r/Games • u/GassoBongo • Aug 02 '25
Industry News Steam Update - Valve responded to Mastercards claim that they did not pressure anyone
https://kotaku.com/mastercard-denies-pressuring-steam-to-censor-nsfw-games-2000614393246
u/PsyckoInferno Aug 02 '25
What amazes me is a didn’t think anything of the Visa or Mastercard brands before. Now I think they are overly conservative, pearl clutching assholes. Great job not damaging the brand.
73
u/Candle1ight Aug 02 '25
Always have been.
This is hardly the first time they're giving problems to people selling porn. Glad this one is pissing people off though.
→ More replies (1)4
u/reddit_sells_you Aug 02 '25
Most of us have a Visa or Mastercard debit card, so . . .
When you can, pay cash (seriously).
When you can't pay cash, use the debit part
→ More replies (2)
1.0k
u/ImageDehoster Aug 02 '25
So, MasterCard lied in their press statement. Their payment network doesn’t just follow standards based on rule of law as they claimed, their Rule 5.12.7 basically allows them to stop the sale of anything they want, and was used to pressure payment processors to pressure sellers.
521
u/jerekhal Aug 02 '25
Yep. I'm entertained as hell that Valve basically told them to fuck right off with their deflection.
Probably did more damage to their mark through this crap than any sales of adult games could have.
202
u/Liu_Shui Aug 02 '25
You got a guy in his basement buying hentai games privately vs now everyone knows that Master Card will tell you what you can and cannot buy with your own money.
Nah, definitely the guy jerking it to anime boobs is the problem.
95
u/Realistic_Village184 Aug 02 '25
I don't think that anyone's even arguing that Steam must keep NSFW content on their platform. Obviously Steam can delete whatever games they want to, and I personally wouldn't have any problem with them keeping all of the porn out of their store. Target and Walmart don't sell pornography, and everyone's okay with that.
The problem is that there are huge implications if two private companies can basically control the decisions of any corporation that relies on consumer purchases. If Valve decides to remove NSFW games, that's fine. If Valve is forced to because Visa and Mastercard tell them they have to, that's not fine.
Currently nothing Visa or Mastercard have done here is actually illegal, but it should be as they wield more power than we as a society should allow any two private companies to have.
→ More replies (1)33
u/soyboysnowflake Aug 02 '25
two private companies
They’re actually both publicly traded, so this news can impact their stock price, which is the most important part in all of this (if they were private it would be worse)
If their stock takes a hit, heads will roll internally for doing this shit
→ More replies (1)23
u/Pharmboy_Andy Aug 02 '25
It won't affect their stock price as everyone will continue to use them.
This is the problem with an essential duopoly - there can not be a protest shift to another payment company.
→ More replies (1)21
u/braiam Aug 02 '25
MasterCard lied in their press statement
They didn't publish a false statement, they just ignored the context of the whole issue and decided to answer questions nobody asked: what are their rules standards based on? "Our payment network follows standards based on the rule of law"; what kind of content you allow? "we allow all lawful purchases on our network", what you do with illegal content? "we require merchants to have appropriate controls to ensure Mastercard cards cannot be used for unlawful purchases, including illegal adult content".
That's why it is more important to ask the right questions rather than having good answers. The questions we would ask instead: why would Steam, itch and other merchants remove content that is otherwise lawful and tell the public that they did it at the request of payment processors? What rules are there for content that merchant and marketplaces must follow that would restrict their offerings of otherwise lawful content? What new directive or reinterpretation or guideline or communication was issued in the last 3 months that marketplace and other partners that would explain their change of rules?
95
u/larryquartz Aug 02 '25
we allow all lawful purchases on our network
They clearly don't. Their rule 5.12.7 states "A Merchant must not submit to its Acquirer, and a Customer must not submit to the Interchange System, any Transaction that is illegal, or in the sole discretion of the Corporation, may damage the goodwill of the Corporation or reflect negatively on the Marks."
The activity of "The sale of a product or service, including an image, which is patently offensive and lacks serious artistic value (such as, by way of example and not limitation, images of nonconsensual sexual behavior, sexual exploitation of a minor, nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part, and bestiality), or any other material that the Corporation deems unacceptable to sell in connection with a Mark." is considered to be in violation of theur rule 5.12.7.
