You're upset that you can't buy incest and grape fantasy games on Steam now? Wild.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not making a moral judgment or being upset about the banning of these particular games.
But I specifically don't like that people's right to choose is influenced by completely unknown and unelected people.
If this or that content is dangerous or illegal, then the government of any region on Steam has the right to make a request and prohibit its implementation in its specific region for its specific citizens.
Comment has been collapsed.
If a person wants to rape someone, would you be upset if nobody allowed them the right to choose that action?
Comment has been collapsed.
Please remind me, are we discussing plots of fictional worlds or are you dragging real life into this for some reason?
Maybe then we should ban Lord of the Rings for promoting violence?
Comment has been collapsed.
I think this is whataboutism.
Murder isn't a basic human desire.
Quite contrary to sexual drive (excluding asexuals)
Comment has been collapsed.
Rape doesn't come from from "basic human desire" any more than murder does. Both are sick acts done in the name of power hungry sociopaths. Do not confuse it with sex drive. A well adjusted individual that doesn't have sex in a long stretch of time doesn't just doesn't get up one day and says "I'm gonna rape someone". Do you claim otherwise?
Also, I don't see how it's whataboutism. I'm trying to understand where the line is. What games will we be left with after this wave of censorship.
Comment has been collapsed.
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "but what about X?")[1] is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation.
Original discussion was about sex, until you came up with violence. This is a prime example of whataboutism.
I'm also not an psychologist, who can categorize rape correctly, but I think it satisfies sexual drive to some extent. And i also heard about it being a sexual fantasy, even from females (who romanticizes it) I never heard of violence fantasies.
And you completely left out all other sorts of "sexual preferences", like pedophilia or fetishes.
You can even get sex addicted. I think that's not possible with violence, like killing multiple people per day.
What happens, if people who satisfied their needs with these degenerate games and it suddenly isn't enough anymore.
Violence in video games is often just used as a means to an end, the end being a competition or challenge, which has nothing to do with violence per se.
But nudity and fetishes in games are used for jerking off, which is directly connected with the first and probably only be played by a male audience. Ask your mother, sister, gf or female friend, what they'll think about players of such games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Original discussion was about sex, until you came up with violonce
I'm sorry, rape is not violence? Do you think rape is just sex?
Now I understand why you thought my comment was whataboutism. Let me make it very clear then: Both rape and murder are forms of violence.
You can even get sex addicted. I think that's not possible with violence, like killing multiple people per day.
You should watch the news more often. What do you think serial killers are? Or, more accurately, how do you think they differ from serial rapists? Do you know how often serial rapists are also killers, and vice versa?
And i also heard about it being a sex fantasy, even from females (who romanticiezes it)
I don't see why that needed to be specified. Men can get raped, too.
I never heard of violence fantasies.
No, those definitely exist.
And you completely left out all other sorts of "sexual preferences", like pedophilia or fetishes.
And you said I practice whataboutism. In any cases, "fetishes" is much too general to me to understand what you mean, but I don't understand how could you possibly mention fetishes in the same breath as pedophilia.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sorry, rape is not violence?
Where did I said that?
To be precise it's sexual violence, but why do you insist on that specific example, when it was only mentioned once before in another context?
Probably to discuss more about your whataboutism of violence and not the initial topic, which was sex games?
What do you think serial killers are?
Yes, that's the only example and even these aren't killing multiple times per day and I never heard of people being addicted to beating up others. Still discussing about the whataboutism.
Do you know how often serial rapists are also killers, and vice versa?
Rapists often kill to hide their crime, but I didn't heard of killers also being rapists. Still discussing about the whataboutism.
I don't see why that needed to be specified. Men can get raped, too.
Sure, but that isn't on topic and is distorting the discussion avoiding any discussion about the initial topic.
No, those definitely exist.
Because you say so? And even if violence fantasies exist, they're definitely more rare than sexual fanatsies, don't you think so? Still discussing about the whataboutism.
but I don't understand how could you possibly mention fetishes in the same breath as pedophilia.
I'm still talking on topic and in the context of sex games, japanese schoolgirls and all that big tittied girls drawn being underaged and such. And with fetishes i tried to find a term for things mentioned before and covered in these sex games, BDSM, incest, grape...
Why are we discussing rape and psychopaths now, when the inital topic was something completely else? I refuse to engage in this any further.
I already explained why violence in games isn't the same as sex in games twice, I won't do it a third time.
Comment has been collapsed.
The first comment in this thread is literally "You're upset that you can't buy incest and grape fantasy games on Steam now? Wild.", and their second comment was "If a person wants to rape someone, would you be upset if nobody allowed them the right to choose that action?". So rape, and therefore violence, was always the topic of this thread.
Yes, that's the only example and even these aren't killing multiple times per day
Oh, some people would kill multiple people a day if they could. Again, watch the news. Just to give you an example: school shooters.
and I never heard of people being addicted to beating up others.
You've never heard about physical/domestic abusers?
Rapists often kill to hide their crime, but I didn't heard of killers also being rapists. Still discussing about the whataboutism.
What I read from you is a lot of "I don't know" or "I never heard" and yet you have a fierce opinion on things. You should some knowledge on the topic of discussion before making the claims you've made in this thread.
And even if violence fantasies exist, they're definitely more rare than sex fanatsies.
Because you say so?
There's absolutely no way you're on the internet and never heard of BDSM. AKA, violence fantasies.
Why are we discussing rape and psychopaths now, when the inital topic was something completely else? I refuse to engage in this any further.
I already explained why violence in games isn't the same as sex in games twice, I won't do it a third time.
Thank god! Because, by your own words: "I'm also not an psychologist". And boy, are you right.
I'd address the pedophila part, too, but I refuse to engage with whataboutism.
Comment has been collapsed.
The first comment in this thread is literally "You're upset that you can't buy incest and grape fantasy games on Steam now? Wild.", and their second comment was "If a person wants to rape someone, would you be upset if nobody allowed them the right to choose that action?". So rape, and therefore violence, was always the topic of this thread.
Sure mate, whatever you say, and as I explained earlier rape is sexual violence. You always try to paint it like the discussion was about violence, which it wasn't. It was your whataboutism.
You've never heard about physical/domestic abusers?
Hello straw man, you're mixmatching, that's not an addiction. And you're telling me to get some knowledge?
What I read from you is a lot of "I don't know"
Mixmatching again, never wrote IDK
There's absolutely no way you're on the internet and never heard of BDSM. AKA, violence fantasies.
You're wrong, BDSM is still a sexual preference and not a violence fantasy. And you're telling me to get some knowledge?
Because, by your own words: "I'm also not an psychologist". And boy, are you right.
Well and you're discussing like having a degree, which you obviously don't have either.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure mate, whatever you say, and as I explained earlier rape is sexual violence. You always try to paint it like the discussion was only about violence, which it wasn't. It was your whataboutism.
So the discussion was about violence, too. Cool, glad we could figure this out.
Hello straw man, you're mixmatching, that's not an addiction.
And rape is an addiction?
Mixmatching again, never wrote IDK
If you want me to be literal, here are the examples of your "IDK":
I'm also not an psychologist, who can categorize rape correctly
I never heard of violence fantasies.
I think that's not possible with violence
I never heard of people being addicted to beating up others
I didn't heard of killers also being rapists
I can also add the "facts" you proudly proclaim or imply, like how "And even if violence fantasies exist, they're definitely more rare than sex fanatsies", and "BDSM is still a sexual preference and not a violence fantasy.", but I grew weary from this discussion already.
Well and you're discussing like having a degree, which you obviously don't have either.
Exactly! Which is why I'm against this censorship. There is no valid reason to censor Steam, especially not "credit card companies don't want that". I understand the destain from porn games, as someone who avoids sexual fan service in the media I consume, but I've yet to hear one solid, backed up argument from you to justify this censorship. And even if there was one it definitely should not happen like this. Not by being strong armed by a bunch of credit card companies. With that, I rest my case. Good day.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you're saying everybody who plays violent video games are murderers?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep. This stupid rhetoric question has been made since probably the 90's.
Comment has been collapsed.
Doesn't matter when it was first made. It isn't stupid because it applies to every argument when somebody says stupid shit like what was stated here.
Comment has been collapsed.
But it is, I agree with you.
I remember a "Bullshit!" episode where Penn & Teller follow a kid really likes FPS games, and during the whole episode they try to prove that violent video games do not turn kids, or adults, into murderers. At the end of the episode, they give that same a kid an actual rifle or gun to try and shoot it, and the kid starts crying because he's scared, and he doesn't want to do it. And the point was made.
Comment has been collapsed.
But I specifically don't like that people's right to choose is influenced by completely unknown and unelected people.
This is (likely) not the case at all as implied - that someone unknown decided these games are "bad". It's a cased of how things progress and compound into unteneable situations as part of (possibly) unintended results of other legal decisions and laws made around (somewhat) unrelated things.
In my understanding this isn't made as part of any moral judgement at all - it does not even come into play as a part of it.
Again; in my understanding this is simply done to avoid posssble lawsuits when dealing with after-the-fact- illegal things.
It is not driven by Valve, or anyone there but by the large payment processsors (Visa, Mastercard, etc) to avoid being liable as "enablers" in the selling, purchasing, or money transferring around illegal items. Or anything that might become labelled as illegal after the fact.
And this is more due poor legislation around these issues than anything else. The people to be mad at is actually the very well known elected legislators that have written laws that make companies like Visa and MasterCard open to lawsuits if nthey åprocess payments directly for such things, or even indirectly - like in this case: Supporting Valves financial movements while they also sell thimngs that might in the future bring lawsuits.
Comment has been collapsed.
Frankly I'd be glad to see less of '18+ shemale furry jigsaw' type of jank on Steam, but you're missing the point there. What's wild is private companies thinking themselves sheriffs or something and dictating others what they can/cannot do.
I don't remember all the details, but Visa, Mastercard and Paypal pulled that shit before in Japan (mainly for but not limited to adult sites).
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm definitely not missing the point. In reality, those games should never have been on Steam in the first place. It would have been easy enough for Valve to open a separate storefront with proper checks and balances if they wanted to sell that stuff. The fact that services Valve use don't want to be associated with that crap is actually kind of surprising and refreshing. I also would refuse to continue letting Valve use my payment services just like they did. And that would be my choice. Valve could of course choose to seek alternative means of collecting money if they really wanted to. But they don't.
Buy directly from the devs if you don't like it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Buy directly from the devs if you don't like it.
your definitely missing the point... the payment processors are disallowing the purchases anywhere. They are effectively dictating what content is allowed in the digital world and what sites can exist. Being removed from steam for content not being what a payment processors likely means its also removed or about to be removed from everywhere else for the same reason.
also remember most people don't really have a choice of payment processors(Visa/Mastercard/Discover/Amex are basically the only choices in the USA if you want a debit/credit card)... and 2 of those are partnered with alot of financial institutions... aka where people bank and is where they will get their card from.
these companies can f right off with forcing their morality on others.
Comment has been collapsed.
Those payment providers are used to pay for more or less disgusting services daily. Their perceived anonymity and neutrality is the reason for their widespread use in monetary transactions.
Seeing them transform to a sort of private moral police suddenly is disturbing to say the least.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Buy directly from the devs" with visa or mastercard?
"The fact that services Valve use don't want to be associated"
Ok, let me see... What visa and mastercard associate with
REAL Porn? - hell, yeah. It's huge.
Onlyfans? - Yes, of course.
Used panties or lingerie.? - Why not?
AI sex bots? - the future.
Custom sexting / roleplay? - totally private..
Sex dolls and custom toys, even 3D-modeled from real people? - I respect all kinks.
Kinks and Fetishes, like “Jarred farts” or “bathwater” – made famous by influencers (e.g., Belle Delphine), Scat/pee play, Virtual sex in VR, etc, etc? - All good business
NSFW games or manga? - NO. NEVER. THAT'S WHERE I DRAW THE LINE. I'M GOING TO BAN IT WORLDWIDE BECAUSE I'M A MONOPOLY. YOU DON'T LIKE IT? FUCK YOU. I'M A MONOPOLY.
If Visa and mastercard don't mind real porn, onlyfans, sex dolls or scat/pee plays, i think they could leave us alone. I don't want the goverment to decide which games i can play, i DEFINITELY don't want payment processors to decide which games I can play. Let's say tomorrow they decide they totally respect LGTBI rights, they just don't want to associate themselves with it. It would all disappear from internet in a second. They are too big
Comment has been collapsed.
Your opinion of what they should or should not be okay with is just that. An opinion. Their opinion is they don't want to be associated with it for whatever reason they've chosen and choose not to support bullshit incest and rape games on Steam. You have decided they should not have a choice with what they do with their company or who they choose to do business with.
Bottom line is you either are okay with them also having a choice, or you wish to control who has a choice. Whereas you still do in fact have choices. You don't have to pay with credit cards. There are definitely many other payment options available to use as payment directly to shit developers creating shit games that only shit people buy. You might choose not to use them for a variety of reasons, but they do in fact exist.
Comment has been collapsed.
"You don't have to pay with credit cards. ". Ok. I want to buy a game. Tell me with what if i can't pay with credit cards
Let's say FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE you decided to nit pay with credit cards. Surely, you are saying it's just a choice right? I don't like this socks. I don't credit card companies. I choose to use other socks. I choose bot to use credit cards. I am buying online. Tell me what to do. Surely if it's a chice, i have choices, right?
Saying that people can just “use other payment options” sounds simple, but in practice, it’s often not viable. Credit and debit cards dominate the online marketplace, and alternatives are frequently limited, insecure, or not accessible in many regions
"they've chosen" Tomorrow they choose they don't want to be associated with aby LGTBI. Would you support their stance they can choose whatever they want? If you support their stance of choosing, surely you support itball the way.
The issue isn't just about "shitty" games or extreme content. It's that the definitions of what's acceptable are often vague, inconsistently applied, and can end up impacting far less controversial content as a result. Credit card companies exert enormous influence over digital commerce, and when they collectively decide to restrict certain content, it can feel less like “freedom of choice” and more like corporate censorship by proxy — especially in spaces like Steam that are otherwise open platforms.
Look, no one’s arguing they can’t choose who to do business with. The point is that when credit card companies start acting as moral gatekeepers — deciding which games are “too offensive” for grown adults to buy — we have every right to question that. Especially when these same companies have no problem processing payments for gambling sites, violent shooters, or the internet’s actual pornography. But sure, pixelated sex in a bad visual novel is where they draw the line. Makes total sense.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd like to hear what you say when your electricity company choses to cut your power line because they don't like your actions. Corporate entities should fulfill their purpose and not dabble in things they have no business with ideally.
Comment has been collapsed.
Utility companies are required by law to provide services as long as you can pay for them. They can and do cut off your power if you don't pay. In effect, if they don't like that you didn't pay your bill, they do exactly what you just suggested as a hypothetical. As another example, if I walk into a restaurant with no shirt and no shoes on, they can refuse service. It's actually commonplace as a business to make decisions based on your customer's activities.
Corporate entities are run by people and said entities and their purpose reflects the ideals or lack thereof, of the people who run them. Just as you run your life based on your ideals or lack thereof.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes,yes, if Steam would choose to sell those games no more due to their own choosing or because of user protests we would have another discussion. If it's a punishable offense it should be the task of the judiciary to investigate and regulate.
All those cases are different from a non-governmental corporation making decisions for the public and taking over the role of the state.
Comment has been collapsed.
We'd actually be having the same conversation. The "how dare they" conversation. The conversation would not have changed at all.
Restaurants, which I used as an example, are not governmental. And while all businesses do have to follow some sort of government regulations, they also make their own policies as to how they want to operate their businesses. If some dbag is yelling and screaming in my establishment, I'm kicking them out. It's not a government issue. It's an "I will no longer tolerate you yelling and screaming in my business" issue. Businesses are more or less free to do what they want as long as they aren't discriminating against an ethnic group, gender type, or religious persuasion. That sort of thing. Here at least.
Comment has been collapsed.
This isn't social media, you don't have to use algo-speak terminology like "grape". If you don't feel comfortable with the actual word at least use proper euphemisms instead of this infantilizing nonsense, please.
And to preemptively explain my point before someone comes swinging at me: I dislike the use of this cutesy language for serious topics, it robs the subject matter of its inherent gravity and kinda feels disrespectful to the actual victims. Feel free to explain to me why I'm wrong tho, this is mostly a gut feeling of rejection towards this advertising-friendly brand of censorship that I can't shake.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, I agree with you there. It's easy to fall into the pattern of using social media terms despite it not necessarily being required here.
Comment has been collapsed.
The only thing that worries the "One True Christian of the One True Christian Orthodox Russian Church".)
Comment has been collapsed.
Come to Germany, they protect you from all this evil. :D
(but to be honest I don't miss these Incest games at all, it's enough I see them all day on SG)
Comment has been collapsed.
