this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2026
329 points (98.8% liked)

Steam Hardware

22481 readers
156 users here now

A place to discuss and support all Steam Hardware, including Steam Deck, Steam Machine, Steam Frame, and SteamOS in general.

As Lemmy doesn't have flairs yet, you can use these prefixes to indicate what type of post you have made, eg:
[Flair] My post title

The following is a list of suggested flairs:
[Deck] - Steam Deck related.
[Controller] - Steam Controller related.
[Machine] - Steam Machine related.
[Frame] - Steam Frame related.
[Discussion] - General discussion.
[Help] - A request for help or support.
[News] - News about the deck.
[PSA] - Sharing important information.
[Game] - News / info about a game on the deck.
[Update] - An update to a previous post.
[Meta] - Discussion about this community.

If your post is only relevant to one hardware device (Deck/Machine/Frame/etc) please specify which one as part of the title or by using a device flair.

These are not enforced, but they are encouraged.

Rules:

Link to our Matrix Space

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I just got an email from dBrand cancelling the Steam Machine companion cube shell.

They posted the rationale on reddit, /r/dBrand but for the good folks who don't do reddit anymore, here's their post:

"RIP Companion Cube

🚨 Announcement 🚨

As you’ve probably noticed, the Steam Machine Companion Cube was eviscerated from our website, YouTube, and other social media platforms last week.

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’re going to regret that decision for a very long time.

Over the next seven months, we poured our souls into this project. More than a thousand hours went into engineering from our industrial design team. Forty-four sets of injection molding tools were developed, one for each of the cube's sub-components. The entire product was redesigned from scratch more than once, just to get the way it cradles the console exactly right. We literally rented out a university campus to film the launch video. By the end, we were losing money on every $99 Poverty Cube sold, but it didn’t matter. This had turned into a passion project for the entire organization.

Unfortunately, being proud of the thing we made did not give us the right to make it.

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.

That’s basically the whole story. We made something a lot of people were excited about, then incinerated our shot at bringing it to market. It’s a hard lesson to learn publicly.

It goes without saying, but we’ll say it regardless: Valve didn’t do anything wrong here. They built a game franchise a lot of people love and they alone get to decide how it’s used.

To everyone who was as excited about this project as we were: thank you, and sorry. Refunds are being issued today. If it hasn’t landed in your account by the end of this week, you know how to reach us.

To Valve: thank you for Portal, and sorry for the headache. We should’ve asked first."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 3 points 22 hours ago

dBrand is a garbage company.

[–] Xerxos@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why not ask for permission before you try to create it? It's one of the few corporations where you can simply write a email to the CEO. Going ahead without permission is really shady.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

I know, right? Do the render, send it to Valve, get licensed...

[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 208 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

That's literally what happened with the black PS5 shells. They used Sony's trademark without permission, got a cease and desist, and didn't learn a fucking thing from it. I'm sure they had the best intentions, but doing it twice was monumentally stupid.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Off-brand PS5 shells should have been fine, unless they were dumb enough to copy Sony's logos and whatnot. It's just swoopy inert shapes and it's only designed to work with official hardware.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Darkplates vs Darkplates 2.0:

Dbrand ignores Sony's legal objections and releases Darkplates 2.0 side plates for the PS5 - Notebookcheck News

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Dbrand-ignores-Sony-s-legal-objections-and-releases-Darkplates-2-0-side-plates-for-the-PS5.573812.0.html

Sony has taken issue with Dbrand selling Darkplates side plates for the PlayStation 5. In response, Dbrand has released Darkplates 2.0 in three colours.

Also…

At the launch of the Darkplates, Dbrand was so sure that it would not face legal action from Sony that it goaded the company into bringing legal action anyway. Specifically, Dbrand included the message 'Go ahead, sue us' on its Darkplates product listing, which are 1:1 replicas of the PS5's stock side plates.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So they humiliated themselves as a marketing tactic, to later promote fugly knockoffs.

We really are a month away from the Heavy Friendship Box with a pink thumbs-up on the side.

