this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
71 points (97.3% liked)

Gaming

19765 readers
774 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 19 points 1 hour ago (1 children)
[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 31 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour 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 13 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 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 10 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (4 children)

Definitely not a Valve W though.

I have no idea how some people can worship a corporation so strongly.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 hour ago

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

[–] LostXOR@fedia.io 8 points 35 minutes ago

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.

[–] verdigris@lemmy.ml 5 points 27 minutes 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 3 points 57 minutes ago* (last edited 57 minutes ago) (1 children)
[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 53 minutes ago

It's a win-win situation!

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 13 points 1 hour 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!