Sony patents PlayStation controller that could accept tap-to-pay from phones and credit cards

[u/Nullhitter]

https://www.techspot.com/news/113988-sony-patent-shows-playstation-controller-could-accept-tap.html

[u/Mysteoa]

Here it's written in the Cort documents document 348 attachment 7 on page 93.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59859024/348/7/in-re-valve-antitrust-litigation/

and the stamen from the Dev https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-action/

[u/redchris18 → u/Mysteoa]

Here it's written in the Cort documents document 348 attachment 7 on page 93.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59859024/348/7/in-re-valve-antitrust-litigation/

I can't find anything on that page - or a couple of pages either side of it - which match what you said. Could you quote it directly?

As a fun - and interesting - aside, though, I did happen to find that document trying to argue that Valve's cut should be reduced because Epic offer a 12% cut of sales, even though this has been admitted to be unsustainable for them and is specifically intended to try to lure studios away from Steam.

the stamen from the Dev https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-action/

Specifically, you're talking about this excerpt:

When new video game stores were opening that charged much lower commissions than Valve, I decided that I would provide my game "Overgrowth" at a lower price to take advantage of the lower commission rates [...] when I asked Valve about this plan, they replied that they would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM.

This is a little suspect for a couple of reasons. Firstly, games have been cheaper on other platforms than on Steam, including the Ubisoft example that you originally alluded to. I've also bought games on other platforms for well below their all-time lowest Steam store price.

Secondly, the wording is a little inconsistent. He starts out by talking about selling Overgrowth via "new video game stores were opening that charged much lower commissions than Valve" (I think we can all guess that this refers to the Epic store), but then goes on to say "even from my own website without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM", as if those things were previously inconsideration. Obviously that would never have been the case if they were sold via Epic, but even if a different store were in mind, that'd mean he was trying to sell Steam keys cheaper on another site, which Valve are known to take issue with.

I know it's awkward with the redacted text, but I'm going back-and-forth between his blog post and that court document and I'm having a difficult time verifying his timeline. Couple that with the fact that I can cite examples which completely contradict his assertions about Overgrowth's release and I'm finding his account hard to credit.

Just as an example, Rune Factory 4 Special has been less than £4 about a dozen times over the last two years on Switch, but has never been below £7.50 on Steam, and hasn't even been below £6 on keysites. Note, however, that those keysites do sell at lower prices than Steam a lot of the time.

That dev isn't telling the whole story. Based on the evidence, there's some missing context there.