(Should this be in ~tech? I do not know) I am just... baffled... by how frequently Dbrand makes these insane, catastrophic mistakes. It's astounding that they're still in business. Maybe someone...
The blunt version is that we made the Companion Cube without a license from Valve. Everyone who purchased a Companion Cube will have their refund issued by end-of-day. Everything else beyond this is just detail. If you want the full story, keep reading.
On November 12th 2025, the day the Steam Machine was announced, we put up a concept render and sign-up page to see if anyone would be interested in a Companion Cube enclosure. It went moderately viral, with over fifteen thousand people signing up to be notified in the first day. In the months that followed, we built the idea into something real without ever asking Valve if we could.
[...]
We launched around 3am on Monday, June 22nd. Overnight, it became the second-fastest selling product in our 15-year history, behind only the Switch 2 Killswitch.
Shortly after, Valve’s legal team reached out. They stated that the Companion Cube is Valve intellectual property, for which dbrand does not have a license. They requested we take down the product and launch film immediately. This was entirely within their rights, and they were direct, fair, and respectful throughout.
We took everything down and made an appeal. We asked Valve whether there was any way to keep the project alive: properly licensed, with their blessing, on their terms. They said no. Given our backwards approach of building first and asking permission later, it was a fair answer.
I am just... baffled... by how frequently Dbrand makes these insane, catastrophic mistakes. It's astounding that they're still in business.
Maybe someone with product development experience could shed some light... how the hell does this even happen? I would assume that getting permission from Valve is the first thing you ask for after consumers show even a tiny bit of excitement for the concept.
I imagine their thought process was they could either: Ask for permission; Licence for much money; Uncertain demand Or move fast and break things: Put up preorder page; If there isn't any interest...
I imagine their thought process was they could either:
Ask for permission;
Licence for much money;
Uncertain demand
Or move fast and break things:
Put up preorder page;
If there isn't any interest you've lost nothing;
If there is interest and Valve doesn't notice then all is well;
If they do, you already have preorder money to pay for licencing.
I think this may have become passion project to some degree - you focus on finishing it and leave the details. Licencing being the detail here. They had their share with PS5 plates which they...
I think this may have become passion project to some degree - you focus on finishing it and leave the details. Licencing being the detail here.
They had their share with PS5 plates which they managed to bring to market and make fun of Sony alongside. I suppose they didn't want to fight Valve's lawyers or go around them so they brought the cube down and tried licencing after the fact and it didn't work out... Sad, but Valve is at full right there and dbrand is the loser this time. I value them for saying it out loud though.
It's a hell of a lot less profitable to license something. Seems that just blatantly bootlegging is worth a shot for a hefty margin before the IP owner even notices.
It's a hell of a lot less profitable to license something. Seems that just blatantly bootlegging is worth a shot for a hefty margin before the IP owner even notices.
I don't think that's how Dbrand really operates, this was probably a case of "we thought they would play ball but Valve already has a morbillion dollars and doesn't want to license cheap crap."
I don't think that's how Dbrand really operates, this was probably a case of "we thought they would play ball but Valve already has a morbillion dollars and doesn't want to license cheap crap."
In the case of the PS5 side panels, I always thought it was a deliberate marketing stunt. Nobody in the court of public opinion was going to side with big evil Sony over those ugly things that...
In the case of the PS5 side panels, I always thought it was a deliberate marketing stunt. Nobody in the court of public opinion was going to side with big evil Sony over those ugly things that arguably shouldn't be copyrightable. The inevitable redesign ended up looking a lot better than the infringing or OEM side panels. The cease and desist from Sony got them a tremendous amount of free marketing for their revised design that actually made the console look sleeker.
In this case though, I'm not sure. People generally like Valve, the design was much more clearly an infringement of their IP, and it's not like dbrand could possibly be sitting on a better looking kosher alternative to replace it with. It makes no sense as a marketing stunt.
I think it was just good-natured excitement nobody tempered, given the response. Dbrand also totally handled it well by ceasing and desisting when prompted.
I think it was just good-natured excitement nobody tempered, given the response. Dbrand also totally handled it well by ceasing and desisting when prompted.
Move fast and break things but for consumer products I guess. They probably are used to companies either being in on the joke or thinking "any publicity is good publicity" and just letting them do it.
Move fast and break things but for consumer products I guess.
They probably are used to companies either being in on the joke or thinking "any publicity is good publicity" and just letting them do it.
This is kind of their MO and Valve just didn't take their shit. Good on Valve. Their Prism screen protector remains the easiest screen protector to install but I am endlessly annoyed that they are...
This is kind of their MO and Valve just didn't take their shit. Good on Valve.
Their Prism screen protector remains the easiest screen protector to install but I am endlessly annoyed that they are a Canadian company that only charges USD. Stupid company.
I'd be surprised if they didn't simply change up the identifying features (shape, heart logos) a bit, and sell it as its own project on the back of the demand they now know exists for something...
I'd be surprised if they didn't simply change up the identifying features (shape, heart logos) a bit, and sell it as its own project on the back of the demand they now know exists for something similar.
(Should this be in ~tech? I do not know)
I am just... baffled... by how frequently Dbrand makes these insane, catastrophic mistakes. It's astounding that they're still in business.
Maybe someone with product development experience could shed some light... how the hell does this even happen? I would assume that getting permission from Valve is the first thing you ask for after consumers show even a tiny bit of excitement for the concept.
Why in the darkest and coldest heck didn't they ask permission between November 12th 2025 and June 22nd????
I imagine their thought process was they could either:
Or move fast and break things:
I think this may have become passion project to some degree - you focus on finishing it and leave the details. Licencing being the detail here.
They had their share with PS5 plates which they managed to bring to market and make fun of Sony alongside. I suppose they didn't want to fight Valve's lawyers or go around them so they brought the cube down and tried licencing after the fact and it didn't work out... Sad, but Valve is at full right there and dbrand is the loser this time. I value them for saying it out loud though.
It's a hell of a lot less profitable to license something. Seems that just blatantly bootlegging is worth a shot for a hefty margin before the IP owner even notices.
I don't think that's how Dbrand really operates, this was probably a case of "we thought they would play ball but Valve already has a morbillion dollars and doesn't want to license cheap crap."
In the case of the PS5 side panels, I always thought it was a deliberate marketing stunt. Nobody in the court of public opinion was going to side with big evil Sony over those ugly things that arguably shouldn't be copyrightable. The inevitable redesign ended up looking a lot better than the infringing or OEM side panels. The cease and desist from Sony got them a tremendous amount of free marketing for their revised design that actually made the console look sleeker.
In this case though, I'm not sure. People generally like Valve, the design was much more clearly an infringement of their IP, and it's not like dbrand could possibly be sitting on a better looking kosher alternative to replace it with. It makes no sense as a marketing stunt.
I think it was just good-natured excitement nobody tempered, given the response. Dbrand also totally handled it well by ceasing and desisting when prompted.
I mean they covered their ass in the end, but I don't think that was handled well.
Move fast and break things but for consumer products I guess.
They probably are used to companies either being in on the joke or thinking "any publicity is good publicity" and just letting them do it.
This is kind of their MO and Valve just didn't take their shit. Good on Valve.
Their Prism screen protector remains the easiest screen protector to install but I am endlessly annoyed that they are a Canadian company that only charges USD. Stupid company.
Good on Valve, they should've just asked for permission. Shame nontheless though, looked cool
I'd be surprised if they didn't simply change up the identifying features (shape, heart logos) a bit, and sell it as its own project on the back of the demand they now know exists for something similar.