Germany has Two big reasons for that.
Reason I and II.
Comment has been collapsed.
What you're hinting at, is another topic and one of the past, since swastikas etc. are allowed to be shown in games by now.
That all adult content games were removed from German store years ago, was similarly to this case due to Valve being threatened to be sued.
Comment has been collapsed.
since swastikas etc. are allowed to be shown in games by now.
Only, if they are used in an educational context and/or criticize the Nazi regime.
They're still forbidden in games where you can play as Nazi Germany.
Comment has been collapsed.
No thanks... Your Döner kebab is prepared worse than in Turkey. ))))
Comment has been collapsed.
I often eat Döner (from the same restaurant) and can't complain! But you may be right - never have eaten Döner from Turkey so can't compare.
Comment has been collapsed.
Germany doesn't ban such games. Steam voluntarily restricted them, because they fail to check if they sell mature content to adults only.
And frankly, in the age of smartphones with NFC and ID cards with eID, I don't see any reason why stores shouldn't be able to do what is requested.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you have a source, that this is "due to the requirements of payment operators"?
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
yea, this is mostly because of Visa and Mastercard...
while alot of these won't be missed, they are abusing their powers as a payment processor.
hoping some country like the EU starts regulating these companies... they shouldn't wield power against content they consider impure... that should be up to the consumer(as long as said content is legal).
Comment has been collapsed.
as long as said content is legal
If someone started making laws about prohibiting interactive games that portray rape and incest, people would be all up in arms that it's censorship so I don't really see how the legal argument matters.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well then let's ask these people to protect us from all violence.
I agree that Incest and non-consensual sex are bad.
But killing a person is even worse...
So let's ban Counter Strike, Call of Duty, Dota 2, strategies like Stellaris or Starcraft.
Or do you think that murder and genocide are not such terrible phenomena and should not be censored?
Comment has been collapsed.
legal argument is because this extends beyond video games. Anime, Manga(mostly Hentai/Doujinshi I believe, but some manga to) and more have been hit by Visa/MasterCard already.
if it wasn't such a pain in the ass and absolute murder to my credit score(as it would nuke my available credit and push me way higher in %utilization) I would abandon all my Visa credit cards for Amex or Discover over this and close those credit lines.
Comment has been collapsed.
if it wasn't such a pain in the ass and absolute murder to my credit score(as it would nuke my available credit and push me way higher in %utilization) I would abandon all my Visa credit cards for Amex or Discover over this and close those credit lines.
And as I say up-thread I totally agree with that. The fact these companies have that kind of power is more concerning than a bunch of revolting porn games being removed from a store. But we allowed it in the first place.
Comment has been collapsed.
And they might have acted based on this: https://www.collectiveshout.org/open-letter-to-payment-processors
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, that one lines up too perfectly to be a coincidence. I guess these people are literally those who shout "think of the children" and demand random censorship.
Fuck it's not like I wanna argue in favor of rape and incest but there's a difference between pure fantasy and the actual stuff, or at least I hope so. I feel like there's a lot of context being purposefully ignored.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly, I don't really care about these games, but I'm super annoyed that MasterCard, Visa and Paypall are trying to control what people buy. They are supposed to provide people services that they are paid for, not trying to act like everyone's "mommy". If I remember correctly something like this already happaned with mangas in Japan, hope this will create incentive for new payment processors and more competition
Comment has been collapsed.
The people who run those companies also get to choose what they're willing to associate with. If you don't like their choice, you can choose to seek other means of doing what they're unwilling to do. That's how choice actually works.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not if these companies monopolize their industry. Then their choice doesn't leave you any choice.
And the best example for this is how they made even Steam cave to their demands. Within few days.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's how choice actually works.
No, MasterCard, Visa etc. are business, they provide services (agreed to and signed) for a compenastion. Their services are literally transfering funds from party A to party B, that's it. Their clients did not give them consent to pre-select businesses that they can buy from for them. I'm somewhat confident that considering it was several biggest payment processors that started behaving like this, there is a case for FTC to check for antimonopoly, antitrust violations
Comment has been collapsed.
"If I don't like how this monopoly works, I'll use another"... Except i can't, because that's not how monopolies work
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty sure we had this conversation before my friend but Steam doesn't have a monopoly
Those games literally still exist. Just like pedophile porn. Steam just doesn't sell it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam doesn't have a monopoly. But other than visa and mastercard, which worldwide payment processors are there?
That's the monopoly I'm talking about
Comment has been collapsed.
They literally make money off this business and they decided not to anymore.
If they were making money off drugs sold in supermarket under a false label and they decided not to anymore, people would be celebrating.
Don't drug users have the right to choose and to have easy access to their drug of choice?
Comment has been collapsed.
They literally make money off this business and they decided not to anymore
Not so simple. They (Visa/MasterCard) offered their services to businesses (stores operating legally!) and people (individuals buying legal staff). After starting their partnership (and getting major share of the market), Visa/MasterCard decided to change TOS unilateraly and even started pressuring businesses, who were operating 100% according to the law of the land, to change the way they do business.
If they were making money off drugs sold in supermarket under a false label
What? Do you understand the difference between legal and illegal? You provided an example of something illegal. Making and selling stupid games on platform such as Steam in NOT illegal, thus Visa and MasterCard should have no say in what kind of games Steam sells.
Comment has been collapsed.
What? Do you understand the difference between legal and illegal?
No. I don't. Because I'm a moron.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, I wrote about this topic on my blog yesterday.📝
In short, in 2024, Visa and Mastercard suddenly blocked payments to an archive of old manga (legally licensed by copyright holders), making it inaccessible for free viewing.
This archive contained depictions considered potentially age-inappropriate by some, leading to speculation about being flagged as child pornography in the past.
The service, which was previously shut down, recently recovered through crowdfunding. However, due to concerns about continued payment pressure stemming from outdated content that clashes with current Western values, they are currently curating the archive by removing some of the more provocative (sexually suggestive) material while continuing to operate.
Other Nico Nico Douga and DMM content was damaged by them.
This situation is indicative of the potential consequences of the 15th item in Steam's terms of service, which effectively removes any recourse for users whose purchased content is suddenly deleted or unsupported. I believe this is a negative development, and it reminds me of the prohibition era in America – history tends to repeat itself.
Comment has been collapsed.
stemming from outdated content that clashes with current Western values
I'm sorry but "current Western values" got me 🤣
I believe this is a negative development, and it reminds me of the prohibition era in America – history tends to repeat itself.
Another oversized comparison.
Comment has been collapsed.
😁I wish I could joke about it too.
But..
I'm afraid of mass pandering.
Have observed unnatural behavior, such as the resurrection of suspicious games on Steam that were supposed to have been quickly closed to the public.
Also, it's already 2024 in Japan after all the bad damage done.
2024-11-06
“It’s a security hole that endangers democracy itself.” NieR creator speaks out against payment processors pressuring Japanese adult content platforms - AUTOMATON WEST
The service(manga & library), which was closed at the time, was only finally restored through crowdfunding two months ago.
I would not like to think that Steam will be in serious trouble in the future if possible.
Don't be surprised if new games released by indie developers from now on will soon disappear and cause a certain national vendor to release them as new new games.
I just saw something disturbing a few hours ago.
📝
[My statement in this discussion]
https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/lsngD0F
https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/Zxrfev6
https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/UKbtJBa
https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/8m099Q5
Comment has been collapsed.
its absolutely wild people are getting upset about this, im sick and tired of seeing this disgusting trash when i look for games on steam, this is a WIN for Steam
Comment has been collapsed.
You know that there is a filter for adult content in shop options?
Comment has been collapsed.
There are literally adult filters on steam. There are genres I absolutely dislike. But that's notna reason to ban them from Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
No. There are "adult content" filters, which filter everything including bona fide games that are too mature for children like The Last of Us or The Witcher.
The only way to avoid the constant assault of trash (which by the way has not been removed from Steam) is to filter out everything.
It's like having a filter on Netflix that removes every movie not made for kids just to avoid the "13 year old tentacle rape" movies they would be showing.
Except Netflix doesn't have that kind of movies and if they did and removed them, people wouldn't be screaming censorship.
They'd just put down their remote and go look for it on the internet as they should.
Comment has been collapsed.
And if Netflix/steam decides to not put those games in their service, it's their decision.
When mommy-goverment-Payment processors decides that everybody else will have to follow their rules, and since they can make the rules, everybody have yo obey, there is a problem. And that's literally the definition of censorship, when somebody forces others to remove things even if they do not want.
Using another example I used before. If steam decides they don't want LGTBI games on their service (and there is no way to filter them) it's still their choice. If payment processors-the goverment decides they don't want any LGTBI stuff, they are not giving anybody the choice. They are enforcing what they want. That would be censorship
Comment has been collapsed.
If steam decides they don't want LGTBI games on their service (and there is no way to filter them) it's still their choice
And if they do, they'll loose customers. That's how the market works.
When mommy-goverment-Payment processors decides that everybody else will have to follow their rules, and since they can make the rules, everybody have yo obey, there is a problem.
I get your point but again should it have been on Steam in the first place?
Comment has been collapsed.
"And if they do, they'll loose customers" visa and mastercard will lose customers to who? Who exactly will use LGTBI devs? Nope. LGTBI will just disappear from the market. People will buy other things. Visa and mastercard won't lose anything That's why it's worrying when payment processors don't use a neutral stance
"should it have been on Steam in the first place?" i like steam because they are doing what i want payment processors to do: stay neutral. I bet somebody love those games. I bet somebody hate them. I don't like them. But I don't want others to decide what should steam put in their marketplace. If i only defended things i like, I'm not defending freedom, I'm just defending my taste
"If you don't defend the right of people to say things you don't like, then you don't believe in free speech. It's not about defending the speech you like. It's about defending the speech you hate."
Or another way of saying it "Freedom of speech means defending the stuff you don’t like. Otherwise, who decides what’s okay?"
Comment has been collapsed.
Freedom of speech only applies to the government reacting to what you say. While you are free to say whatever you like in 'free' nations, you aren't free from consequence from what you say if other people hear you. PirateSoftware is a good current example of this. He was free to say whatever he wanted, and people were free to respond however they wanted. Which they did.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh totally, you're right — freedom of speech is only about the government. Silly me, I forgot the sacred rule that as long as it’s not the FBI kicking down your door, it’s totally fine for mobs, payment processors, or corporations to destroy someone’s career for saying something unpopular. That’s not censorship, that’s just “consequences,” right?
Funny though — the Cambridge Dictionary defines censorship as "the act of removing parts of books, films, etc. or stopping them from being published or shown, especially because they are considered offensive or harmful."
No mention of it having to come only from a government. Weird, huh?
Oxford English Dictionary censorship: "The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.". Hmmm. Ni goverment? Weird.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary Censorship: "The act of changing or suppressing speech or writing that is considered subversive of the common good." where exactly did you get the definition of censorship as only from the goverment?
(sigh) Let’s all clap for a society where giant financial institutions can quietly blacklist creators because a loud enough crowd gets mad online. What a vibrant culture of expression! So brave. So free
And sure, Visa and Mastercard won’t lose customers — because they’ve cornered the market. That’s the beauty of a duopoly: you can punish whoever you want and still act like you’re just responding to “natural” market forces. It’s like freedom, except with extra steps and fewer options.
But hey, who needs neutral platforms or principled consistency when you’ve got outrage and vibes?
Comment has been collapsed.
But hey, who needs neutral platforms or principled consistency when you’ve got outrage and vibes?
It's funny you mention outrage, considering how you're posting. It's also comical that you're allowed to be outraged by something, but they aren't.
But as I said, while you're free to say what you want, that doesn't exempt you from consequences as a result of what you say. Life is not free from consequences no matter how much you might wish it was. My suggestion: ante-up. Stop using Visa and Mastercard. Show them you mean business. So to speak.
Comment has been collapsed.
"It's funny you mention outrage, considering how you're posting" Right, because the real issue here isn’t corporations cutting people off from financial services over speech — it’s my tone. Priorities.
"It's also comical that you're allowed to be outraged by something, but they aren't." The difference is, I’m not trying to suppress anyone's ability to speak or get paid. Being upset or even angry is normal — what matters is what you do with that outrage. If I were organizing a mob to deplatform someone or lobbying to get their livelihood cut off because I disagree with them, then you'd have a point. But pointing out censorship and abuse of power isn't the same as engaging in it.
Also — thanks for confirming that they are, in fact, acting out of outrage. That was kind of the point.
"Stop using Visa and Mastercard" As I said before, "Saying that people can just “use other payment options” sounds simple, but in practice, it’s often not viable. Credit and debit cards dominate the online marketplace, and alternatives are frequently limited, insecure, or not accessible in many regions" . I know that people today don't pay attention what others say, but I literally wrote that as an answer to you minutes ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't say it was going to be easy for you. Having choices doesn't mean all the choices are going to be easy. But they do exist. And if you care that much about buying something that a specific payment processor doesn't want to be associated with, you'll find a way without a doubt. Similarly, if you are this outraged, you shouldn't compromise your outrage even if it makes your life a bit more difficult.
As to their acting out of outrage, I never said they didn't. My position has been that they did not want to be associated with pedo/incest/rape games on Steam and acted accordingly. Unless they explicitly say why, we're just guessing, but it's easy enough to draw the conclusion that enabling the scummiest of scummy people is not something a lot of people want to do.
Comment has been collapsed.
" I didn't say it was going to be easy for you" That’s like saying: 'Sure, the state didn’t ban the book — it’s just that no bookstore is allowed to carry it, and no bank will let you buy it. But hey, if you really want it, you can smuggle a copy from abroad!'
See the problem?
The existence of technical workarounds doesn’t justify a system that’s actively designed to make certain voices disappear from mainstream visibility. When you say 'choices exist,' you're glossing over the fact that those choices are deliberately being made harder, more obscure, and less accessible — by design.
If enough pressure can make companies silently blacklist creators without due process, then the message isn’t “just find another way.” The message is: fall in line, or disappear. That’s not freedom — that’s control with plausible deniability.
You say I shouldn't compromise my outrage even if it makes life harder — fair enough. But why is the burden always on the censored to fight uphill, while the machinery doing the silencing gets to pretend it’s just ‘consumer choice
"My position has been that they did not want to be associated with pedo/incest/rape games " So just to be clear: you're defending Visa/Mastercard cutting off creators and entire genres of games, based on the assumption that they must be 'pedo/incest/rape' — even when many of the actual games blocked don't contain any of that? When games are being blocked just because the NAME sounded "adult" enough? Games are being blacklisted because they had adult content, and the companies wanted to avoid “association.” That’s not about protecting from criminal content. It’s about PR.
And sure, 'choices exist' — but if your access to commerce, platforms, or visibility depends on never offending a corporation’s brand manager or a small but loud group online, then that’s not a free market. That’s a filtered market — one where power, not principle, sets the limits.
Also, if outrage is now a valid justification for shutting down creators, then I hope you’re cool with anyone being shut down whenever someone else is outraged — including people whose work you might like. That’s the system you’re defending.
You haven't answered, by the way. Let me ask you something directly:
If tomorrow payment processors decide that LGTBI-themed games are 'too controversial,' and they start cutting them off to 'avoid association' — would you defend that too? Would you say “well, choices still exist,” or would you suddenly recognize that this system can be abused to suppress any marginalized voice?
Because the mechanism is the same. You’re just assuming it won’t ever target anything you care about. Because if your defense is 'private companies can associate or disassociate freely', then you’re not defending standards — you’re defending power. And that power can shift direction at any time. It’s about erasing entire genres because they’re uncomfortable or don’t fit a sanitized brand image. If you’re okay with that — great, just admit you're fine with censorship as long as it targets things you dislike. But don’t pretend it’s some principled stance on protecting people from actual harm
Comment has been collapsed.
You say I shouldn't compromise my outrage even if it makes life harder — fair enough. But why is the burden always on the censored to fight uphill, while the machinery doing the silencing gets to pretend it’s just ‘consumer choice
This is actually the part I want to focus on. Because I don't actually disagree with this core concept. The privileged always walk on the underprivileged, and my personal belief is that there are 8 billion of us and at most a couple hundred thousand of them. But really, they have less people than that if you take the sycophants out of the equation. And yet we allow them to walk on us. And so, it, for us, is always an uphill battle. It doesn't have to remain that way.
But change does require sacrifice. And they've made it so that we will need to sacrifice a lot. Because they want their oligarchy intact. And that is universal around the globe. One thing I've been saying for at least a decade now is that borders are just lines on a map that indicate which oligarchs control which people. And the sooner more people realize this and are angered by it; the sooner we can actually get some shit done. That is actually what my core philosophy is.
I know it seems like I'm defending payment processors unilaterally, but I'm not really. I am defending this decision though. Those games should never have been available on Steam to begin with. The fact that Valve didn't care until it was going to affect Gaben's ability to buy another Super Yacht is problematic.