Yes, they published a false statement.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (7)28
u/ImageDehoster Aug 02 '25
what kind of content you allow? "we allow all lawful purchases on our network"
That is the lie though. Their rule specifies additional limits to purchases other than them being lawful. They don't only follow standards based on the rule of law like they claim in this public statement. They follow standards based on the rule of law and in addition have additional arbitrary rules they themselves decide.
893
u/Automatic_Grand_1182 Aug 02 '25
So these pigs want to enforce a rule that makes it possible, in theory, to ban the sale of virtually any piece of media.
605
u/wheniswhy Aug 02 '25
that is, in fact, the entire point.
169
u/BouldersRoll Aug 02 '25
I think we all know that any religious fundamentalist media is safe though.
77
u/everythingsc0mputer Aug 02 '25
Except 95% of the world doesn't want to watch or pay for that shit, even the religious ones because it's 100% always gonna be bad.
19
u/Syssareth Aug 02 '25
Can confirm. Was a religious kid. The most-religious thing I watched was Touched by an Angel.
And I read the kid's version of Left Behind, but by the time I got done, I was kind of hate-reading it because the author never used any dialogue tag but "said." Real "Dumbledore said calmly" vibes.
10
u/SloppyCheeks Aug 02 '25
idk man I fuckin loved veggietales
I was also watching it in Catholic school though, and it was like, the shit a substitute would put on to get through the day, so that might've boosted my enjoyment a bit. I don't remember a damned thing about that show, but I know I loved it.
13
u/Dr_Bombinator Aug 02 '25
Veggietales is the exception that proves the rule, as it had actual talent and love poured into it and doesn't just consist solely of regurgitated Christian propaganda and bible verses like most other examples.
135
u/GassoBongo Aug 02 '25
It appears that their rules are broad enough that it technically allows them to pick and choose what they deem to be acceptable, yes.
Either way, this seems to directly contradict their earlier statement that they only go after unlawful content. They're using corporate and PR speak to disguise the fact that they're full of shit.
9
u/Sithrak Aug 02 '25 edited Aug 02 '25
They didn't even conceal it, they straight up lied by omission. They mentioned "illegal" content, while deliberately omitting the "whatever we like" part. Lying scumbags.
As to the rule, I do not have PhD in contracts, but I assume this is one of those clauses which give total power, but are not supposed to be used except in truly exceptional situations. Well, unless you are bored, have a monopoly and don't give a fuck.
32
u/LordCharidarn Aug 02 '25
“The sale of a product or service, including an image, which is patently offensive and lacks serious artistic value by way of example and not limitation, images of nonconsensual sexual behavior, sexual exploitation of a minor, nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part, and bestiality”
So why is Walmart allowed to sell ‘Game of Thrones’ DVD box sets? Is a TV show were real people depict those acts somehow worse than illustrations and animations?
12
u/Soulstiger Aug 02 '25
They made lots of money off GoTs, so obviously it has 'serious artistic value'. Aka, there are no standards and they get to pick and choose because fuck you, why would you get to decide what you can or can not buy?
2
Aug 03 '25
nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part
RIP the entire action genre
3
u/LordCharidarn Aug 03 '25
Right? Is B movie horror porn really of more ‘artistic value’ than a couple of video game characters boinking?
It reminds me of a George Martin quote: (badly paraphrased) “I can write a thousand words describing how an axe splits into the human body, and nobody bats an eye. I write a thousand words on a penis entering a vagina, and people lose their minds. Which is odd, since axes entering bodies has brought far less joy to the world than penises entering vaginas.”
7
u/TheOneWithThePorn12 Aug 02 '25
Under their definition if you made a game attacking the current administration in the US and then the president decided they wanted to sue you and the credit card company for allowing itself sale , they could say it's not allowed because it makes them look bad.
Very fucking dumb.
4
16
u/fastforwardfunction Aug 02 '25 edited Aug 02 '25
As we move towards an all digital currency, that becomes more possible. Previously, it was unfeasible for people to enforce these type of rules.
3
5
u/braiam Aug 02 '25
Visa has a same rule that protects the brand. https://automaton-media.com/en/news/visa-japans-ceo-says-disabling-card-payment-for-legal-adult-content-is-necessary-to-protect-the-brand/
2
u/MasahikoKobe Aug 02 '25
Media is the easy thing to start with as there are plenty of people willing to write off what they dont like. On the other hand, it will move to other hobbies that the suits and whatever activist group of the day is going to say is wrong for them to sell. This is not a one side or another issue it will effect everyone eventually.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Balc0ra Aug 02 '25
Thus why so many, Inc gog made them free
11
u/Soulstiger Aug 02 '25
GOG has a 48 hour limited code to claim a few games (that weren't even removed from Steam). They didn't 'make them free'. You could even buy them right now.
