This is true and public knowledge though as I said (details seen here in the “Steam Key Rules and Guidelines” section), if anything Valve is giving devs a lot of leeway by allowing them to do that at all, not only are they giving up their 30% cut but are also then distributing and committing to updating those copies of the game for free

This suit seems to just be vaguely, “30% is too high”, along with requiring that DLC for a game bought on Steam also be bought on Steam, it was the Wolfire case back in 2021 that alleged they’re not allowed to sell their game for cheaper on other platforms

As far as I know, this only applies to Steam keys: developers are allowed to generate Steam keys for free to sell on their website (Valve does not get 30% of these sales either) with the restriction being they cannot be cheaper than the price on Steam

I don’t think there’s ever actually been any proof that Valve disallows selling games for cheaper elsewhere as long as you’re not selling those freely generated Steam keys

A TOS doesn’t give you the legal right to destroy someone’s property… At worst they could deny service

A launcher owned by an analytics company? In my OS owned by an ad company?

The first gen switch has an exploit that allows you to extract the decryption keys needed to play your games on an emulator at a higher visual quality with support for mods

It’s googles android plan, offer a small amount of hardware, give people the software for free, sell them the services

I don’t get the whole “this game isn’t even good, there’s no way it was the best selling game of the year without rightoids overwhelmingly buying it simply to own the libs” idea when year after year after year the best selling games are Call of Duty X+1, Madden X+1, and FIFA X+1

A game doesn’t need to be good to be popular, and I’d bet probably 99% of the owners are just normal people who aren’t even aware of the controversy

The article even says that in a similar vein there’s official vampire and werewolf tags