And when people argue about choice, they generally leave out the part where the people they are upset at also had the right to make choices. You then get to make a choice based on their choices. But like you say, the burden is on you to fight upwards, a choice most people are unwilling to make.
If tomorrow payment processors decide that LGTBI-themed games are 'too controversial,' and they start cutting them off to 'avoid association' — would you defend that too? Would you say “well, choices still exist,” or would you suddenly recognize that this system can be abused to suppress any marginalized voice?
Would I be outraged by that? Yes. LGBTQ relationships harm nobody. Rape/incest/pedophilia on the other hand do harm somebody each and every time. Comparing the two is apples to oranges. You can say it's "only fantasy", but that's not really true. A person who thinks rape is exciting or what have you is not the type of person you want to indulge, and they are certainly top candidates to rape in real life as well. They may or they may not, but the fact they even think like that is a problem. I can tell you that my reaction to someone being LGBTQ is "cool. I hope you find happiness". My reaction to someone admitting they enjoy rape fantasy will be quite a bit different than that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for your honest reply. I truly appreciate you acknowledging the uphill battle and the grip oligarchies have on us — that’s a truth many refuse to see.
But here’s what worries me deeply: when you say “those games should never have been on Steam” based on assumptions and vague fears, I see a dangerous path. It’s not about defending harmful content — it’s about who holds the power to decide what is allowed to exist. And that power, once given to corporations or payment processors without oversight, will almost certainly be used to silence voices that challenge the status quo, that tell different stories, that represent marginalized communities.
You’re right to say LGBTQ+ content harms no one. And yes, abuse and exploitation hurt people deeply. But mixing those two under a vague banner of “controversy” or “association risk” is reckless. It’s like handing over a loaded gun to an institution that can decide who lives or dies in public discourse — without trials, without transparency.
But at the heart of this issue lies freedom of expression — the very foundation of any open society. When corporations like payment processors or platform owners can decide, without transparency or due process, which voices get to be heard, they are not just making business decisions. They are effectively deciding what ideas, stories, and identities are allowed to exist in public life. Freedom of expression means protecting speech and art that many find uncomfortable, controversial, or even offensive — as long as it is legal. It’s not about defending harmful acts or illegal content, but about defending the right of people to express themselves, even when others disapprove.
If you say you’d be outraged if LGBTQ+ games were cut off tomorrow, then I ask — why defend this broken system today, which already threatens those creators? The mechanism is the same, and the consequences are real. I’m glad you agree the burden is unfairly placed on the censored to fight back. But that means the answer isn’t to accept this power imbalance — it’s to fight for transparency, fairness, and legal standards that protect free expression and marginalized voices from being silenced by corporate fear or outrage mobs.
Freedom isn’t just a luxury for the popular or the powerful — it’s a lifeline for those who have no other platform. That’s why the fight is uphill. But surrendering that fight means surrendering all of us.
"My reaction to someone admitting they enjoy rape fantasy will be quite a bit different than that" 34 millon women bought the books of the Fifty Shades of Grey saga. When you talk like that, I imagine bands of nazi burning books. Banning or blacklisting art based on assumed intent or audience is a dangerous slope. It conflates artistic expression with criminal acts, and gives enormous power to decide what’s allowed — power that can and will be abused
Comment has been collapsed.
I do see where the divide is between how you feel and how I feel about this topic. While I clearly don't disagree with you on much of it, I do disagree with the 'slippery slope' argument. It's not really dissimilar to the 'two-sides to every story' argument. Which is IMO a fallacy.
If an arsonist burns down a building and people lose their lives, who cares what the arsonist's side to the story is? For me, the same is true for rape fantasy, incest fantasy, pedo fantasy. Removing things that empower people who would do those things is not the same as Nazis burning books. Unless the argument is that morality is strictly subjective. Which I'm willing to discuss. But some things, IMO, are not subjective. Some things are just outright objectively harmful and don't belong. Right now, we have Ice agents kidnapping people because their skin is brown. And while some people subjectively believe this is a valid action, it is objectively abhorrent.
I would say we aren't really assuming anything when it comes to rape fantasy, for example. No assumption is required. It is rape fantasy. It states clearly what its intent is.
At some point, you have to delineate between subjective morality and objective morality IMO. Yes, systems can and will always be abused by somebody. But that doesn't mean we need to stagnate in filth because maybe someone will abuse the changes we make. We will address the abuse as it comes up. At least, hopefully we will.
For me, at least as it pertains to payment processors, this is an "even a broken clock is right twice a day" type scenario.
Freedom isn’t just a luxury for the popular or the powerful — it’s a lifeline for those who have no other platform. That’s why the fight is uphill. But surrendering that fight means surrendering all of us.
This is a powerful statement, btw. As is this:
it’s to fight for transparency, fairness, and legal standards that protect free expression and marginalized voices from being silenced by corporate fear or outrage mobs.
But some outrage is justified.
Comment has been collapsed.
"It is rape fantasy. It states clearly what its intent is"
Study by Joyal, Cossette & Lapierre (2015) in The Journal of Sex Research analyzed fantasies among 1,263 adults and found that about 62% of women reported having fantasies involving coercion or force, although the intensity and context varied widely.
Lehmiller’s 2018 book Tell Me What You Want: The Science of Sexual Desire and How It Can Help You Improve Your Sex Life reports that around 20-30% of women report having fantasies involving non-consent or coercion.
An older survey by Alfred Kinsey and subsequent sex researchers found that rape fantasies are relatively common among women, though often they are about the sensation of losing control rather than actual desire for harm
Let's differenciate between an arsonist killing people, and simply, fantasy. Not real. No human beings were hurt. Pixels will not hurt you. Words will not strangle you. Pages in a book will not burn you alive.
Fifty Shades of Grey saga. 34 millon women bought the books
Tomorrow payment processors decided that the book should be banned. Or, sorry, not banned. You can buy it. It’s just that no bookstore is allowed to carry it, and no bank will let you buy it. But you can smuggle it. But it's for your own good.
Do you support that? You have already given them power to ban games they don't like, manga they don't like. What's the difference? It's just one book. Besides, are you REALLY going to support a rape fantasy? "even a broken clock is right twice a day" type scenario" yeah, but giving them the choice of choosing when the broken clock is going to be, it will start again, and again, and again.
What about banning all BDSM things? After all, for ME is objetively bad. Sure, it's not bad for some people. But I don't like it, and I feel it's objetively bad. So it HAS to be bad.
And remember, payment processors are banning everything they want, for your own good.
Comment has been collapsed.
Technically, for you, BDSM would be subjectively bad. It would be objectively bad if it was not an agreement between two consenting adults and was instead non-consensual. Rape is never consensual. You definitely understand the difference though, or at least I assume you do.
The "it's just pixels bro" argument doesn't stand up. It is indicative of significant issues that are being ignored or are attempting to be normalized when they are anything but. Although probably not any longer. Too many people agree that this stuff shouldn't be so easily accessible, at best.
At no time in any functional (or as is the case currently, barely clinging to functional) society will there be absolute freedom. Many things are regulated for the good of the whole even if it chafes the individual. In this instance though, corporations actually policed themselves, which is kind of stunning given everything we know about corporations. But at some point, it would've been regulated by more governments anyway and certainly will be. Too many people have become hyper aware of these things at this point for it to continue being ignored. And when you factor in current day scandals such as a certain suddenly non-existent list that everybody knows exists, it's plain to see that the days of Valve's anything goes as long as Gaben-can-afford-another-super-yacht are numbered regardless.
But I also think this discussion is backsliding a bit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks again for continuing this conversation with such honesty. I can tell you care deeply about the real harm behind issues like rape or pedophilia, and I do understand that, even if I don’t fully share the same framing.
But here’s where I think the danger lies: if we accept that private corporations — unaccountable, unelected, and driven purely by PR and profit — get to decide what’s “objectively bad” and should be erased from public access, then we’ve handed them the power to shape culture, morality, and discourse itself. That’s not protection — that’s control.
Today, it’s sexual content in games that gets axed. Tomorrow, it could be a novel that challenges norms, a queer game that makes someone uncomfortable, political satire, or anything else that threatens a brand manager’s comfort zone. Once the standard isn’t legality but "risk of association," then nothing is truly safe. And there’s no consistent principle — just the shifting winds of outrage and liability.
You said, “a lot of people agree this content shouldn’t exist.” That’s true — but democracy isn’t about what the loudest majority wants. It’s about safeguarding the rights of those with the least power, especially when they’re unpopular. History is full of examples of art, books, and ideas that were banned for being “too dangerous” — and many of those are now recognized as essential to progress. Do you want to tell me a million examples of ideas "unpopular" that "many deem too dangerous". Imagine payment processors existing hundreds of years ago and saying "this guy saying slavery is inmoral, OK. EVERYBODY DOES IT!!. He is clearly stupid. Let's ban him. WHAT? This guy wants to protect the rights of minorities. It has been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN minorities are stupid. Ban him. LGB... What? He wants guys to fuck each other in the ass?!?!?!? DEFINITELY many people consider this shouldn't exist".
I’m not defending harmful acts. I’m defending the idea that censorship, if it must exist, should be transparent, accountable, and based on clear legal standards — not the whims of financial gatekeepers.
You said it perfectly earlier: “there are a couple hundred thousand of them, and billions of us.” So why let them decide what’s allowed to exist? Just because the broken clock happens to be right twice a day doesn’t mean we should hand it the job of keeping time for everyone.
It’s not about whether you or I like a specific piece of content. It’s about whether we want to live in a system where only the "safe," the "sanitized," and the "profitable" are allowed to exist. Because once we surrender that — we don’t just lose the things we dislike.
We lose the right to choose.
Comment has been collapsed.
I totally get where you're coming from. I just don't see the slippery slope the same way. And there were already four provisions in place on Steam that should've policed these games already. Valve has just been refusing to implement their own policies.
-
Adult content that isn’t appropriately labelled and age-gated
- applicable due to inappropriate age gating methods. And actually, if Valve had just implemented proper age-gating, this whole scenario would not have played out.
-
Content that violates the laws of any jurisdiction in which it will be available
- applicable in many jurisdictions
-
Content that is patently offensive or intended to shock or disgust viewers
- definitely always applicable, but a subjective rule left open-ended by Valve because Gaben always needs more money for another super yacht.
-
Content that exploits children in any way
- frequently applicable
They're actually provisions 3, 6, 7 and 8
But I don't begrudge you your opinion, which is well thought out. I think the importance of way it happened is the only part of this we really disagree on. But then again, everything else is turning into nightmare scenarios in society, so it could be that you are spot on.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply — seriously, I really appreciate the way you're engaging with this. We may disagree on some conclusions, but you're arguing in good faith, and that already puts you in the top 1% of internet discourse. So... like, can we just go to throwing insults, or something?. This is getting too polite.
You’re totally right that Steam has policies already — and some of the content in question probably did violate them. I’m not arguing every banned game was some misunderstood work of art.
But here's the key issue: when the enforcement of those policies only happens after external financial pressure — or selectively depending on PR cycles — then it’s not about rules anymore. It’s about who’s pulling the strings, and why.
rules like:
“Content that is patently offensive or intended to shock”
“Content that exploits children in any way”
“Content that violates laws of jurisdictions”
Those are incredibly vague by design. And that’s fine — ambiguity can give platforms flexibility. But it also gives cover to arbitrary enforcement. And when that enforcement is driven by pressure from payment processors, lobbyists, or media outrage, we’re not dealing with a neutral system anymore. We’re dealing with private moral gatekeeping.
And that’s the slippery slope — not that one ban leads to another automatically, but that once culture is governed by invisible economic levers, we’ve entered a new form of censorship that’s hard to see and harder to challenge.
Right now, when Visa or PayPal cut someone off, there's no due process, no appeal, and often no clarity about what line was crossed. If Steam only acts when payment processors threaten them — not based on their own stated values — then creators live under a shadow of fear and guesswork. That’s not healthy for any creative medium.
“You Might Be Spot On”
I appreciated that line. I think we’re both reacting to the same anxiety: that the world feels increasingly arbitrary, hostile, and unaccountable. And I get that to some people, the games in question seem like a low hill to die on.
But as you said — “everything else is turning into nightmare scenarios.” Which is exactly why this stuff matters. We can’t afford to keep outsourcing moral authority to profit-driven platforms with no obligation to fairness or transparency. Today it’s porn games. Tomorrow it’s dissent. Or art. Or identity. Or just being the wrong kind of controversial.
Freedom doesn’t die in a headline. It dies in a TOS update nobody reads.
Comment has been collapsed.
So... like, can we just go to throwing insults, or something?. This is getting too polite.
lololol
Freedom doesn’t die in a headline. It dies in a TOS update nobody reads.
I have not heard that one before. That's definitely going into the hip pocket for future use.
I do think it's unfortunate that it took a payment processor to force Valve's hand. The first rule I mentioned about implementing proper age gates. That should have happened before they even started selling games like that.
And had it happened, we'd just be chatting about the Epstein List instead. And the ICE kidnappings. And the suing of news outlets for engaging in actual reporting. And the erosion of all checks and balances to power. And the privatization of all life essentials. And the defunding of Medicaid. And the war in Ukraine. And the genocide in Gaza. And the war in Iran. And the defunding of NPR. And now I'm getting exhausted going through the unending list of bs happening right now, lol.
Comment has been collapsed.
"The first rule I mentioned about implementing proper age gates. That should have happened before they even started selling games like that"
I have played visual novels that would have made every single twitter crowd and every single payment processor to throw their hands in disgust and demand the game to be banned. They are absolutely disgusting. They are one of the the most beautiful love story I have ever read. They have done the most intelligent approach to lovecraft monsters in-game I have ever seen.
I am perfectly fine with letting the floodgates open, and let the market decide. I don't want a nanny payment processor to tell me what to play. I am an adult. Thanks. I can choose by myself.
Comment has been collapsed.
Age gates aren't for adults, they're for kids. The floodgates definitely need to not be wide open.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sorry but it's like all these Americans screaming online that if there's ever a federal ID system in the US, it's the end of their liberties.
The fact there are laws against pedophile porn doesn't mean we're 5 mn away from porn being entirely banned.
Neither does this mean other content will be banned next.
"If you don't defend the right of people to say things you don't like, then you don't believe in free speech. It's not about defending the speech you like. It's about defending the speech you hate."
Now explain to me what a "game" about raping a 12 year old looking manga girl with tentacles is saying and I'll defend it...
Comment has been collapsed.
To be fair, you didn't answer first.
If tomorrow payment processors decide that LGTBI-themed games are 'too controversial,' and they start cutting them off to 'avoid association' — would you defend that too? Would you say “well, choices still exist?
Anyway, while you think about the answer, I'll answer you.
Going from talking about adult content to ‘games about terrible abuse of children is a classic move to push the argument to the extreme and shut down any discussion about free speech. What’s next? Comparing queer books to illegal content? Using criminal examples like CP or direct incitement to violence to argue against legal (even if controversial) NSFW games is a rhetorical fallacy. One thing being banned for moral panic often leads to others being banned too — history proves that.
The whole point of defending free expression is to protect the unpopular, disturbing, or niche — so long as it's legal. Otherwise, all it takes is a shift in what's 'unpopular' or 'controversial' for someone else's expression to be next. I don't even personally like those games to begin with.
Let me be clear: defending free speech does NOT mean defending illegal acts. Nobody here is saying child abuse should be allowed. That is illegal and outside the conversation.
But when you say payment systems or governments should decide what legal content can be published or sold — with comments like ‘should that have been on Steam?’ — you are supporting the idea that some powerful group decides what everyone else can see or create, even if it’s legal. That is censorship.
Have you heard about the Hays Code? For decades, it banned many things from movies — like gay characters, independent women, or criticism of religion. Do you agree with that? Or is censorship only bad when it affects things you like?
Also, queer books are being removed from school libraries today in some places. Is that ‘the market deciding,’ too? Or just censorship with official support? What is the difference? You support censorship in some places and don't in some other cases?
In the end, if you only defend free speech for ideas you like, you don’t truly believe in it. You’re just hoping censorship doesn’t turn against you — but it always does
Comment has been collapsed.
Anyway, while you think about the answer, I'll answer you.
I did answer that. No I wouldn't. I would stand against it. And also no they haven't. Jumping from one straight to the other is ludicrous exaggeration as I was saying.
defending free speech does NOT mean defending illegal acts. Nobody here is saying child abuse should be allowed. That is illegal and outside the conversation.
And using the legal/illegal cover to blanket it all as in "hey it's legal so there's no problem with that!" is also a classic strategy.