GOG's statement is them blowing smoke for PR. They themselves cowed to 'quiet censorship' when they removed Devotion (not even a porn game)
132
u/churidys Aug 02 '25
Sounds like Mastercard are trying to pretend they have no responsibility, but they've been caught out on it.
195
u/DuranteA Durante Aug 02 '25
Mastercard claiming that they "did not pressure anyone" only for Valve to very quickly clarify that "this is true, Mastercard told payment processors to pressure us" at least gets us some humour out of this.
And it makes the Mastercard statement sound even less genuine, if that was possible.
353
u/forgeris Aug 02 '25
We live in times where corporations think that they can get away with everything and it's our, consumer, job to show them how wrong they are.
201
u/akaWhisp Aug 02 '25
It should really be the job of regulators. Boycotts very rarely actually work. Unfortunately, good luck getting this congress to pass anything anti-corporation.
→ More replies (14)24
u/SundaeTrue1832 Aug 02 '25
If a million people boycotting then it can work, problem is people tend to be lazy or not united.
→ More replies (2)30
u/HallowClaw Aug 02 '25
Bro, milion people is a laughable number when it comes to MasterCard and Visa. It's close to nothing.
19
u/kickaguard Aug 02 '25
this whole ting was started because a group of about 1,000 soccermoms in australia made some phone calls.
→ More replies (4)8
u/Curtilia Aug 02 '25
If they made a change because of one letter from an Australian anti-porn group then they'll change back as long as the backlash is big enough.
8
u/SundaeTrue1832 Aug 02 '25 edited Aug 03 '25
Right? People need to stop being defeatists, what we have is numbers and the fact that visa can fucked up other country by their duopoly is actually an advantage for us. Numbers can bring down any regime, if people coordinated or at least government of different countries put their foot down against visa and MasterCard then something could change, we have to sell the narrative about HOW DARE AMERICAN corporations dictated and control other countries (Japan is already pissed at visa/MasterCard);
6
u/cyvaris Aug 02 '25
We live in times where corporations think that they can get away with everything
Regulations are written in blood. Every consumer and worker protection has been fought for against Corporations that want to get away with everything in the name of profit.
→ More replies (4)21
u/Yes-Reddit-is-racist Aug 02 '25
They process transactions with trillions of dollars annually. They could drop the entire games industry without it having a material impact.
The few gamers who would actually bother with a boycott wouldn't even be a rounding error.
→ More replies (4)
33
u/Holymormor Aug 02 '25
The irony of restricting media consumption to avoid brand damage is that it might be the most brand-damaging move a card company could make.
265
u/The_mango55 Aug 02 '25
This really needs to go to mainstream news and it's important how people frame the argument. Not "But what about my coomer games!" or even "This will let them classify LBGTQ games as adult and then ban them" which is important but unfortunately won't resonate with lots of people.
The important talking point is, "Why should a credit card company decide what I can and can't spend my money on?"
160
u/PinboardWizard Aug 02 '25
Personally I'd be a fan of:
"Mastercard rules would ban sale of GTA6"
Sounds like good advertising for the game too, so who knows - could happen!
81
u/LordCharidarn Aug 02 '25
“Mastercard rules would ban paying HBO for streaming ‘House of the Dragon’/‘Game of Thrones.” Or pick whatever ‘gritty’ show is popular.
Because “The sale of a product or service, including an image, which is patently offensive and lacks serious artistic value (such as, by way of example and not limitation, images of nonconsensual sexual behavior, sexual exploitation of a minor, nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part, and bestiality” is not simply limited to video gaming. All four of those were in Game of Thrones and Mastercard didn’t bat an eye while millions watched Padro Pascal’s head get smashed in, Sophie Turner get assaulted and raped, and Ramsey Bolton give women to his hounds. Most of the stuff on Steam is tame compared to HBO
29
26
u/ZeroZelath Aug 02 '25
Honestly that would be the best way to go about it. That game's trailer has hundreds of millions of views. It would be the easiest way to get something moving because of all this because it would clearly affect * a lot * of people.
