Shooting from the hip: The enclosure could have been a thermal nightmare that valve didn’t want their name on.
Comment on dBrand Companion Cube cancelled:
mlg@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Not that I want to give dbrand any credit but this also seems like a stupid move for Valve.
Why didn’t they just offer a license agreement if dbrand was willing to accept?
Seems like a missed opportunity which the steam machine desperately needs right now.
Even dumber, you’ll probably be able to find this on ali express or temu in a couple of weeks after some chinese brands make knockoffs anyway.
Unless they already had some poor history with dbrand, seems kind of off character for Valve.
Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 1 week ago
jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Based on this video, they neglected to do something as basic as an air filter. I doubt thermals are top of mind for them:
Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I mean it’s already throttled so much if anything Valve was over concerned with thermals. But yea, I could see the modding aspect making things even worse.
savvywolf@pawb.social 1 week ago
Would you want to have a business relationship with someone with a “do things first, ask for permission after” attitude?
Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
If you let me put my tinfoil hat on for a moment, it may be because now they can gauge the community response and decide if they want to launch their own or “change their mind” and look like the good guys
Mister_Hangman@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Then let them play off of what Beetschnapps said and back room ask Dbrand to fire off sets for them to test for thermal issues then if it doesn’t need any modifications come out swinging. Valve gets more money and looks like real aces.
Westcoastdg@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
The real answer is boring. Think about the legal precedent that would be set, this would be seen as condoning anyone to go out, market and accept money for a representation of their IP without asking for permission beforehand, no legal team worth their salt is going to allow that. They don’t want to reward someone for doing things the wrong way from a legal standpoint. There’s also probably a possible fraud liability here, the same way trademark owners are required to legally pursue copycat brands to prevent customers from being defrauded
emeralddawn45@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
It wouldn’t set a legal precedent. Valve would still be well within their rights to shut down any other products that did something similar. If they signed a license agreement now everything would be fine and above board, and valve would still be able to do this exact thing to any other brands who did the same thing if they so chose.
hasnep@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
I think they just meant precedent, like it sets an example of how they treat copyright infringement.