News from the lovely world of the Games Industry.

[Syt]

https://www.pcgamer.com/games/notorious-uk-rights-group-launches-legal-action-against-valve-for-distributing-music-in-games-on-steam-without-a-license/

Notorious UK rights group launches legal action against Valve for distributing music in games on Steam without a license

The Performing Right Society says a license to use music in a game does not constitute the right to distribute that music, via the game, to the public.

Valve is facing a new legal headache in the UK, and this one is definitely not like the others. The Performing Right Society, a rights management organization that collects royalties on behalf of musicians when their work is played publicly, has launched legal action against Valve over its use of PRS members' music on Steam without permission.

The PRS says that many of the games available on Steam feature music made by its members, and that by making those musical works available to the public via streaming or download, "Valve is communicating these works to the public without a licence."

"Our members create music that enhances experiences and PRS exists to protect the value of their work with integrity, transparency, and fairness," PRS for Music chief commercial officer Dan Gopal said.

"Legal proceedings are not a step we take lightly, but when a business's actions undermine those principles, we have a duty to act. Great videogames rely on great soundtracks, and the songwriters and creators behind them deserve to have their contribution recognised and fairly valued."

I initially assumed that this lawsuit was specifically about game soundtracks on Steam, which struck me as odd because surely no major game publisher would release an official soundtrack without the proper licenses in place. But a PRS spokesperson clarified that the action is related to any music, in games as well as soundtracks, that Valve hasn't separately licensed for distribution.

So, for instance, Rockstar will have obtained licenses to use PRS members' music in Grand Theft Auto games, but the PRS says those licenses do not allow for the separate act of making the game, which contains the music, available online.

"Copyright law gives rights holders control over certain acts, including copying, public performance, broadcast, and making available online," the spokesperson explained to me. "When someone wishes to use a copyright work like music in this way, permission from the rights holders is required, which is normally done via a licence. PRS represents songwriters, composers and music publishers, and licenses these uses of their musical works.

"In this case the relevant act which has not been authorised is the making available of the music online. The composer or publisher of the music may have cleared the rights for the work to be used by the developer in the relevant game, but there is a separate act carried out by the platform operator when the game (or its soundtrack) is made available to consumers for streaming or download .

"Valve operates the Steam store and is responsible for the downloads and streaming delivered to customers via its platform. Valve therefore plays an essential role in giving the public access to that music."

It all seems very odd to me, and a real reach too, although I readily acknowledge that I'm not familiar with the intricacies of UK copyright law and licensing requirements. The PRS does have a history of aggressive behavior with this sort of thing, though. In 2007, for instance, it took an auto repair shop in Scotland to court because its employees were listening to radios at work, which the PRS said constituted public performances of music. In 2009 it went after a woman who played classical music to help soothe her horses; that same year, it told a woman working at a grocery store that she wasn't allowed to sing while she stocked shelves unless she obtained a public performance license. In that case, at least, the backlash was so furious that the group withdrew the demand and apologized.

As for why it's launching this legal action now, the PRS said it's sought the required licenses "for many years without appropriate engagement from Valve." It also noted that Valve is facing a roughly $900 million lawsuit in the UK for overcharging gamers and "abusing a dominant market position," so maybe it just decided to strike while the suing Valve iron is hot.

What is the point of licensing the music if you can't sell the product afterwards?

Also, shouldn't they go after Netflix & Co, too?

[Syt]

https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/epic-games-lays-off-more-than-1-000-employees-were-spending-significantly-more-than-were-making-ceo-tim-sweeney-says/

Epic Games lays off more than 1,000 employees: 'We're spending significantly more than we're making,' CEO Tim Sweeney says

Epic Games has laid off more than 1,000 employees. CEO Tim Sweeney says the company is still "spending significantly more" than it's making as a result of an ongoing slump in Fortnite engagement that began in 2025, which has necessitated "major cuts to keep the company funded."

Sweeney said some of the problems facing Epic are endemic to the game industry, such as "current consoles selling less than last generation's," while others are unique to Epic. "Despite Fortnite remaining one of the most successful games in the world, we've had challenges delivering consistent Fortnite magic with every season," Sweeney wrote about the layoffs.

Sweeney also referenced Epic's years-long legal disputes with Apple and Google, an effort that ultimate resulted in victory for Epic but only after a drawn-out and surely very expensive process: "We're only in the early stages of returning to mobile and optimizing Fortnite for the world's billions of smartphones; and in being the industry's vanguard we have taken a lot of bullets in a battle which is only in the early days of paying off for ourselves and all developers."

Sweeney also stated the layoffs "aren't related to AI."

The plan going forward is to "build awesome Fortnite experiences with fresh seasonal content, gameplay, story, and live events," Sweeney continued, and "build awesome Fortnite experiences with fresh seasonal content, gameplay, story, and live events." He also teased a launch of "the next generation of Epic" nearer the end of the year, and your guess is as good as ours as to what that will entail.

"Market conditions today are the most extreme we've seen" since the early days of Epic, which was founded in 1991 and officially became Epic Megagames the following year, Sweeney wrote. But there's also "massive opportunity for the companies that come out as winners on the other side," he added, which is what Epic is now focused on.

The layoffs come just over two years after Epic laid off more than 800 employees, cuts that occurred in September 2023 for essentially the same reason: "We've been spending way more money than we earn," Sweeney said at the time. He said in October 2024 that Epic was "financially sound" after spending the previous year "rebuilding and really executing solidly on all fronts." It also follows just two weeks after Epic raised the price of Fortnite V-Bucks, saying "the cost of running Fortnite has gone up a lot."

Epic told PC Gamer that following the layoffs it will have just over 4,000 employees remaining.

[Sophie Scholl]

"Sweeney also stated the layoffs 'aren't related to AI.'"

 
*insert "Sure, Jan." meme here.*

Although, to be fair, I think the c-level suite crew's salaries and foolish missteps were also a factor that adds to the disaster that was ai investing.

[The Minsky Moment]

Epic's business consists of:

1. Fortnite
2. Unreal Engine
3. Epic Game Store
4. Random flotsam and jetsam

Fortnite and Unreal Engine royalties are cash cows. There is no way their costs are higher than revenues for those lines.  It's probably true that Fortnite has peaked and maybe they don't need or want the staffing level they currently have to over-saturate the market with pointless variants like Fortnite: Chartered Accountancy and Fortnite: Killer Erkel.  But that's about maintaining profit margins not avoiding losses.

The Game Store OTOH is a money pit. But I doubt staffing is a major contributor to those losses.  Steam runs their more substantial store on a shoestring.  EGS is losing money because no one buys games there but they are paying the cost on the free game giveaway programs.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I think Epic's problem is they over-hired in an effort to diversify their revenue stream, and keep the Fortnite momentum going.  It hasn't panned out, though, so now they have to cut the excess to survive.  They should probably just accept that they are now a game engine company who also maintains a popular game on the side.  They could do that with even less head count than they'll have after this layoff.

[garbon]

Yeah why do they still give away so many games?

[Syt]

Epic said a while ago that them giving away games for free was good for the devs because it usually would trigger a sales bump on Steam for them.