[–] brognak@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 22 hours ago

That all sounds very......on (d)brand

[–] binarytobis@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

If I had a nickel…

[–] PostaL@lemmy.world 92 points 2 days ago
[–] mrmaplebar@fedia.io 106 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The blunt version is that we made the Companion Cube without a license from Valve.

Well... that was pretty damn stupid, now wasn't it? Were they under the impression that they could capitalize off of one of Valve's biggest IPs without getting some kind of license or consent first? Who do they think they are, an AI company?

[–] phonics@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago

They did hold peoples money. If they invested it before returning it. They could have made a fair chunk of change. Perhaps that was the plan all along. Risky play though.

[–] Voyajer@lemmy.world 139 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Why am I not surprised they didn't get a license

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 128 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why am I not surprised they didn’t get a license

Why am I not surprised they went ahead without even asking to get a license?

[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 46 points 2 days ago (3 children)

This company sounds like a mess.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] prettybunnys@piefed.social 9 points 2 days ago

Ayyyy at least they didn’t blame the would be buyers

[–] officermike@lemmy.world 116 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Did they not learn from the PS5 dark plates? Why do they keep developing things without licensing or approval from rights holders? This seems like an easy lesson to learn. I imagine the engineering time and injection molds cost them a huge chunk of cash.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 58 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You would think the people in charge of production would have pressed management on it:

"Hey, did we get permission this time? Or is it the Dark Plates all over again?"

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 21 points 2 days ago

There is no need to ask for permission, if you can simply pray. It's an old trick and sometimes it even works.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 28 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sometimes it's best to ask for forgiveness rather than permission. They made a different dark plate later on that was different enough, they'll do the same thing here. We'll see "Friendly Cube" before the year is over.

Plus huge marketing win. They probably got a bunch of new users to visit their website and saw a huge uptick in overall sales.

[–] thisisbutaname@discuss.tchncs.de 28 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

Sometimes it's best to ask for forgiveness rather than permission.

Ah, yes, the Christian way

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Deconceptualist@leminal.space 73 points 2 days ago

Y'know when this was first prototyped I considered asking whether was licensed, but thought, "Nah, dbrand wouldn't be that stupid, I'm sure they worked it out with Valve". Heh. Too much faith on my part I guess.

[–] shweddy@lemmy.world 61 points 2 days ago

Dbrand and not getting a license name a better duo

[–] zigmus64@lemmy.world 46 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Sucks… good on D-brand for handling it with class though.

[–] boatswain@infosec.pub 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, nice to see companies taking ownership of mistakes. Shame they didn't ask first.

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 63 points 2 days ago

Look at Dbrand's history before giving them any sympathy. Thanks to @woelkchen@lemmy.world for pointing it out.

[–] gedfromgont@piefed.ca 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Handling with class? They just tried to get away with something that clearly doesn't work that way. You don't make a product based on a known franchise without contacting the franchise owner about it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 38 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Ouch... Getting injection moulds made is really REALLY pricey. That's an expensive lesson.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

Yeah, I'm seriously wondering how you get to that point without making sure you're allowed to do the thing. Injection molding is a fuck ton of principal that you make up for in volume.

[–] MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io 35 points 2 days ago (1 children)

But really good marketing. They got the emails of a bunch of people interested in Steam hardware, they got their name out there to folks like me who’ve never heard of them. They put out a sincere sounding apology, gave automatic full refunds, and in 18 months I’ll probably remember them as a trustable brand but forget it was because they did a dumbass copyright infringement.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Mearcfara@lemmy.ml 22 points 2 days ago (3 children)

It's cool that they copped to it as well as they did. I wouldn't have expected that.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mlg@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (5 children)

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.

[–] Westcoastdg@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

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 potential fraud liability here, the same way trademark owners are required to legally pursue copycat brands to prevent customers from being defrauded

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] savvywolf@pawb.social 5 points 2 days ago

Would you want to have a business relationship with someone with a "do things first, ask for permission after" attitude?

[–] Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Shooting from the hip: The enclosure could have been a thermal nightmare that valve didn’t want their name on.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›