Noticed this update got pushed just now.

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

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    1·
    5 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.

  • bassomitron@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    5 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
      0·
      5 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
        0·
        5 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.