Legality and ethics are two different things. A business is entitled not to want to make money off disgusting entertainment that targets women and objectifies young girls. They literally are not obligated to cover things they find disturbing no matter the legality of it.
you are supporting the idea that some powerful group decides what everyone else can see or create, even if it’s legal. That is censorship.
Where do you draw the line then? Again, how about pedophile porn? Let's not talk about children being actually abused. Let's say tomorrow Netflix and Disney+ make Ai-generated realistic pedophile porn on their platform because a lot of their users have been asking for it. And since this whole conversation is about hypotheticals anyway, say laws against it are conflicted because no actual child is being harmed. Would you actually be going around crying freedom of speech if people decide to cancel their Netflix subscription en masse because they're not ok with that?
You support censorship in some places and don't in some other cases?
I don't. i just disagree with your definition of censorship. The Hays code was maintaining a tight grip on everything that could be seen on the big screen. Steam doesn't have that monopoly. And neither do Visa and Paypal.
In the end, if you only defend free speech for ideas you like, you don’t truly believe in it. You’re just hoping censorship doesn’t turn against you — but it always does
And again with the assumption. I absolutely believe in freedom of speech but you talk about "free speech for ideas" and I'm asking again, and still no answer from you. Please tell me what idea a game about a 12 year old looking manga girl being raped by a tentacle expresses and I'll defend it.
Comment has been collapsed.
To be short and blunt, I don't think you see the fact, that Steam bends over for those "not monopoly" payment processors, as worrying as it is, when thinking about the future.
We know that publishers, stores aren't our friends, and people tend to glorify Steam, but quite some people, including you, are too stuck on the type of games that got removed, instead of seeing it as a problem. People don't protect Hentai Furry BDSM Mommy 2 - Incestuous Boogaloo because it's a gane worth keeping around or having.
Yes, it's shitty, niche content, but this recent change a step toward a direction we better not take. Steam was okay with having these games, then banks complained, now Steam is not okay with having them. Free speech of freedom of expression to be damned, they are shitty games. But losing rights, and system enshittifications usually start with removing "the undesirables", while many people don't even notice, and most of who notices, doesn't care. And talking about "what if they come for the LGBTQ games later" is not a tool to protect these porn games, but sadly a semi-realistic future step, because we've seen the willingness in Valve to remove games on request.
I think you know the story/joke about offering $1 million to a woman to have sex with. They agree. Then changing the price to $100 makes them upset, prompting the question "do you think I'm a whore?" Where the answer is "we already established what you are, we're discussing prices"
Valve made clean what it is. The question is if/when it happens again, what games will it cost us.
Comment has been collapsed.
I really get what you guys are worried about. I just think you're jumping to nightmare scenarios.
There are way more critical things happening right now that are threatening civil liberties in the world and are happening in plain sight.
Comment has been collapsed.
The more critical things prove that nightmare scenarios can happen, and we can worry about multiple things, if we squish them between the genocides and rights abuses. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Ain't that the truth. Lots of shit going on and we can worry about it all. and let me clarify: I don't think what happened is something to laugh off. I just think the outrage is a little out of proportions. Maybe I'll turn out to be wrong.
I just think we'll have killed our planet before Visa comes for our games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks again for engaging, even if we clearly disagree.
You're asking me to explain what “idea” a game with disturbing content like a a "12 year old looking manga girl being raped by a tentacle" might express, and whether it’s worth defending. But you’re still framing this in a way that misses the core point. So let me be clear:
I’m not here to defend that specific content of "Hentai Furry BDSM Mommy 2 - Incestuous Boogaloo" as
adam1224 said . I’m here to defend a principle — that legal expression, no matter how controversial or distasteful, should not be censored by private companies acting as moral gatekeepers for society. It’s not about whether I or you find it disgusting. It’s about the mechanism being used to suppress it — and how easily that mechanism can be redirected against something else. I think that if somebody wants to make a game called Hentai Furry BDSM Mommy 2 - Incestuous Boogaloo, and somebody wants to buy it, nobody is getting hurt, no laws are being broken, you have not the right to intrude what adult people are deciding. Same reason nobody has the right to intrude into your rights, if you are not hurting anybody, and specially not any Nanny company that knows better.
You keep jumping to the most extreme example — something designed to provoke disgust — to imply that any opposition to censorship means a blanket endorsement of the worst-case scenario. That’s a rhetorical trap, not a fair argument.
You mention ethics vs legality — and yes, they are not the same. But ethics without clear legal boundaries quickly becomes subjective moralism, enforced by those with the most financial or institutional power. That’s not democracy. That’s corporate theocracy.
Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal do act like monopolies when it comes to access to digital markets. (90% worldwide is DEFINITELY a monopoly in any court in the world. 98% if you exclude China). This isn’t a situation where there are dozens of real alternatives. These companies form a payment oligopoly, and if they blacklist something, it’s essentially erased from the mainstream economy. It’s not like choosing Coke vs Pepsi — it’s like being told, “You can’t drink anything unless we approve of what you’re drinking.”
When financial intermediaries — who act as gatekeepers to commerce — start deciding what kinds of legal content are morally acceptable, we’re not talking about free market decisions anymore. We’re talking about private institutions exercising power that governments would be heavily criticized for using. If they blacklist you, you're effectively cut off from economic participation. That is a kind of monopoly, and pretending otherwise ignores the reality of centralized financial control.
If tomorrow all major credit cards stopped processing payments for LGBTQ+ creators or for books with political dissent, we’d call it authoritarian. The mechanism is the same — only the target changed
Now, you ask: “Would I defend Netflix making AI pedophile porn?”
If that ever happened, and it was legal, I'd absolutely defend the right of people to protest, to boycott, to unsubscribe — that is free expression. I would do it myself. But that’s not the same as endorsing blacklists or financial chokeholds that can be used on any legal creator without transparency, accountability, or recourse.
You say the Hays Code was bad because it was all-encompassing — yet support the idea of selective censorship by private platforms. But the effect is the same: artists self-censor, creators disappear, and we’re left with only what’s inoffensive enough for boardrooms and PR consultants. That’s not freedom of expression — it’s freedom sanitized.
So to your original question — what idea does a disturbing, even gross fantasy express? Sometimes, the answer is that it doesn’t express anything worthwhile. But the right to create doesn’t depend on having a noble message. Free speech includes the right to make bad art, stupid art, even offensive art — because if you only defend “acceptable” speech, you’ve already accepted censorship.
I mean, look at my steam profile. I have read hundreds of mangas that would also be on the chopping block. If I want to buy Berserk, an adult manga, it's my choice. I don't want payment processors to say my favourite manga is "disgusting" and ban it.
No, legality isn’t a perfect shield. But it’s the best boundary we’ve got — better than letting faceless corporations decide what people are allowed to access based on subjective disgust.
The moment you cheer for censorship because it targets something you hate is the same moment you give it permission to come for what you love. Not because you're a bad person — but because you let power go unchecked.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks again for engaging, even if we clearly disagree.
You know I love to debate with you on free speech and other points of contention :)
I should add that I'm about to go on vacation so if you decide to reply (no pressure) and you don't get a reply for the next few weeks, I'm not sulking or anything. I'll just be away from screens except for gaming with my tribe.
That’s not democracy. That’s corporate theocracy.
You say this as if that's not already the world we live in. When billionaires pick our leaders depending on who is going to make them the most money in the next few years.
I’m here to defend a principle — that legal expression, no matter how controversial or distasteful, should not be censored by private companies acting as moral gatekeepers for society.
So let me ask this: if pedophile porn was legal and children signed contracts that said they agree to participate, would you find it ok?
I know, I know, another "extreme example" but it goes to the core of the argument because there is very little that's universally considered immoral and illegal and some of the games that have been banned here are not toeing the line, they are downright crossing it gleefully because hey, no actual child has been armed so it's ok?
ethics without clear legal boundaries quickly becomes subjective moralism
I agree with you but where do you draw the line? I don't mean you personally. I mean as a society, where do we draw the line?
But the effect is the same: artists self-censor, creators disappear, and we’re left with only what’s inoffensive enough for boardrooms and PR consultants
I disagree. During the entirety of the Hayes Code reign on Hollywood, there was only one way to watch movies: movie theatres. This is not the case anymore and this is also not the case for games.
90% worldwide is DEFINITELY a monopoly in any court in the world.
That still leaves 10% of alternatives. And if Visa keeps swinging their power around, there might be more coming up. There's also crowdfunding. Hell, any website can set up a prepaid card system and neither Paypal nor Visa would be able to block that.
it’s like being told, “You can’t drink anything unless we approve of what you’re drinking.”
And all you're left with is tap water and all the rivers in the world. :P
If tomorrow all major credit cards stopped processing payments for LGBTQ+ creators or for books with political dissent, we’d call it authoritarian.
I don't know why you keep reverting to LGBTQ content when you tell me using pedophile porn (which is almost literally what has been removed from Steam) as an example is a rhetorical trap but yes you're right, we'd call it authoritarian because as a society we have evolved enough to understand that LGBTQ content and political diversity doesn't harm anyone. Can you say that about all the games that have been removed?
Same reason nobody has the right to intrude into your rights, if you are not hurting anybody, and specially not any Nanny company that knows better.
We have to agree to disagree on nobody getting hurt because you don't know that. There is literally no way of knowing the impact of those "games" where children-looking "women" and women are being objectified. Of course there's also no evidence it does because it's impossible to study or quantify but I sincerely doubt drowning in interactive porn objectifying young-looking victimized girls and victimized women from a young age could have no impact at all on the perception of women in general and on the sexualization of children specifically.
But the right to create doesn’t depend on having a noble message. Free speech includes the right to make bad art, stupid art, even offensive art
Yes but not dangerous art. You don't want me to use pedophile porn, then fine. Let's say a supermarket is selling art by Sir Slicealot and it's made of glass shards and rusted metal spikes and it's left accessible to anyone to play with. Nothing illegal about that.
Over the years, people coming to the store are worried someone's going to get hurt. Maybe people even get hurt because really who knows? Meanwhile the store hasn't done anything to protect people from this art, despite concerned customers asking them to do something about it.
Those concerned citizens are just tired of their supermarket's apathy. They go to the company that stocks the supermarket's products and say "hey can you talk to them about this? it's getting ridiculous" and they raise such a stink that the guy agrees and ends up giving the supermarket an ultimatum: remove dangerous art or good luck getting your stock elsewhere.
The supermarket finally caves in because now it affects them. Is it censorship?
Don't worry Sir Slicealot is now selling his art on etsy and even created a store online that caters to the BDSM art clientele. ;)
Since you mention soda. If McDonalds responded to pressure from corporate partners and removed sugary soft drinks from its restaurants because while not illegal, they're bad for you, would people be throwing a nutty and screaming their rights are being suppressed? They can get them somewhere else. Granted it won't be as simple as ordering them with their BigMac but they still literally exist.
No, legality isn’t a perfect shield. But it’s the best boundary we’ve got
I understand what you mean but again, if there were actual laws about that kind of games, you'd say censorship. So when does a society have a right to protect itself and when is it baseless censorship?
I have seen the most ridiculous pages since the first games were removed and some claiming it's racism because it "disproportionately" target Japanese style games for not having the 'Western culture" disease that forces people to have ugly manly female characters instead of 10-year-old looking nurses you can whip...
Hey you know what? In ancient Greece, it was considered normal, even encouraged, for teenage boys to have sexual relationships with older mentors. So I guess games that depict that would be ok too... except where are they? Nothing illegal is happening. I guess racism against Greek culture is not as important to the ones crying wolf.
Again, I'm not lumping you in with those guys. I know you're debating this purely on your defense of freedom of speech as you define it. I'm just saying at some point in our culture we decided that this kind of things and any entertainment that portrayed it was unacceptable. We made laws against some of it. Not all of it.
I'm sure it was viewed as censorship by some.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply — enjoy your vacation and gaming! I’ll respond while it’s fresh, no pressure to reply until you’re back.
“If pedophile porn were legal and children signed contracts, would you be okay with it?” — but that hypothetical collapses under its own weight. No free society would legalize that — and no child can meaningfully consent under law, so we’re not even in the realm of realistic legislation.
But your point is clear: you’re asking where do we draw the line?
That’s exactly why legality matters. It’s not perfect, but it’s a line drawn democratically — open to debate, public challenge, and judicial review. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than letting opaque corporate policies or media outrage dictate what’s allowed, especially when those same mechanisms can (and have) been used against LGBTQ creators, political dissenters, and artists from marginalized cultures.
Your “Sir Slicealot” metaphor is funny, and yes, of course, stores have a right (and a duty) to avoid physical harm. But that analogy doesn’t map neatly to digital content. Watching a disturbing game doesn’t injure you like glass spikes do. The “harm” is psychological or symbolic — which is exactly the terrain where censorship becomes dangerously subjective.
Should platforms have some discretion? Sure. Should they listen to users, apply age ratings, and enforce local law? Absolutely. But that’s different from deplatforming creators entirely, using financial chokeholds, without due process or clear criteria.
When art is unpopular or controversial, that’s precisely when it needs protection, not a thumbs-up from PayPal’s PR department.
“It’s not like the Hays Code, there are alternatives now.” But try monetizing controversial art without Visa, Mastercard, or PayPal. Most crowdfunding platforms, subscription services, and online stores rely on those three. That’s not “some options,” that’s being cut off from 90%+ of the global digital economy. That’s not like losing a theater, it’s like being banned from the language people use to trade.
“they could use prepaid cards or Bitcoin” is like telling banned authors, “You can still print pamphlets and hand them out in a park.” Sure, technically true. But it’s a de facto erasure from mainstream visibility and viability.
“We evolved to know LGBTQ+ content doesn’t harm anyone. Can we say the same of those banned games?” Maybe not. Some are edgy just to be edgy. But that’s the cost of a free society. If we only protect worthwhile art, we’re not protecting freedom — we’re curating taste. In every era, people point to “obvious” obscenities. Decades ago, LGBTQ+ content was the line people said must not be crossed. That’s why it matters that we don’t gatekeep based on disgust, but on law — transparent, democratically shaped, open to challenge.
“When does society get to protect itself?” When there’s clear evidence of harm. When there’s legal precedent. When restrictions are passed through open legislative or judicial processes, not PR departments or Stripe's trust & safety team.
Otherwise, “society” becomes “whoever screams loudest on Twitter,” and that’s not protection — that’s mob veto, or "who has the power" and that's authoritarian.
Yes, ancient Greece had values we find disturbing now. But that’s the point — values evolve. That’s why we don’t enshrine moral taste in financial infrastructure. If Japanese games are being disproportionately targeted because they don’t match Western aesthetic preferences, that is cultural bias. It doesn’t make the content immune to critique, but we should at least be honest about what’s driving enforcement.
So no — I’m not defending any specific game. I’m defending the idea that art doesn’t need approval to exist. That freedom of expression includes things I dislike. And that the moment we outsource moral judgment to payment processors, we’ve surrendered more than just a game, we’ve handed over the mechanism of speech itself to unelected, unaccountable, profit-driven entities.
That’s not progress. That’s privatized orthodoxy.
And we should all be wary of it — no matter how justified it feels today.
Comment has been collapsed.
but that hypothetical collapses under its own weight. No free society would legalize that
Well, Japan thinks it's perfectly acceptable for 6 year old kids to appear in sexualized pictures as long as they're not nude so I wouldn't exactly discard it as an argument.
That’s exactly why legality matters. It’s not perfect, but it’s a line drawn democratically — open to debate, public challenge, and judicial review
I understand your point. However, Visa didn't pressure the government to make a law to ban those games. We come back to this core argument again: the games are just not available on one game vendor, a major one yes, but they are still available elsewhere and will no doubt be made available other places after they are removed from Steam because these "devs" are making way too much money from this shit to stop.
But that analogy doesn’t map neatly to digital content.
Ack. i was hoping you wouldn't notice :P 🤣
Watching a disturbing game doesn’t injure you like glass spikes do.
Well, first there's watching and then there's participating. Most of these games are interactive. I'm sure you'll agree that games can be immersive in ways movies or comics can't be for example.
The “harm” is psychological or symbolic — which is exactly the terrain where censorship becomes dangerously subjective.
Agreed. And I'm sure some yahoo politician from say... oh... Florida... can find one yahoo 'psychologist' who'll swear he has studied the dangerous effect of LGBTQ characters on tv and that every child is turning gay because of it.
Still, the complete lack of proper age restriction on Steam is a concern when it comes to most games with sexual content or violence and there are proper studies about the effect of porn on sexually immature teenagers so I wouldn't think games that depict such extreme sexualization and sexual violence would be harmless.
Should they listen to users, apply age ratings, and enforce local law? Absolutely. But that’s different from deplatforming creators entirely, using financial chokeholds, without due process or clear criteria.
Agreed. But again Steam has never made a move to control the content on their store in recent years or to have proper identification implemented for restriction of mature materials.
