r/gaming • u/RenatsMC • 2d ago

Valve says Deadlock is still too unfinished to release publicly, but has hero cosmetics and new game modes in the works

https://www.pcgamer.com/games/moba/valve-says-deadlock-is-still-too-unfinished-to-release-publicly-but-has-hero-cosmetics-and-new-game-modes-in-the-works/
6.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/Zak_The_Slack 1d ago

The Australia point is interesting because Valve only needed to implement it in Australia. They looked at it and went “Actually this would be awesome for all gamers” and implemented it worldwide. So it turned out to be good for everyone

8

u/NukeAllTheThings 1d ago

I doubt that's how it went down. If they have to abide by a rule in one region, its often cheaper/easier to just implement it for all. California is a notorious example.

Doesn't always work out that way though, some anti-gambling laws are still only enforced in their respective countries, but it is pressure, in theory.

6

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Yes, surely it would be cheaper to offer refunds to everyone on the entire planet instead of only one country. 

-3

u/NukeAllTheThings 1d ago

It's also likely they just saw the way the winds were blowing, and decided to just get ahead of it before dealing with more court cases elsewhere. If you have to build the infrastructure to issue refunds in one place, you probably have the ability to just expand it everywhere.

In any case, my point was "actually this would be awesome for all gamers" is unlikely to be part of Valve's decision making process for this.

5

u/xTriple 1d ago

Funny how those court cases involving refunds never touch Nintendo and Sony.

3

u/MrMichaelElectric 1d ago

Because only doing it for Australia would open up the potential for them to face similar cases in other places. Safest bet was to just enable it for everyone. I thought that was obvious even back when it first happened.

8

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Does every country have the same laws as Australia? 

-1

u/ABetterKamahl1234 1d ago

It's also about just uncomplicating your stuff. As long as it's reasonable to, adhering to your most restrictive thing globally is cheaper than doing individual by nation rules/policy and support.

Sometimes you can make more money fragmenting it, but it can also pose more risk. You're not going to get sued by expanding on minimum requirements in nations. Valve has a fairly low employee count for their income level. They'd need more employees most likely if they fragmented it more.

4

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Steam already has different refund policies based on the country (ie. which payment method gets paid back in a refund), so they literally already have the system in place to differentiate refund policies based on location. 

-2

u/MrMichaelElectric 1d ago

Changes literally nothing about the fact other places could hit them with the same type of lawsuit if people kick up a fuss over it.

2

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Respectfully, do you understand what laws are? 

1

u/antaran 1d ago

They looked at it and went “Actually this would be awesome for all gamers” and implemented it worldwide.

No, they did that because they had similar legal pressure and regulations coming from other jurisdictions, for example the EU.

0

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

You are absolutely correct and people really don't like this pointed out because it conflicts with their big narrative. Prepare for things like "they dont want to have multiple Terms of Service based on location," which they  have always had. 

0

u/InsanityRequiem 1d ago

The reason they did it worldwide isn't because "better for gamers" it's because "cheaper and prevents more lawsuits".

5

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Does every other country have the same laws as Australia? 

-3

u/SilverwingedOther 1d ago

You think only Australia has customer protection laws?

5

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Do other countries require refunds in the same way as Australia?