Digital Homicide drops its $18 million lawsuit against Steam users after company is "destroyed"

midian182

Posts: 9,726   +121
Staff member

An indie developer that attempted to sue 100 anonymous Steam users over negative reviews of its games has dropped the case. Digital Homicide said that its business has been “destroyed,” meaning it can no longer afford to pursue the lawsuit.

Responsible for such classics as ET: The Extra-Large Testicle, Not In My Crapper, and The Slaughtering Grounds, Digital Homicide subpoenaed Valve to learn the identities of those Steam members who dared criticize its games.

The company wanted $18 million from the users, who it called a “hate and harassment group.” In response to its actions, Valve removed all of Digital Homicide’s games from Steam, calling the developer “hostile to Steam customers.” The decision prompted company co-founder James Romine to seek “legal representation” against Valve, too.

Techraptor reports that a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice was filed last week and approved on Friday. It seeks a refund of the court filing fee, or a 90-day extension on the action if the fee is non-refundable. It also enables Digital Homicide to bring the case again in the future if it wishes.

Speaking about how the case has affected the company, Romine said: "[Digital Homicide is] destroyed. It's been stomped into the ground from a thousand directions and use is discontinued," he said. "I’m going back into the workforce and watching what’s really going on. Not gaming media gossip—the real stories are in the legal documents. Not talking about mine."

Back in March, Digital Homicide launched a $10 million lawsuit against British video game critic Jim Sterling for libel, slander, and assault, after Romine claimed the reviewer had “continued coverage and harassment of every single title we have ever posted.” The case waits for a dismissal decision.

In an update to the original Techraptor article, Romine said: “It is important thing to note – Digital Homicide didn’t file a dismissal or a case. The company had pretty much nothing to do with the case other than some evidence. Which was why we were surprised by the result. It’s like a manager at a large mall shop filing suit against some harassers who’ve been attacking him inside and outside of his shop, and the entire shops removed. It’s confusing.”

“We may have been painted in a negative customer light by gaming media, truthfully we’ve been fighting for lower prices and a more open market – which to me is the most important thing for consumers.”

The filing states that Digitial Homicide originally contacted a local sheriff who was unable to help the company with what it calls a Criminal Harassment matter under Arizona State law 13-2921. This defines harassment as "Conduct that is directed at a specific person and that would cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed, annoyed or harassed and the conduct in fact seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the person." The Sheriff advised the developer to sue instead.

Permalink to story.

 
Sounds like he wanted to sue everybody. If reviewers AND gamers pretty much agree your games suck then I guess they suck. I'd imagine Valve has a right to pull anyone's games from Steam for pretty much any reason in the contract so that was a no go to begin with. Can't fix stupid much less mad and stupid.
 
Publishing negativism is what started it in the first place. If someone is brave enough to get one of those titles and test it first-hand, then I will believe the feedback.
 
Couldnt have happened to a *nicer* individual.

Good riddance. Hopefully this starts the process of not tolerating gutter trash clogging up steam's store page.
 
Such a predictable outcome, one may wonder why they sued in the first place!
It's the American dream these days to sue anyone possible so you don't have to make any effort what so ever to make a living.
Such a predictable outcome, one may wonder why they sued in the first place!
It's the American dream these days to sue anyone possible so you don't have to make any effort what so ever to make a living.

Pretry much this.
Such a predictable outcome, one may wonder why they sued in the first place!
It's the American dream these days to sue anyone possible so you don't have to make any effort what so ever to make a living.

Pretty much this.

Does it not take effort to sue someone? Guess that's why everyone is suing everyone..... I thought you had to actually do something to sue someone... smh
 
Does it not take effort to sue someone? Guess that's why everyone is suing everyone..... I thought you had to actually do something to sue someone... smh
Not as much effort as making an actual product. Most of the effort is transferred to the legal team working on it. Which, the law firm make money whither it goes to court or not.
 
Does it not take effort to sue someone? Guess that's why everyone is suing everyone..... I thought you had to actually do something to sue someone... smh
Not as much effort as making an actual product. Most of the effort is transferred to the legal team working on it. Which, the law firm make money whither it goes to court or not.
One other thing to note, the only people that really win in legal battles are the law firms.

This makes sense. Good point and thank you. Yea, I realize that now, you pay them and they do most of the work. I guess, at most you have to just make an appearance here or there, huh?
 
The most probable scenario was that no legal representative wanted this case, since it had no real way to move forward and even less way to go against a big company like Steam.
 
This hits home. In selling android apps, I wonder why one person can give a 1 star rating and the whole company IS effectively destroyed. It's even more ridiculous as no one can explain what google's android play agorithm is as to the position in the search order that your app is, let alone how it drops if someone gives it a even a 3 star rating. Apps named stolen (somehow can't be that name anymore) are not first in the search order when typing in the word "stolen," even tho no other app is even near the name stolen. Trying amazon I had some success selling quite a few apps of a fax app where it was first in the search order and I haven't gotten to migrating others, then someone named wicked gave it a 1 star rating and I don't sell any more fax apps. Why are there even any ratings at all? I'm not allowed to post "do not buy" messages on walmart's front windows when someone goes to shop there.
 
If a craftsman does shoddy work he or she has no right to sue the person that hired them for their services. Its the other way around.
 
This hits home. In selling android apps, I wonder why one person can give a 1 star rating and the whole company IS effectively destroyed. It's even more ridiculous as no one can explain what google's android play agorithm is as to the position in the search order that your app is, let alone how it drops if someone gives it a even a 3 star rating. Apps named stolen (somehow can't be that name anymore) are not first in the search order when typing in the word "stolen," even tho no other app is even near the name stolen. Trying amazon I had some success selling quite a few apps of a fax app where it was first in the search order and I haven't gotten to migrating others, then someone named wicked gave it a 1 star rating and I don't sell any more fax apps. Why are there even any ratings at all? I'm not allowed to post "do not buy" messages on walmart's front windows when someone goes to shop there.
Ratings are a way to police bad apps from getting out of hand.
 
Back