Now they have only because it would have cost them more not to than what they make on those "games"
When art is unpopular or controversial, that’s precisely when it needs protection
And again we disagree on the definition of art.
But it’s a de facto erasure from mainstream visibility and viability.
Freedom of speech is not dependent on mainstream availability. There is a loooooot of porn out on the internet (so I'm told by ChatGPT :P). It's not available on Netflix. Does that mean it's been censored?
When there’s legal precedent. When restrictions are passed through open legislative or judicial processes, not PR departments or Stripe's trust & safety team.
Most laws, especially in the US, are based on what some corporate douchebag wants, let's not kid ourselves. They buy people on each side of the isle and the debate is just for show.
Otherwise, “society” becomes “whoever screams loudest on Twitter,”
Pretty sure that's how your latest president got elected.
If Japanese games are being disproportionately targeted because they don’t match Western aesthetic preferences — that is cultural bias
It's not cultural bias. Japanese games are not targeted. it's a straw man argument. Most games that are being removed happen to have anime style "art" but that's not why they are being removed. There are still plenty of games on Steam with little girls with big boobs and big eyes and they are not scheduled to be removed.
I’m defending the idea that art doesn’t need approval to exist
And I'm saying "art" doesn't need Steam to exist.
And that the moment we outsource moral judgment to payment processors, we’ve surrendered more than just a game — we’ve handed over the mechanism of speech itself to unelected, unaccountable, profit-driven entities.
That has already happened, my friend.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks again for the thoughtful reply. Even where we disagree, I appreciate the depth of your engagement, my friend.
"Well, Japan thinks it's perfectly acceptable for 6 year old kids to appear in sexualized pictures as long as they're not nude so I wouldn't exactly discard it as an argument" Japan literally has laws to not show private parts in porn. Sex with penetration is outlawed even in prostitution. Yeah, I kind of discard it, specially in Japan.
I want to respond directly, especially because one point keeps getting sidestepped: this isn’t just about Steam. Steam is not the central issue here — Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal are. These three entities control the vast majority of digital transactions worldwide — over 90% of online payments go through them, directly or indirectly. So when they decide a kind of content is unacceptable, that content is not just “removed from one platform” — it’s economically blacklisted from the entire mainstream internet. So please stop saying "steam this" and "steam that". Steam is not a monopoly. I don't care about steam.
"Art doesn't need Steam to exist." Sure. But when every platform that wants to host it gets financially choked by payment processors, we’re not talking about one store making a choice — we’re talking about monopolistic censorship. You can’t crowdfund it. You can’t sell it on your site. You can’t put it behind a paywall. And you can’t get on most digital storefronts, because they all rely on those same processors. Saying “you can still technically exist” is like telling a banned author they can print leaflets and hand them out in a park. It’s a de facto ban, not on legality, but on viability.
"Freedom of speech is not dependent on mainstream availability." I disagree. What good is free speech if the only place it’s allowed is in the basement? If a book is legal, but banned from every bookstore, blocked from every digital store, and can’t be bought or sold via any bank or card provider — that’s not freedom, that’s exile. And in practice, it kills expression just as effectively as a legal ban would.
"There is a loooooot of porn out on the internet ..." I’m not worried about porn existing. I’d be worried if, say, Netflix wanted to host adult content, and Visa or PayPal stepped in to stop them — against Netflix’s own judgment. That’s the core problem: not law, but corporate veto. That’s what’s happening now, where creators are being cut off not by government decision, but by the whims of unaccountable financial gatekeepers.
"Most of these games are interactive..." Sure. Just like violent movies are immersive. Just like books can be emotionally overwhelming. Interactivity doesn’t negate the principle — the choice to engage is still yours. If you don’t like a film, don’t watch it. If you don’t like a game, don’t play it. You don’t get to erase it for everyone else.
"identification implemented..." Steam literally has 18+ controls. You don’t see adult content unless you specifically opt into it. If you’re seeing it, it’s because you told Steam you want to. This argument could just as easily be used to ban violent games or LGBTQ+ content — and has been, historically.
""devs" are making way too much money..." Yes — and that’s exactly why this is scary. If even profitable, legal content that finds an audience can be economically erased, what chance does smaller, riskier, or culturally niche art have?
"It's not cultural bias. Japanese games are not targeted..." Plenty of non-sexual Japanese games have been denied access to platforms over the years — not because of nudity or violence, but because of aesthetic discomfort. Western platforms and payment processors have long had a pattern of rejecting certain Japanese titles, even before sexual content became the focus. To say there’s no cultural bias is to ignore years of disproportionate scrutiny. And even now, many titles with similar themes but different art styles avoid bans — because they "look Western." That’s not content-based — that’s cultural gatekeeping. https://automaton-media.com/en/nongaming-news/japan-is-losing-an-archive-of-out-of-print-manga-because-of-international-credit-card-companies/ Imagine losing manga archive with 14 years of history because Visa decided they don't like manga. Only superhero comics.
"And again we disagree on the definition of art...." That’s fine. But freedom of expression doesn’t require that art be “good” or eternal. It doesnt' need your opinion of what is art or mine. If someone creates something — a game, a story, a mod, even a fanfic written with a crayon — and it doesn’t break the law, that alone is enough to deserve protection. We don’t defend art because we like it. We defend it because someone wanted to make it. For money. For the kicks. For whatever. Aliens after we have kill ourselves won't look at our technological marvels, but what people created for art.
"They buy people on each side of the isle and the debate is just for show..." Sure. Still better to have laws. Democratically shaped. Open to change. Flawed, but transparent. That’s why legal processes are better than letting Visa or PayPal decide what’s acceptable based on vague “brand safety” guidelines. If we let corporate morality win today because it targets things we find distasteful — we may find those same tools used against us tomorrow.
"I'm sure some politician could find a psychologist to claim LGBTQ+ characters are harmful..." Exactly. And when that happens — when someone uses the same arguments to restrict that content — who will speak up? If we’re silent now, it may be too late then. It reminds me of that famous German poem “First they came for the communist, and I did not speak out — because I was not a communist…” Censorship doesn’t usually start with the popular. It starts with the fringe, with the uncomfortable, with the controversial. But if we don’t fight for them, the tools built to silence them may end up silencing us.
"That has already happened, my friend" I mean, aren't you actually DEFENDING IT RIGHT NOW, as I said, that mechanism of speech itself to unelected, unaccountable, profit-driven entities? I am pushing against it, and you are defending it.
So as I said, I'm not defending any specific game. I’m defending the principle that expression shouldn’t depend on corporate approval, and that financial monopolies shouldn't dictate the boundaries of art.
Because once we accept that — we’ve traded law for the law of the jungle. Or worse: the whims of a boardroom.
And that’s not safety. That’s surrender
Comment has been collapsed.
I get the concern about a big company imposing content restriction on a major store but I also think that this wouldn't have been deemed necessary if Steam was minding their own store a little bit.
It's the problem with most online stores these days. It's the whole Amazon "marketplace" thing and they don't check anything they sell and have no boundaries as long as they make money off it. It's also concerning, tbh but that doesn't seem to be a major concern because "freedom of speech". What speech?
Comment has been collapsed.
I affirm that filtering is a good idea. It is a good thing.
But to Games remove it is not affirming.
It is fine for people to give bad reviews about other cultures, values, tastes, or religions, saying that they “don't like it” or “don't agree with certain values” or “for what reason it shouldn't exist”.
However, if you delete it, you will be flooded with places where your “why shouldn't this exist” cannot be reached.
If you take the example of Prohibition in the US, it was promoted by women and religious people, and the women hoped their husbands would pay less for booze, and the religious people tried to push religious morality and use it to gain followers by either getting pennies from the bars or denouncing it.
To top it off, they didn't stop with the exclusion of German immigrants and German beer by associating it with criticism of Germany (too long, I'll skip that one).
It went on to become a source of funding for the mafia and a drug more dangerous than alcohol.
After Prohibition, alcohol has managed to return to government control, but now the drug problem is shaking the very backbone of society.
The aftereffects will linger for the next 100 years.
If you insist that bad things are bad, you should not make the choice to remove them unless the person who holds those values has a “stable, sustainable, and enjoyable future” or “food, clothing, and shelter stability” or “no stress” or some other sufficient “alternative”.
I understand that there are many different kinds of people on earth, and that there are people in different regions and cultures who think this is a good idea. However, I do not recommend it, given the disturbing claws in the past history of the earth.
Comment has been collapsed.
this isnt a religion issue, this disgusting crap is bad for society PERIOD, anyone who defends these kinds of games are lunatics
Comment has been collapsed.
anyone who defends these kinds of games are lunatics
If you want to talk to us in a gentlemanly manner, please don't label us.
Also, I very much understand your desire not to see things you don't like.
Please review what I am defining as problematic.
I also encourage everyone to filter content that they perceive as inappropriate. I would also like to note that
This is after similar rules have caused problems in recent years.
This is after content was destroyed or censored by abusing “stop payment” against other cultures.
I am concerned that something similar will happen with Steam.
There is also a link to the original text of Steam's terms and conditions for this purpose.
The site also provides a past case in which Visa and Mastercard abruptly stopped payments to a former Japanese content community, leading to the suspension of its operations.
Then, after eliminating Visa and Mastercard, that site was revived this year through crowdfunding.
I am looking at the political process leading up to it, and I believe it involves issues of religion, politics and values.
Latest app changes - steam-tracker.com
https://steam-tracker.com/changelog
I was just looking at the latest deletions and updates, and the fake Only UP has been moved from private to public, and I don't understand.┐(´Θ`)┌
I guess this is the reality of running Steam.
Only Up! Price history · SteamDB
https://steamdb.info/app/2562240/
Only Up 2 Price history · SteamDB
https://steamdb.info/app/2653170/
It's something that requires a solid response that doesn't cause problems, and it shouldn't be an operational approach where the real ones disappear and the fake ones are rampant.
[My statement in this discussion]
https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/lsngD0F
https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/Zxrfev6
https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/UKbtJBa
Comment has been collapsed.
i dont really care, i see this as a plus, even if you and others dont, i dont see it as "oh no they're violating our rights to spend our money on whatever we want" that may be but i dont care
Comment has been collapsed.
First of all, I think you are fine with it.
I think it's good that you're interested and thinking about it and making your point.
If you skimmed over my post, I'm afraid it's hard to read and I don't blame you.
What I can add is that I had already written in Japanese that there have been cases of actual damage caused by the same response in the past, and I tried to convey it in translation, but you didn't seem to understand it.
I found the English version of it and just pasted it in.
It's good to be interested, to think about it, and to make a point.
“It’s a security hole that endangers democracy itself.” NieR creator speaks out against payment processors pressuring Japanese adult content platforms - AUTOMATON WEST
Hopefully Steam won't face similar problems.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I'm not sure that article is the same, that's about Manga that contains certain words it says, these games that are removed from steam are extremely explicit and go much farther then just some profanity, if you know what I mean,
it is irritating for me to see those games when I search for games on steam or just browsing
Comment has been collapsed.
That you don't see what you have quarantined to a category and that you don't see what you have locked in an age limit.
Hope it works properly for you and is easy to use.
Steam>>↗YourSteamName>>store performance>>Mature Content Filtering
and
Tags to Exclude
The first time you set this up, you will probably see strings you don't want to see, but once you do, you won't have to.
I know you probably have it set up.
Can make it invisible there.
This would be useful for those who don't know the setup here.
If you do not want to display a single millimeter, the installation of parental controls for children exists in some countries.
There is no recommendation from me because “stability” and “operational methods” vary from country to country.
Japan is losing an archive of out-of-print manga because of international credit card companies - AUTOMATON WEST
https://automaton-media.com/en/nongaming-news/japan-is-losing-an-archive-of-out-of-print-manga-because-of-international-credit-card-companies/
Before I go any further, this is not your fault.
It's something you should keep in mind.
You may not have read the set of articles, but the actions of those who insist on Visa and Mastercard for non-display have created a word hunt and censorship, and the funds were suddenly stopped without prior grace, and the revenue that should have gone to all authors, including those you would consider artistic or normal expression, was returned and The money is gone.
I'm sure most of you will find it no wonder that some of those involved, unrelated to the actions you consider harmful, feel that they have had their values imposed on them, that they have been forced into economic warfare and religious violence.
The story of what reason Visa gave for stopping the program was also confirmed by a Japanese Diet member who fact-checked that Visa “has never issued instructions to restrict transactions in specific terms” and “does not make value judgments on transactions of legal content” in light of censorship issues.📝
So, I personally do not believe that Visa will repeat the same mistake against Steam.
I am concerned that other payment providers will not repeat the nightmare that happened in Japan against Steam.
I am sure the parties involved in this fiasco did it with “good intentions”.
The English article makes it sound like it was just one site, but it affected creative activities in general, and some publishers have started to make self-regulation rules. The traces are still there.
I think it is necessary to consult with people before doing something, to face things and their effects, and to have a preparatory period.
I just hope the same thing doesn't happen and make a lot of people unhappy.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've never seen which keywords were not liked. (Let me know if you know). But it it was rape/loli/incest. Don't held this against them. You want illegal content, go underground, still thriving. , sadly.
Comment has been collapsed.
You should read four pages of this article in English.
クレカの表現規制、真犯人は誰か 見えてきた“構造的原因”を解説する（1/4 ページ） - ITmedia NEWS
https://www.itmedia.co.jp/news/articles/2503/07/news144.html
It seems that “people in between” are going “arbitrarily” rather than which keywords.
In the end, I suspect that the aspect that is considered “a reason to erase what is inconvenient in personal ideology”.
Also, this is after the damage has been done, which is not too exaggerated to be considered “economic terrorism” or "acts of ideological terrorism.
🤔ooO(Issuer & Acquirer...etc)
Comment has been collapsed.
Memo
Savvy ( ˶ˆ꒳ˆ˵ ) on X: "Mastercard’s legal speak is similar to Visa’s, but their rules are more condensed and make up over 400 pages. I went through it all myself and this is the most important part, once again allows for “this is a list but it isn’t the full list” “Nonconsensual mutilation” applies " / X
https://x.com/MadamSavvy/status/1949468898421584305
Pirat_Nation 🔴 on X: "Payment processors like Visa are lying. Many people receive identical emails from processors, claiming they aren't doing what they are actually doing. " / X
https://x.com/Pirat_Nation/status/1949277219324416169
Tips
”but not limited to...”Some people seem to think that this magic phrase is the reason why Visa and MasterCard can arbitrarily delete content when they deem it problematic.🤔
Comment has been collapsed.
Isn't that itchio is for? Cheap game-shaped porn?
If a store chooses not to sell shit made to look like chocolate, it's not censorship. It's just a choice.
Those "games" literally still exist. You can still buy them. Just not on Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
I sincerely hope that you are a troll and not a sincere fool.
If this was a conscious decision of the store, then it would not have initially passed these games through the content pre-moderation system.
The situation here is different. There is pressure on the industry from the outside.
Comment has been collapsed.
I tend not to respond to people who are trying to bait me.
These "games" should not have been on Steam to begin with.
If Steam was totally ok selling pedophile porn pausing as games and Visa said "I'm sorry but I refuse to make money off that filth", it would be the same thing.
Now kindly direct your outrage to someone else.
Comment has been collapsed.
These "games" should not have been on Steam to begin with.
Maybe you'll stop acting like a stupid fanatic and explain why they shouldn't be there?
Just because you declare this idea without any arguments doesn't make it valid.
Comment has been collapsed.
Above he replied to a comment regarding monopolists and assumed that it was about Steam, that should answer your question.
Comment has been collapsed.
His comment is not convincing and I can't accept it as an answer.
BUT I don't really care about his opinion.
I started this thread not to argue about censorship, but to think about the perimeter future of Steam and to notify people that some games they want to buy may soon disappear from sale on Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're arguing with people who want zero checks and balances in society at all. They're totally cool with people being able to indulge in rape and pedophile fantasies, and will rationalize it by claiming it's just fantasy, lol.
The monopoly argument some people have made is a better argument, but since Visa and Mastercard are factually not the only payment options available to people, that argument does also fall flat. And I also think the fact that these payment processors were willing to lose millions and maybe even billions of dollars in revenue by taking a stand is quite the statement on its own.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think it's that simple for most but it seems a lot of people are seeing anything as the beginning of the end. Like "oh sure for now they're taking down revolting porn games but soon they'll come for your games too" and I just don't think that's the case.
And I can see why companies with as much power as Visa and Paypal pressuring businesses into anything can be a concern but:
- they did not ask Steam to remove all the sexual content (and there is still a shit ton of it that's pretty sick) but they did not
- these companies have the power we give them so maybe that should be more the focus of the concern.
You want to protest Visa for their behavior, target them. Petition against them. Don't use your Visa card for a week. Talk to your bank.
Expressing outrage at Steam taking down disgusting porn shaped games? it seems rather small considering.
