenlighted games should get their own store until they reach a certain player base.

That shit is ridiculous. Greenlight has become a business in itself for shitty indie devs looking to make an easy buck with minimal effort.

Steam used to be better than that.

Go back to your containment board

See you in court asshole!

Yes and no

Steam was shit but allowed Valve to sell their own games direct with no publisher fucking them in the ass

How ironic they became the very thing they sought to avoid

>all anonymous donations
>implying they didn't donate it themselves to make it look like someone had.

Could also be ironic.

If the funding doesn't meet its goal, everyone gets refunded.

>get some ironic donations from people who think they are funny as fuck
>fill the short fall with own money
>they have to pay
>you pay yourself

>Devs/Publisher are not "forced" to sell through Steam, they're just not willing to put their game elsewhere.

And I don't see why I should switch the blame entirely on to Devs/Publisher when Valve have been entirely instrumental to that. The whole point of their distribution platform + client infrastructure set up is the customer inertia/captive audience (depending on how charitable you're looking at it) that fractures the market to where it's at in term of incentives.

Nope, you'd have to be retarded as you'd still lose money. Companies usually take a cut of the funds for themselves. It's how they make their money. The usual going rate is 10%. So let's say it gets to 5k and then the guy fills the remaining 70k on his own, the company takes 7.5k and he just suffered a net loss of over 2k.

Then there's still the issue of chargebacks, as you saw with the MN9 debacle.