I also think the fact that these payment processors were willing to lose millions and maybe even billions of dollars in revenue by taking a stand is quite the statement on its own.
I think so too. And again we're not talking about puritan-muscle-action. They didn't make Steam remove all sexual content, FPS, violent content, LGBT content etc. Would I have a problem with that? Sure. But it's not what they did so let's not act as if they were coming for everything next.
They did not want to keep profiting off filth. I'm frankly more concerned with Steam being so totally ok with that and selling just about anything on their store as long as they can make money off it that they let it completely take over the store to the point it's literally impossible to find actual games now.
If Steam was removing all the 50 bucks asset flip fake games that is most likely being used to launder very dirty money, would everyone be crying about an attack of freedom of speech?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm frankly more concerned with Steam being so totally ok with that and selling just about anything on their store as long as they can make money off it
While I understand that it might appear like that to you, it's not the case. E.g., Valve doesn't allow nudity of real persons, rule 2 at https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/gettingstarted/onboarding. Example for that: Super Seducer 3 (https://steamcommunity.com/games/929660/announcements/detail/4627981752748257682?snr=2___). There was another even older example with pictures of actresses (similarly to Mafia, but the pinups there aren't real), which was delisted a bit earlier, but I don't remember the name right now.
This rule makes sense in the way many people are argumenting, because then it would be more difficult to view it as fiction. This is also what differs games from movies, but I don't see movies or books being targeted like this. Neither with kink or BDSM things like quijote3000 already brought up or horror revenge movies in which victims of (sexual) violence turn it around and hunt their tormentors. They wouldn't work as well as they do if the (sexual) assault was only mentioned in the beginning,
Context is another issue. While most of the removed games were about fetish fantasies, we can't be sure which criteria Valve (or the people behind the NGOs already) based this on. The very first wave of removals were mostly based on game titles, yesterday and today it looked like they were going through descriptions. Imagine you created a drama/emotional game with a character who was raped in their backstory.. and only because of that your game gets delisted. It's similar to Wolfenstein not being sold earlier in Germany, because bad swastikas (not considering the actual context of the game).
There are more rules in the documentation, thus more games aren't getting through their review system. However, the newest rule (15), is as vague as it could be, because it's not Valve's rule, but their payment processor's. As a dev of adult content games I would wonder what is okay or not okay now.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do get your point. And as always Steam carpet-bombed without any nuance because they're doing it under pressure and not because of ethical concerns, which is really sad.
In the end, if you only defend free speech for ideas you like, you don’t truly believe in it. You’re just hoping censorship doesn’t turn against you — but it always does
Could it be because movies and books usually provide more context and the interactivity of a manga girl being raped by a tentacle is more disturbing?
It's similar to Wolfenstein not being sold earlier in Germany, because bad swastikas (not considering the actual context of the game).
Germany has issues with swastikas and that's understandable. And no it doesn't make much sense but they're sticking with it because they don't want neo-nazis to use a game being given a pass as an excuse.
As a dev of adult content games I would wonder what is okay or not okay now.
Maybe it is time they ask themselves the question, don't you think? If the result of all this is that they start wondering, it's progress.
Comment has been collapsed.
Could it be because movies and books usually provide more context and the interactivity of a manga girl being raped by a tentacle is more disturbing?
The torture scene in GTA V was imho more disturbing than any tentacles and an anime girl could be, because it's way more realistic and immersive, but you have a point regarding interactivity (however, that would also be an argument for the "video games produce killers" people).
The context thing is important, because I'm not sure that those people who asked for this actually reviewed all these games to figure out whether there is any context, whether there is any gameplay, whether it's so over the top that it's just ridiculous.
And it would have been way better to use this power to make Valve finally add a proper age verification system (to protect minors and improve filtering).
Maybe it is time they ask themselves the question, don't you think? If the result of all this is that they start wondering, it's progress.
Why would they do that if there's demand and the rules are vague? This just leads to loopholes and hypocrisy. Add a "step" or "adopted" and you're good. Add a line that the anime character (!) declared consent for role-playing to not have consent. You're good again?!
Did those NGOs also report the following game to Valve, because a male protagonist is being raped by women: Devilish Lady Doctor - A Night of Domination and Seduction - ? We don't know.
Comment has been collapsed.
it would have been way better to use this power to make Valve finally add a proper age verification system (to protect minors and improve filtering).
That would almost certainly have changed the outcome here. I think most of us would like to know why that hasn't been implemented.
Did those NGOs also report the following game to Valve, because a male protagonist is being raped by women
The bans are likely due to the rape/incest tag irrespective of who the victim is. We'll probably know soon as more games with those tags are purchase disabled.
Comment has been collapsed.
The bans are likely due to the rape/incest tag irrespective of who the victim is. We'll probably know soon as more games with those tags are purchase disabled.
There are no tags. You'd have to search game descriptions for it, e.g. on SteamDB by looking for "website_description". Even then you have false results like skyscrapers, thus I believe it's based on reports (and the tweets of CollectiveShout mention that).
When someone else brought that up, my first thought was else well: "they will go for these things in general, not gender based", but after looking at their hateful tweets I'm not that sure.
Comment has been collapsed.
Insults, personal attacks and generalizations. Not only does it appear unprofessional as a NGO, it's polarizing and might be counterproductive for them.
Comment has been collapsed.
That itself is a generalization. Do you have something specific you're referencing?
Comment has been collapsed.
Ugh, "all their tweets are hateful" would have been, but that's not what I wrote. Do I have to look through those a third time now to prove it to you? Can't you look at them yourself?
Not by themself, but retweeted by their official account:
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't have an X account, and I'm also not making any claims about them.
Scanning through the first few posts though shows that they are talking about rape and incest games. Which seems appropriate given their focus. What are you objecting to?
Comment has been collapsed.
Why would they do that if there's demand and the rules are vague?
It's good point. As always Steam reacted with broad strokes because they're not actually cleaning up their store, they're just responding to pressure and just don't want to get into trouble with their money partners.
Did those NGOs also report the following game to Valve, because a male protagonist is being raped by women: Devilish Lady Doctor - A Night of Domination and Seduction - ? We don't know.
I don't see why not but let's be honest, how far did Reddit have to dig to find that game in the thousands of games where women (and mostly girls) are being raped?
Comment has been collapsed.
Absolutely. Valve only does what's necessary to avoid trouble.
I don't see why not but let's be honest, how far did Reddit have to dig to find that game in the thousands of games where women (and mostly girls) are being raped?
Was my first thought, too, and I'm not one of those who usually asks "but what about poor men?", because I know that women are waaay more often victims of abuse and exploitation, but after looking at their hateful tweets I'm not that sure anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
but after looking at their hateful tweets I'm not that sure anymore.
Ugh. Social media really brings the best out of humanity, doesn't it?
Comment has been collapsed.
Right, not wanting monopolistic payment processors to decide what's acceptable equals "you're arguing with people who want zero checks and balances in society at all."
Such alienating exaggerations usually only come up if people ran out of arguments.
And look and behold, your arguments indeed are laughable.
See
And I also think the fact that these payment processors were willing to lose millions and maybe even billions of dollars in revenue by taking a stand is quite the statement on its own.
Only in your dreams that is a realistic scenario. For the payment processors Steam is a tiny fraction of their business. For Steam it would imply at least 80% of their customers losing the ability to make business with Steam.
So yeah, a very very huge risk for the payment processors that Steam would stand up against them for such a tiny part of Steam's business. So daring. So heroic. /s
But I got to admit that you compensate your lack of arguments by some nice insults and some decent fantasy scenarios.
Comment has been collapsed.
Were you feeling insulted by the realistic statements I made?
Obviously, they expected Steam to do what they wanted, but they were also completely willing to go through with it if Steam didn't comply. Payment processors typically charge between 1.5% to 3.5% per transaction. Some charge more. Valve was estimated to have made around 5 billion last year. Which would be roughly 125,000,000 paid out to payment processors. That's a significant amount of money to be willing to lose, and Valve will make more than that 5 billion this year for sure, increasing the value of the potential losses for the payment processors.
And you and almost everyone else would still be able to top off your Paypal or whatever accounts and use them for payments. So, it's hardly the monopoly you are stating it is. Although me personally, I'm all for breaking up literally every billion-dollar corporation, individual, and family financially; and redistributing that wealth. You standing up for what you believe in and refusing to do business with them can only help the cause. Don't be scared to do so.
Comment has been collapsed.
Classic "do you feel insulted? Then you deserve it" move. I'll consider it a confirmation that I was right with my interpretation.
Besides, I'm slightly confused why you think that PayPal would still have worked, considering that they were actually one of the leaders on the side of the payment processors in this story.
But please don't explain it to me, I'm not in the mood for another tale that has nothing to do with the reality.
Your calculation of the potential loses that had a 0% chance to happen, already was boring enough.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm just curious why you thought it was an insult aimed at you.
Especially when I addressed the monopoly argument separately in the same post, something you seem to have intentionally left out despite it being the argument you were making. Kinda an odd omission.
Paypal was just an example, but you can find plenty of ways to pay for things that don't require Visa and Mastercard. If you really want to. Or you can just be angry as you continue to make use of their services.
But hey, you do you my man.
Comment has been collapsed.
Paypal was just an example, but you can find plenty of ways to pay for things that don't require Visa and Mastercard. If you really want to. Or you can just be angry as you continue to make use of their services.
It really depends on the site, for example itch.io that has been mentioned as an alternative, only accepts Paypal (not available worldwide) and card payments.
The thing I dislike in this news is that the removed games essentially were removed based on a payment processor's request.
Valve is morally not better at all, than the people who make these games, they were happy to take the money for the games, and had no issue hosting them.
I don't know how other stores, sites will react, and if the payment processors refuse to do business with sites selling this type of content... I hope it will never come to that, that this will be repeated, just with another type of content. It's a dangerous precedent, and hopefully it won't turn into a "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist" type of situation, it's hard to see straight about laws and rules, when the content is fringe, and not seen positively.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know how other stores, sites will react, and if the payment processors refuse to do business with sites selling this type of content... I hope it will never come to that, that this will be repeated, just with another type of content. It's a dangerous precedent, and hopefully it won't turn into a "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist" type of situation, it's hard to see straight about laws and rules, when the content is fringe, and not seen positively.
It's actually not a precedent, because this already happened to other stores and platforms. Though it's probably new for gaming.
But the most famous case so far was OnlyFans in 2021. Payment processors pressured them so far to announce they'd stop hosting adult content. Which is 99.9% of their business. Only after a severe backlash did everyone backpedal.
And it's not like this would have stopped. Just some months ago, there was a business report about groups trying to pressure payment processors to cut off OF again. They argued that they found some child sexual abuse material. That all reported accounts were banned doesn't matter; they accuse payment processors of laundering proceeds and demand a total ban.
The craziest part is that people seem to willfully ignore the potential for abuse. And I seriously don't understand how anyone could consider opening the door for payment processors as some sort of 'regulators' in the age of culture war.
Let them in and it's only a matter of time till certain groups will mind the existence of LGBTQ+ content in some games. Or games mentioning abortion. Or the existence of games covering books, which they already got banned from schools.
But nope. It's all great. Let's just pretend that payment processors should do this and can be easily replaced. And of course also pretend that these groups targeting VISA, MasterCard or PayPal, wouldn't target whatever new payment processor could theoretically replace them, whenever they gain a relevant market share.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Visa and Mastercard are factually not the only payment options available to people" More than 90% of worldwide payment processors, it's a monopoly in every single court in the world.
"lose millions and maybe even billions of dollars in revenue" They have a monopoly. They are not going to lose anything. They are too big. Valve would be bankrupt in a week if they decided to stop using them. Every single alternative after Valve was destroyed would rush to use Visa and Mastercard.
Comment has been collapsed.
"They're totally cool with people being able to indulge in rape and pedophile fantasies, and will rationalize it by claiming it's just fantasy, lol."
So people who play violent video games indulge in murder fantasies?
Comment has been collapsed.
yawn, the same straw man again and I already explained this earlier
Violence isn't a basic human desire.
Quite contrary to sexual drive (excluding asexuals)
Violence in video games is often just used as a means to an end, the end being a competition or challenge, which has nothing to do with violence per se.
This is not the cause with sex games, except you see the challenge in jerking of and satisfying a basic human desire. Imagine multiplayer sex games.
Comment has been collapsed.
You clearly have no idea what a straw man is. There is no difference between violence and sexual violence in this aspect. Both sexual gratification and enjoyment of violent media are in the same exact part of the brain.
People will not go out and murder because they played a violent game or watched a movie. People will not go out and rape because they played a shitty porn game.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is no difference between violence and sexual violence in this aspect.
Yeah right, because you don't satisfy sexual drive with sexual violence to an extent, right?
Both sexual gratification and enjoyment of violent media are in the same exact part of the brain.
I asked Google, the AI says:
No, sexual gratification and enjoyment of violent media do not activate the exact same part of the brain, though both involve the brain's reward system. While both activate the dopamine-reward pathway, including the nucleus accumbens, and can lead to addiction-like behaviors with excessive exposure, the specific neural pathways and brain regions involved are not identical.
What are your sources?
People will not go out and rape because they played a shitty porn game.
But will people with odd sexual preferences will play weird sex games to satisfy their sexual drive?
What happens, when they can't satisfy their sexual drive with these games anymore?
Comment has been collapsed.
The AI would tell you the same exact shit I said if you googled it differently. AI is shit and isn't a real source. As for your second question: yes. If people aren't murdering after playing GTA then they aren't raping because they played a sexual game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Source, trust me bro.
If people aren't murdering after playing GTA then they aren't raping because they played a sexual game.
If people aren't murdering after playing GTA, because they have no basic human desire for it, then they aren't raping because they played a sexual game and have no sexual drive?
Totally makes sense now! /s
Comment has been collapsed.
That's ironic coming from somebody who used AI.
People aren't doing something in real life just because they enjoy something fictional. Your argument is shit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, we reached that level of discussion? The no your argument is shit full stop level?
People aren't doing something in real life just because they enjoy something fictional. Your argument is shit.
Yeah, they totally don't do this. Ever heard of Paintball or Airsoft? Or people playing Farming Simulator, being actual farmers and these are just some examples.
Whose allegation is shit now?
Comment has been collapsed.
So they're going around murdering random civilians while playing in an enclosed paintball area? I highly doubt actual farmers plays video games like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
So they're going around murdering random civilians while playing in an enclosed paintball area?
You can't even make the stretch from Counter-Strike to Paintball and babbling about murder? Those sex games seem to have some serious degenerative side effects.
I highly doubt actual farmers plays video games like that.
Source: trust me bro
But I'll help you with that: https://www.theguardian.com/games/2018/jul/24/meet-the-real-life-farmers-who-play-farming-simulator
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. There is no correlation. Somebody enjoying a violent video game does not mean they want to kill somebody in real life. It also applies to sexual games.
I said doubt, not "they don't".
Comment has been collapsed.
"Yes. There is no correlation. Somebody enjoying a violent video game does not mean they want to kill somebody in real life. It also applies to sexual games."
You can't actually counter it and again falsely claim a straw man.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Isn't that itchio is for? Cheap game-shaped porn?" they arw targetting itch.io too
Today it's easier and more legal to buy Mein Kampt, literally Hitler's book that many adult games https://itch.io/updates/update-on-nsfw-content
Comment has been collapsed.
This aged poorly. In less than a week xD
If you give them a finger...
Comment has been collapsed.
well, when there's 2 companies that have over 90% of the payments they can dictate what you can buy, when you can buy, if you can buy
Comment has been collapsed.
While I don't particularly care about the fate of the 78 million Incest Sister games it's absolutely infuriating that Steam can remove them in a matter of days when some big money guys threaten their coin purse, while they didn't do anything to prevent their storefront from being turned into a pile of cheap porn in the first place.
- Remember that you don't have to buy the game on Steam to complete it... You can find it completely by accident on the Internet!*
I don't think advocating piracy is the solution though :x
Comment has been collapsed.
while they didn't do anything to prevent their storefront from being turned into a pile of cheap porn in the first place.
Agreed. I can see why the fact these money processors have a say in what's on Steam or not can be concerning for some but I'm honestly more appalled that Steam had to have anyone twist their arms into minding in the first place.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wonder if your outrage about the situation is stemming from the fact that you yourself gave a bunch of these kinds of "games" away here?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't experience any strong negative emotions. As I wrote above, I will always find an opportunity to play the games that interest me.
I am driven by research interest and the desire to inform caring people about changes in Steam.
Perhaps someone will not spend extra money because he will clearly understand that the game he wants to buy may soon be deleted and he will not have an increase in the counter of the number of games available on his account.
Perhaps someone, on the contrary, will hurry up and buy the games that interest him so that he will always have the opportunity to comfortably launch it by downloading from his library.
Comment has been collapsed.
This feels like the answer written by AI. For one, it completely missed the point of what I was asking about 🌚
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, you are right. I focused too much on the word "outrage" and I thought such an assessment was unfair because I always tried to stick to neutral rhetoric.
Except for the discussion with "Fluffster". But these are our personal forum passions.
And having revealed my position on the term, I completely forgot about the end of your question.
Basically, my rating is based on games without 18+ content. I certainly distributed and popularized them, but at the same time their rating was usually zero. Therefore, my rating will not suffer much due to the lack of 18+ games.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not quite sure of how to feel about this whole thing other than worried. On the one hand this wave of bans mostly targeted content that was pushing it a bit too far, play with fire and you'll get burned, but on the other hand we're still talking about purely fictional stuff exclusively made inside a computer that technically falls within the limits of artistic expression no matter how uncomfortable it might make us. How long until they target all porn and then keep moving the goalpost to who knows where? And how the fuck did we get to the point that it's bankers deciding what's acceptable or not? Shouldn't this fall under the jurisdiction of someone who actually represents the public at large like the government or some other regulatory body?
I can accept a store choosing to not sell something they're not confortable with, but a credit card company? In my opinion they should not have that power. I'd honestly rather have this content made actually illegal because then the rules would need to be clear, you can chose the guys writing actual legislation but we have no control over the directives making decisions inside a private company. Capitalism is a fucking dystopia sometimes.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1.
Even though I'm usually very skeptical about EU bureaucracy, in this case I sure hope, that they will establish relevant legislation forcing service companies to serve ALL interested parties.
I don't care about those games, but I care about freedom. In my country (and I think in most of the world) a store has an obligation to serve in the same way any customer, that comes to it, no matter if the owner likes or dislikes that person, unless law (f.e. about age limit to buy liquor) or court (f.e. in case of a person, that has been destroying the store's property) states differently.
The same should apply to any service company - if they offer the service it should be available to everyone. It's not their job to decide, what I can or can't buy, it's the job of lawmakers and store owners, which have a right to decide not to carry some kinds of merchandise.
Comment has been collapsed.
If Steam made the decision to stop selling these controversial games, I would say that it is their choice as a private company. Personally I don't want to see those types of games and some may even be considered illegal in America (where Valve is located). However, I am absolutely NOT a fan of payment processors coercing Valve to stop selling certain games to their customers.
Comment has been collapsed.
The Miller Test is irrelevant because it didn't exist when the First Amendment was created. Some old men added it in the 70s because the type of content offended them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fighting words, true threats, and obscenity are examples of expression that is not protected by the first amendment. Those are exceptions that were created by case law, they are still legitimate valid exceptions despite not being in the Constitution.
"We conclude that the Supreme Court has analyzed and upheld the federal statutes regulating the distribution of obscenity..."
United States v. Extreme Associates, para. 24
Comment has been collapsed.
No I'm saying the Founding Fathers never created those "exceptions". It was a bunch of old Christians who got offended by content they didn't like long after the Founding Fathers had died.
Comment has been collapsed.
So what? If you want to talk about the legality of distributing obscene media, the Miller Test is indeed the framework that would be used by the courts to determine that. You don't have to agree with it, but there are only a few exceptions to the First Amendment and obscenity is one of them. The Miller Test is the test to determine if something is legally going to be considered obscene. It is extremely relevant.
Also, the Bill of Rights says we have freedom of speech, it does not mention freedom of expression. So the founding fathers never protected obscenity in the first place, meaning it never needed an exception.
Comment has been collapsed.
They protected it by not mentioning it. They intended the First Amendment to be read exactly how it was stated. People changing it long after they were dead is irrelevant.
Comment has been collapsed.
There goes half of steamgifts giveaways once all the weird incest/fury sex games get banned.
Comment has been collapsed.
Обновил список жертв корпоративной цензуры. Стало понятно что работает не слепой алгоритм, но при этом до сих пор неочевидна логика в последовательности выбора той или иной игры.
Updated the list of victims of corporate censorship. It became clear that it is not a blind algorithm that works, but at the same time the logic in the sequence of choosing a particular game is still not obvious.
Comment has been collapsed.
you can thank this group.
they're feminists and according to chibi reviews on twitter they have been absolutely ecstatic over this news for the last 24h......
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand people are upset about the removals but this is absolutely the right call... This isn’t about “censorship” in the dramatic way some people here are claiming.. its more abt setting limits on whats acceptable in a public storefront... Games that revolve around Rape, coercion, slavery and other non consensual sex cross the line time and again... and if u bothered to read, those are the only ones that have been removed... Having fetishes is one thing but in most of these games these fetishes are literally simulations of abuse and usually illegal everywhere.. I am not saying all fetish games should be banned but bruh the ones like No Mercy which is literally a rape and incest simulator should 100% be removed.. Steam is not an Adult only platform... The only thing stopping impressionable kids from consuming this kind of content is an 18+ warning (which lets be frank all of us are guilty og ignoring) and a credit card??
People here are again arguing "its just fiction"... bro open your eyes... fiction influences reality more than what we are willing to admit... Media normalizes and shapes perceptions... specially around sex and consent.. When people constantly consume games that blur the lines between coercion and desire, especially with family members or minors involved, it will affect how they view real world relationships...
Dont come at me for this... This is literally a flagship theory in psychology... You can read about it yourself (ngl seeing the negative iq in here rn i dont expect much😂)
Steam is a global platform. They need to comply with international laws, payment processor rules etc
Which brings me to the fact that Visa, Mastercard, PayPal etc do not allow this kind of content... PayPal explicitly bans the sale of e books or media that depict “child pornography, or . . . rape, bestiality or incest” . They even threatened to deactivate accounts involved in that kind of content.... Visa and Mastercard have a track record of cutting ties with adult content platforms when illegal or non-consensual content is present...That is their policies... if u dont like them then stop using them/ complain to them.
If you want to publish or play content like this there are niche platforms for that.... But Valve has every right not just legally but morally to say “we don’t want this here.”...
We don’t lose anything meaningful by not having “Slave of the Police Officer” or “My Hypnotized Family” on Steam.... But we do lose something when platforms (specially ones filled with kids) normalize content that trivializes abuse and consent.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, but that's a lot of bs.
Are we back at the 'games like GTA are responsible for real life violence' era again?.. Why are you limiting this to games that involve sex acts specifically and not games about uncomfortable things in general like killings, robbery and slavery? Both Pokemon and Palworld promote the idea of slavery for example, they just mask it by 'slaves' being cute animals instead. And yet you are okay with it judging by your Steam profile, but according to your very own words about fiction and how it affects reality you really shouldn't be okay with it. Are you a slave owner yet?
I still think Valve did a huge mistake when they essentially removed the moderation process of published games for good (which opened the floodgates for asset flippers), followed by allowing the 18+ games (which opened the floodgates for 18+ asset flippers) to be published with the rest of the games instead of having some dedicated hidden 18+ section. But here we are.
Comment has been collapsed.
But Valve has every right not just legally but morally to say “we don’t want this here.”...
Sorry, but you're out of touch. Valve had no issue with this content. They allowed to their storefront, and got money out of it. They only stopped it, because they were forced to choose, and they dropped them in a heartbeat. They are basically the tuencoat, profiteering bad guy in the story.
when platforms (specially ones filled with kids)
Age gates exost for a reason. They may not work if those "kids" lie about their age, but they would do that anywhere else too.
This just sounds like a Steam apologist, "think about the kids" approach, while ignoring multiple factors.
Comment has been collapsed.
oh no, not the incest and rape games! what will we do without those!? /s
Comment has been collapsed.
It is not about making it harder for a couple of perverts to follow their fantasies. We should discuss how a bunch of Karens are exerting pressure and those coward companies in turn tell you what (legal) wares and services are acceptable for you to buy with your own money.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank god, finally. I hope that someday they will clean up all this trash from the store.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you think it's a good thing, keep an eye on it, lest it be diverted not necessarily only to “good deeds” but also to acts that destroy other cultures and lives.
After all, in other countries, there's been a huge negative impact because of this response.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh no, they're going to remove all the pornographic showel-malware trash from Steam, which is nothing less than the destruction of cultures and lives. Damn, how can this be? Now I can't satisfy my kinks in the online video game store!?
Comment has been collapsed.
If you look at the discussion a little higher up, you'll see that there are no more rules that Steam has the authority to remove.
Onboarding (Steamworks Documentation)
15.Content that may violate the rules and standards set forth by Steam’s payment processors and related card networks and banks, or internet network providers. In particular, certain kinds of adult only content.
1.5 years ago, Visa and Mastercard abruptly suspended payments to various services that distributed old creative works from other countries because they treated depictions of old creative works as sexual content, an act of censorship that led to the termination of those services and the removal of the creative works.
With this new rule from Steam, it's not just a personal “anything you can't stand to see will no longer be displayed” rule, but suggests that if something is unacceptable to the values of any part of the planet, it could be removed from Steam at the request of that part of the planet, including content purchased in the past.
Well, that's why I suggest you watch Steam's associated payment companies very carefully.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah porn games definitely destroy cultures and lives.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you don't like it, you "CANCEL" it, right? Shame on Steam and MC/Visa/Paypal once again.
Comment has been collapsed.
What a thread. "Let me play out my fantasies of rape, incest, pedophilia just because you can go around and shoot people in GTA"....
Of course these games should be banned. Shit content like this should not be available. Simple as that.
Sure, argue about violance and other illegal acts being portrayed in different games, but that's not here or there. Illegal acts like incest, rape pedophilia is being banned from storefront. Bringing up strawman arguments to defend sick fetishes is rather low.... Im ashamed on what Im seeing in the comments...
For those who still want to argue - I can instantly give perfect analogy - this is same as defending hard drug use, just because you can buy booze freely. Are the two bad for you? Yes. Are we banning just one? Yes. Because while both should not be part of our lives, we are sane enough to undertstand that hard drugs do way bigger harm then booze does.
So, same as there are regulations for selling and advertising booze, there are and should be rules for making games about violance. Yet immoral and illegal shit like rape, incest and pedophilia should not come up at all.
IF you want to argue and talk about the act of banning payments and censorship - do that. But not defend some porn games that should not have been made at all. This thread and post IMO has went into completly bizzarre direction. Do you think people support censorship? Of course not. But if you want to talk about "censorship" and use rape as an example - who does that even? I have no words.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't intend to participate in this discussion as such, but I still have to be a bit of a nag about this part:
For those who still want to argue - I can instantly give perfect analogy - this is same as defending hard drug use, just because you can buy booze freely. Are the two bad for you? Yes. Are we banning just one? Yes. Because while both should not be part of our lives, we are sane enough to undertstand that hard drugs do way bigger harm then booze does.
This can't be called a perfect analogy at all, because if you start from it, it turns out that murder causes less harm than incest or rape. And this is not true. Incest is a controversial act with many nuances, rape is a very bad event, but murder is the end of everything. Therefore, murder is the greater evil in any case.
And therefore, following this analogy, it should have been games with murders that were banned ("murder" = drugs, "incest" or "rape" = "booze" in your analogy). So, you should probably find another analogy, because this one seems more like a counter-argument to the rest of the text.
P.S.: IMHO, but first of all, sane people should be able to separate the real from the unreal. If someone, having played some game, decides to commit a crime (any - be it theft, rape, murder or something else) - the problem is not in the game, but in the person himself. Millions of people who play violent games do not become serial killers (otherwise GTA and Mortal Kombat would have destroyed more lives than a dozen of the worst epidemics in history and both World Wars combined), millions of people who play such games for adults do not become maniacs, etc. Precisely because they understand that what can be done with fictional characters can't be done with real people. And if a person is not quite right in the head, if he does not have a clear understanding of what can and can't be done, he can do terrible things with or without games. After all, murders and rapes happened all the time even before video games existed...
Comment has been collapsed.
I honestly don't care about these games and the only reason I could see myself playing one is for dropping cards, however censorship is never a good thing, but I recognize Valve has the right to choose what to have and what not to have on Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
It wasn't Valve deciding this. They were strongarmed.
Comment has been collapsed.
doubt there would be many complaints if it was valve making the choice.
Comment has been collapsed.
Valve has the right to choose. But Valve didn't choose anything. They were forced by payment processors.
Comment has been collapsed.
I find odd that external companies could "force" Valve into doing anything, not that I do not believe you, but all of this seems strange.
Comment has been collapsed.
Once payment processors forced onlyfans to remove porn from onlyfans.
99% of payments from steam come from visa and mastercard. THAT'S how powerful they are.
Multiple shops in Japan had to close, and i mran, close, people fifed, business ruined, after visa and mastercard decided they didn't want hentai.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't get how what's bought (if legal) could affect them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I want you to remove these 10000 games. What, you don't want to obey my orders?
Sure. It's all perfectly legal. You won't get ibti trouble. Oh, not going to do business with you anymore. What, customers want to buy expedition 33? Or any other game? . Sorry, your customers won't be able to use visa or mastercard. What, customers can't use aby other payment since we are a duopoly? Sorry, not sorry
Valve would go bankrupt in a week
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam expanded their distribution rules on https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/gettingstarted/onboarding.
They added this:
Content that may violate the rules and standards set forth by Steam’s payment processors and related card networks and banks, or internet network providers. In particular, certain kinds of adult only content.
So yes, it's settled that everyone publishing on Steam has to follow the rules and standards set by payment processors. Steam literally retreated and made payment processors official co-rules makers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Read the new rule. If it was Valve then they wouldn't have said anything about the payment processors.
Comment has been collapsed.
The censorship itself is bad but it's irrelevant since payment processing companies should not have that kind of power and it should be illegal.
Comment has been collapsed.
Reading the comments on this thread is like diving into 4chan or basically any weird sub on reddit.
A bit funny, very sad, and also very surreal XD
Some people on here need to drop the "devil's advocate" act and get real.
Arguing that ero-guro, incest, rape fantasy and extreme fetish games should be on Steam is like arguing pharmacies should carry street bagged Fentanyl along with normal opioids like Morphine.
And I'm not here to argue moral equivalency, either. You want Fentanyl? Go to the street dealers and stop complaining about stupid shit like this. Most people wouldn't feel comfortable going into a pharmacy seeing advertisements for a thing 100 times more fucked up than any actual normal medication people usually take. (I don't think I need to elaborate on this analogy.)
It's beyond me why someone would allow theses games onto their profile, where their friends and other people can see they own them, let alone pay money to play them, but who am I to judge.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm against these companies having the power to censor games, let alone anything else, but sorry, I feel I can't be mad about this specifically.
If it ever happens with normal games the outcry would be so massive that they would for sure reverse the decision, but since it's this I'm not surprised it barely even appeared as a blip on my radar.
Comment has been collapsed.
You mean like the public outcry being so effective, when books got banned from schools in the US? And all the other nice little rights and freedoms that get constantly eroded and taken away?
Seems pretty rich to complain about people playing devil's advocate, considering the status of the world.
Comment has been collapsed.
Strawman argument.
Yes, the current state of the world sucks total balls but this is a completely seperate issue, one that is not even close IMO to literal governments censoring and taking away rights from the ordinary citizen.
You know as well as I that a company like Steam that has the biggest monopoly on PC gaming would not dare ruin it's reputation over letting a company take down actual normal games that alot of people enjoy. (and it would be, or at the very least it'd leave a huge stain.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, so you think that Steam might have a choice if under serious pressure. I guess it's nice to still believe that harm can be that easily avoided.
Comment has been collapsed.
"the outcry would be so massive" Only a few days after CBS "bowed to" Trump in a $16 million settlement, they have announced their most popular show, "Late Show with Stephen Colbert" is ending and also The Late Show franchise altogether in May 2026 after 33 years (with the first 22 seasons under David Letterman and the following 11 seasons under outspoken Trump critic Colbert)
Do you see any outcry? A few people protesting? Is that ALL?
I rest my case.
Comment has been collapsed.
I will refer you to this comment I made.
Literally the same argument, and literally the same logical fallacy.
I will say again: If Steam let them expand the net over normal people games (light sexual themes or political content) the people that use the platform would not rest, and it would signal the start of Steam's reputational decline, and they don't want that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't own a single one. The content is irrelevant since payment processing companies should not have that kind of power.
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree. I might be misunderstanding, but as a company, they should be able to not be cooperative with Steam on this.
If it violates their internal guidelines they are free to not let Steam use their platform for payment, same as how they wouldn't let people purchase illicit goods using their services.
I feel like people are losing the plot with being so paranoid about their rights to the point where that they'd say these things even in the current situation.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's frightening to see that Steam doesn't seem to have such internal guidlines in the first place to prevent disgusting content on their storefront and it needs a second party to be their morale compass.
Comment has been collapsed.
We need to bring back Steam Greenlight.
It was such a gem for filtering out sewer garbage and allowing people to discover new exciting titles and support them up to release / early access.
Comment has been collapsed.
Or increase the price of entry at the very least.
But also add actual effective age gates, like requiring actual IDs same as if people were going to buy that stuff in a brick-and-mortar specialty store. Yes, somebody will always abuse any system, but it'll prevent most issues.
Comment has been collapsed.
No they shouldn't have that kind of power. It should be illegal for them to blackmail another company because of content they don't like.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Content they don't like" is crazy.
They are allowed, as a company, to not allow the sale of these crazy fetish games because Steam carry their payment processing platform. They are well within their right in disallowing the usage of their services to sell "content that may violate the rules and standards set forth by Steam’s payment processors and related card networks and banks, or internet network providers".
Still, I feel like the only reason this happened here and not in other places where you can obviously still use these payment service providers to purchase sexual content is the implication that they won't stand around and let rape games be sold on the biggest online storefront for games in the whole world, and I fully support that.
People throwing buzzwords like "blackmail" and "strong-arm" as if it's not literally their rights as a company. They're not banning it off the internet, you can access it if you want, still. I occasionally play games with sexual themes sometimes and there are enough places to purchase or even get them for free that aren't Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
"No they shouldn't have that kind of power."
The content is always irrelevant. Especially since it's entirely fictional.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even if I agreed, this is not true...
Again, and I won't repeat this: They are well within their rights as a company to refuse cooperating with the sale of a product that violates their internal guidelines. If you think this is infringing on your rights as a consumer then A. you're too paranoid and B. you're not the smartest cookie in the jar, either.
Comment has been collapsed.
"No they shouldn't have that kind of power." I don't give a shit if they have the right to be blackmailers. They should not have that kind of power.
Comment has been collapsed.
They shouldn't have the power to refuse to participate in something they don't want or believe in and that violates their internal guidelines? Not surprising, coming from a person defending games that feature rape and sexual assault :P
Comment has been collapsed.
In all seriousness though, them being companies doesn't magically make their rights disappear. If a service provider of any kind lends their service to a client and the client does with it something they as a provider don't believe in and it doesn't align with their values, they should and do have the power and right to refuse service for that part of the site.
It makes sense to me, dunno why you have such a hard time accepting it. Maybe it's just the 1st stage of grief, denial, in action. Grieving and defending games that feature these kinds of "fetishes" is way more immoral in my opinion than what the PSPs did here.
For future reference, saying "Especially since it's entirely fictional." is just revealing your poker hand to the entire table. It's like the "actually, she's a 1000 year old dragon, she only looks like a 12 year old" of non-anime fans.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nope they absolutely should not have that power. Nothing was revealed since I have zero adult games on my account. I already proved the fiction thing doesn't matter in this thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
You just keep saying "nuh-uh" over and over again, it's not an argument.
I keep arguing sound and sane arguments and you keep saying what you think regardless of any policy or law.
They are, by law, allowed to do this. Frankly, if you think that they shouldn't, propose a solution to this.
How does a service being used respond when a product sold using their service is unaligned with their internal values? Do they suck it up? What kind of argument is "they shouldn't have this kind of power"? What "power" is that? The power of choice? Should their hands be tied regarding things like this that they don't agree with selling, just because they're payment providers?
You're not making any sense, as much as you would like to be.
Comment has been collapsed.
I said they shouldn't have the power to blackmail other companies into compliance. You don't have any sound arguments. You're just defending the payment processing companies by saying they should be allowed to blackmail.
Comment has been collapsed.
If it is blackmail, which is a punishable offense, why don't they get sued and no one seems to care?
Comment has been collapsed.
Theoretical scenario.
You lend your friend a plot of land, and he starts a business and uses that land to sell a product of sorts.
You and him make tons of profit in the long-run but you notice that hidden among all the popular products, there are some sketchy borderline illegal products that are only legal because they don't have anything to do with real people.
Do you keep letting your friend sell these things on your land? Even if you and your own customers feel icky about your friend selling those things in the same place as all the other stuff, using your plot of land? No, you wouldn't.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for free speech, and freedom of everything, but as soon as it's content that has to do with something like endorsing, condoning or allowing you to gain pleasure from committing heinous breach of people's bodies while also trying their damnest to simulate real people, even fictional, that's where I draw the line. Especially when the guidelines of said site CLEARLY ARE AGAINST IT.
People shouldn't play these kinds of games in general IMO, but they have rights and they will do as they like, BUT! Steam isn't obligated to supply these games and PPCs aren't obligated to let them stay on a platform they work with, when they clearly not only violate at least a few of Steam's store guidelines, but also the PPCs' guidelines. The fact that Steam didn't take all of these down before that is beyond me, but still, even if they didn't want to, the PPCs are within their rights to disallow the sale of these games using their platform. I rest my case.
I'm not going to keep responding to your half-baked ideas and ragebait anymore XD
EDIT: I will address this, though. I don't think "blackmail" is the right word for this. Demonizing a company just because you don't agree with it's decision is just plain disingenuous. You might see it as blackmail because you're so paranoid for your right and privacy that your critical thinking skills went down the toilet, but again, if it's a disgusting violation of both Steam's guidelines and the PPCs internal guidelines, so good on them disallowing it.
Comment has been collapsed.
If they are not illegal then they shouldn't care. It's blackmail because coercion is a form of blackmail. "You do this or we withhold all funding"
Comment has been collapsed.
This is correct.
While people may feel a certain way about companies exercising their power, the companies are certainly well within their rights as a company to decide what they want to be associated with. Should payment processors really exist to begin with? Probably not. But they do exist, are shitbags, and yet they don't get stripped of their right to choose just because they're payment processors. With all their billions, Valve themselves could easily first party payment processing if they really wanted to, but they don't, and so they have to make decisions based not only on what they want but also what their partners are willing to tolerate. Which is the same for anyone who has business partners.
The comical and yet also upsetting thing to me is that these games were already violating as many as four of Valve's existing onboarding rules, but to deflect blame from not having enforced them previously, they added rule 15.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah. I feel like even with thousands of games being added every year, it wouldn't take too much from Valve to at the very least use AI to check them or even manually check them with 3-4 team members. It'd take less than a few days a year and would save them from this stupid stupid controversy.
Though, I feel if they were to "censor" or disallow it themselves, they'd get way more flak for it, so this is a pretty smart move business-wise.
Comment has been collapsed.
"street bagged Fentanyl" That's literally illegal?
You jump to the most extreme example — something illegal, designed to provoke disgust — to imply that any opposition to censorship means a blanket endorsement of the worst-case scenario. That’s a rhetorical trap, not a fair argument.
Comment has been collapsed.
You jump to the most extreme example — something illegal, designed to provoke disgust
So you're saying rape and incest isn't an extreme example and legal?
Comment has been collapsed.
In the real world, rape and incest is illegal. Same reason killing people in the real world is illegal.
I dropped a bomb in a city in Fallout 3. Years later, I am still fearing the police will arrest me and take me to court for killing so many innocent people. Wait, nobody will. Because it's not real.
Comment has been collapsed.
still extreme examples to provoke disgust, which could also happen to violence in video games, anyone remembers the airport level in CoD? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Russian
Comment has been collapsed.
(sigh). Yes. You didn't have to kill anybody. It was breaking. It was totally surprising. It was one of the best made levels probably in history in probably the best call of duty ever. It forced people to wonder, "did I shoot?". A hundred years from now, that level will STILL be discussed about if "games are art".
"Iranian-American game designer Mohammad Alavi was heavily involved in the mission's development. Alavi wanted the mission to serve as a catalyst for the game's plot, and create an emotional connection between the player and Makarov. "
"discussed its importance to the video game industry"
The backlash was so big Call of Duty only concentrated from then on in big explosions, and stopped caring about plot, about the development of the videogame industry.
Still fiction, though. No person was killed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not what I said.
In this analogy, "street bagged Fentanyl" is the games where you can cut peoples heads off, rape or sexually assault them, hypnotize them into becoming your living sex toy or where you get to role-play having sex with your family members. Now play the game of guessing how many of those are illegal and how many of them aren't, but are morally questionable.
Trying to mold my argument into something it's not for the sake of disregarding my point is not productive.
Be opposed to censorship, IDGAF, but the fact of the matter is, I feel that people aren't necessarily just opposed to the censorship.
Comment has been collapsed.
Попытка осмыслить цензуры в стиме из-за требований платёжных операторов
Леди и джентельмены мы с вами могли заметить и пронаблюдали новости про удаление ряда нишевых игр из стима у которых были слишком провокационные название и они в целом были посвящены фетишам "Incest" и "Slave".
Примеры подтверждаюшие новости:
https://steamdb.info/app/3484360/ - Interactive Sex - Incest Daughters
https://steamdb.info/app/3395190/ - Sex Adventures - Incest Family - Episode 1
https://steamdb.info/app/3095940/ - Incest
https://steamdb.info/app/2118600/ - Prison
https://steamdb.info/app/3134610/ - Slave Of The Police Officer
Однако присмотревшись к тем событиям я заметил ещё что фетишей которые могут пострадать в разы больше. В их число точно входит "Non-consensual sex" и скорее всего "Guro".
Примеры подтверждающие теорию:
https://steamdb.info/app/3521860/ - Wolf on Rail
https://steamdb.info/app/1573060/ - NejicomiSimulator Vol.1 (Gapping, Amputee sex slave, Petrify, Time Stop)
Сегодня же пострадали не треш игры:
Задели издателя WASABI entertainment и в его случае не помогло то что 18+ контент он выкладывал отдельно в форме бесплатного DLC. Примеры:
https://steamdb.info/app/1056050/ - LONGING RING OF ESCA
https://steamdb.info/app/1997130/ - Paze Knight Ellen and the Dungeon town Sodom
https://steamdb.info/app/3130080/ - Prison Break Princess
https://steamdb.info/app/1964670/ - Succubus in Wonderland
Также сильно пострадал издатель оверпрайс новелл PRODUCTION PENCIL примеры:
https://steamdb.info/app/2101460/ - Cuckold Princess
https://steamdb.info/app/2522560/ - Sister X Slaves
https://steamdb.info/app/3078910/ - Sisters Z Hypnosis
https://steamdb.info/app/2744350/ - Tutor X Hypnosis 2
Пострадал издатель Dieselmine. Примеры:
https://steamdb.info/app/2862430/ - Brainwashing with Tentacles R
https://steamdb.info/app/3038870/ - Fallen Princess Knight
https://steamdb.info/app/2409130/ - Heavenly Badonkers Angel ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
Видна тенденция в которой скорее всего пострадают все метроидвании / экшен РПГ. Примеры:
https://steamdb.info/app/1322310/ - Guilty Hell: White Goddess and the City of Zombies
https://steamdb.info/app/2082810/ - MAGICAL ANGEL FAIRY PRINCESS
https://steamdb.info/app/2151480/ - SusRitual
К чему я веду. Если вдруг у вас есть в вишлисте игры которые вы хотите купить и в них фигурируют те же или схожие фетиши и вы действительно хотите их иметь в своей библиотеке, то мне кажется что не стоит откладывать покупку этих игр.
Повлиять на ситуацию мы с вами не можем, поэтому и переживать лишний раз не нужно. Помните что для того чтобы пройти игру её не обязательно покупать в стиме... Её можно совершенно случайно найти в интернете!
Жертвы 18.07.2025:
Относительно слабый и неизвестный мне издатель новелл "F&C".
https://steamdb.info/app/2725150/ - NTR with hypnosis application
https://steamdb.info/app/2473050/ - Sexual punishment for married girl who shoplifts
https://steamdb.info/app/2579580/ - Sakaza village's indecent festival, defiled shrine maiden sisters
Интересный экземпляр. Игра плохая и плакать о ней никто не будет, но на её примере видно что банит игры не слепой алгоритм, так как в названии нет намёка на забаненные фетиши, но он затрагиваются в самом геймплее.
https://steamdb.info/app/3176300/ - Newlywed female teacher Miri
Точно фиксируется что слово гипноз стало триггером для запрета
https://steamdb.info/app/2418550/ - My Hypnotized Family [Episode 1]
Понимаем что даже если у тебя в название нет слова инцест, но есть отсылка к членам семьи, то ты тоже в зоне риска
https://steamdb.info/app/3541280/ - Isekai Mom Stories
Первая жертва издателя 072
Train Capacity 300% - https://steamdb.info/app/2441570/
Пострадали невинный инди разработчик
https://steamdb.info/app/2645820/ - Back to the Fooker: Zombie Fooker 2
Первые жертвы издателей Playmeow, ACG creator
https://steamdb.info/app/3122890/ - Dark Dominance Chain Control
https://steamdb.info/app/1778320/ - Harem of Nurses
https://steamdb.info/app/1994070/ - Slave Doll
An attempt to understand censorship in steam due to the requirements of payment operators
Ladies and gentlemen, you and I may have noticed and have seen the news about the removal of a number of niche games from Steam that had overly provocative titles and were generally dedicated to the fetishes of "Incest" and "Slave". Examples confirming the news:
https://steamdb.info/app/3484360/ - Interactive Sex - Incest Daughters
https://steamdb.info/app/3395190/ - Sex Adventures - Incest Family - Episode 1
https://steamdb.info/app/3095940/ - Incest
https://steamdb.info/app/2118600/ - Prison
https://steamdb.info/app/3134610/ - Slave Of The Police Officer
However, having looked closely at those events, I also noticed that there are many more fetishes that can suffer. These definitely include "Non-consensual sex" and most likely "Guro".
Examples confirming the theory:
https://steamdb.info/app/3521860/ - Wolf on Rail
https://steamdb.info/app/1573060/ - NejicomiSimulator Vol.1 (Gapping, Amputee sex slave, Petrify, Time Stop)
Today, it was not trash games that suffered:
The publisher WASABI entertainment was affected and in his case, it did not help that he posted 18+ content separately in the form of free DLC. Examples:
https://steamdb.info/app/1056050/ - LONGING RING OF ESCA
https://steamdb.info/app/1997130/ - Paze Knight Ellen and the Dungeon town Sodom
https://steamdb.info/app/3130080/ - Prison Break Princess
https://steamdb.info/app/1964670/ - Succubus in Wonderland
The publisher of overpriced novels PRODUCTION PENCIL also suffered greatly examples:
https://steamdb.info/app/2101460/ - Cuckold Princess
https://steamdb.info/app/2522560/ - Sister X Slaves
https://steamdb.info/app/3078910/ - Sisters Z Hypnosis
https://steamdb.info/app/2744350/ - Tutor X Hypnosis 2
Publisher Dieselmine suffered. Examples:
https://steamdb.info/app/2862430/ - Brainwashing with Tentacles R
https://steamdb.info/app/3038870/ - Fallen Princess Knight
https://steamdb.info/app/2409130/ - Heavenly Badonkers Angel ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
A trend is visible in which most likely all metroidvanias / action RPGs will suffer. Examples:
https://steamdb.info/app/1322310/ - Guilty Hell: White Goddess and the City of Zombies
https://steamdb.info/app/2082810/ - MAGICAL ANGEL FAIRY PRINCESS
https://steamdb.info/app/2151480/ - SusRitual
What I'm getting at. If suddenly you have games on your wishlist that you want to buy and they feature the same or similar fetishes and you really want to have them in your library, then I think you shouldn't put off buying these games.
We can't influence the situation, so there's no need to worry too much. Remember that you don't have to buy the game on Steam to complete it... You can find it completely by accident on the Internet!
Victims 07/18/2025:
A relatively weak and unknown to me publisher of F&C novels.
https://steamdb.info/app/2725150/ - NTR with hypnosis application
https://steamdb.info/app/2473050/ - Sexual punishment for married girl who shoplifts
https://steamdb.info/app/2579580/ - Sakaza village's indecent festival, defiled shrine maiden sisters
An interesting example. The game is bad and no one will cry about it, but its example shows that it is not a blind algorithm that bans games, since the title does not hint at banned fetishes, but they are touched upon in the gameplay itself.
https://steamdb.info/app/3176300/ - Newlywed female teacher Miri
It is precisely recorded that the word hypnosis became a trigger for the ban
https://steamdb.info/app/2418550/ - My Hypnotized Family [Episode 1]
It is confirmed that even if you do not have the word incest in your title, but there is a reference to family members, then you are also at risk
https://steamdb.info/app/3541280/ - Isekai Mom Stories
Publisher 072 - First Victim
Train Capacity 300% - https://steamdb.info/app/2441570/
An innocent indie developer suffered
https://steamdb.info/app/2645820/ - Back to the Fooker: Zombie Fooker 2
Publisher Playmeow, ACG creator also suffered from censorship for the first time
https://steamdb.info/app/3122890/ - Dark Dominance Chain Control
https://steamdb.info/app/1778320/ - Harem of Nurses
https://steamdb.info/app/1994070/ - Slave Doll
Comment has been collapsed.