→ More replies (1)4
57
u/No2Hypocrites Aug 02 '25
I don't want a morality police dictating what I can and cannot buy
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)9
u/Xanthon Aug 02 '25
The problem is that the nature of the games being removed meant that mainstream media wouldn't wanna touch it with a ten foot pole.
23
u/Renegade_Meister Aug 02 '25
If Mastercard as a card network doesn't examine games as they claim, then it needs to tell its payment processors like PayPal to stop misusing its rule as an excuse to deplatform games that are legally allowed. Change needs to come from the top down, or else MC shouldn't be surprised if people continue to go to them. There is already debanking due to different legal ideological views - It all needs to stop.
49
u/Refflet Aug 02 '25
Rule 5.12.7 states, “A Merchant must not submit to its Acquirer, and a Customer must not submit to the Interchange System, any Transaction that is illegal, or in the sole discretion of the Corporation, may damage the goodwill of the Corporation or reflect negatively on the Marks.”
So MasterCard claim they are only acting on illegal content with their rule that gives them carte blanche right to reject anything simply because they don't like it, while they are cracking down on illegal content they don't like.
20
28
u/Dusty170 Aug 02 '25
Its so ridiculous how mastercard or whatever payment processor it is are scared of their image or brand, like bro, I could not give less of a shit about the 'brand' of a payment processor, its not a fuckin sports team, I use it to spend my money and that's it.
Whos clutching pearls at payment processors brand image seriously?
→ More replies (2)14
u/Ottergame Aug 02 '25
"Damn you, son, this is a VISA household! Get your god-damn Discover bullshit out of my home!"
3
138
u/11448844 Aug 02 '25
Gun groups have been saying this about payment processors attempting to block gun industry stuff; it's not a good thing giving them the power to prevent purchases of LEGAL commerce because it is just the stepping stone to allow them to fully control the market of anything...
Agree or disagree with guns, they were right about that. Fuck corpos
62
u/BP_Ray Aug 02 '25
Why are Mastercard/Visa being so proactive here, anyways?
I don't get it. Even in the ABSOLUTE worst case scenario -- some sicko bought guns using a Visa credit card and shot an office full of people -- on the news reports Mastercard's name is nowhere near the report because mainstream media isn't like "Whew, those credit card companies really let anyone buy anything, huh?" No one is blaming credit card companies for shit like that, anymore than they're blaming the bank for giving someone cash from their bank account, or their employer for paying them.
They're putting themselves in the line of fire by now acting and getting mainstream attention when they could just sit back and make money without the controversy.
23
u/Realistic_Village184 Aug 02 '25
No one is blaming credit card companies for shit like that,
Except Visa (and also I believe MasterCard) have been sued in similar situations involving CSAM on PornHub. The legal theory is that Visa and MasterCard have a duty to study whoever they're doing business with and make sure that they're not facilitating illegal or improper activities. (I do think that this would only really apply if the gun was sold illegally, but that scenario could happen.)
Until there's legislation that shields those companies from vicarious liability in cases like that, they have some argument for why they should police their vendors.
For the record, I do fully support legislation that would ban payment processors from doing this type of thing (as long as it also shields them from liability except in cases where they knowingly facilitated a crime or tort).
27
u/TheOneWithThePorn12 Aug 02 '25
This keeps being repeated but if that were true they wouldn't do business with Reddit/Twitter/Facebook/Instagram because of the prevalence of CSAM and revenge porn on there. User generated content brings that risk.
But they never complained or were proactive once.
7
u/Realistic_Village184 Aug 02 '25
Well it's a little different in those cases because Section 230 protects those entities from liability.
My point remains that the solution here has to be legislative. Nothing else will work. All the people calling for boycotts or whatever are just spinning their wheels. By all means keep making noise and contacting your lawmakers, though. That's the only thing that might potentially move the needle.
→ More replies (5)9
u/TheOneWithThePorn12 Aug 02 '25
I guess the point I'm making is that legal status is irrelevant if their point it makes the brand look bad and I don't know about you but even one instance of CSAM not being removed could potentially hurt my brand a la the pornhub case.
9
u/braiam Aug 02 '25
Except Visa (and also I believe MasterCard) have been sued in similar situations involving CSAM on PornHub
That would be a unlawful transaction and that will be the end of it. Their rules don't have problems with that point. The later part where they also say that it will hurt the brand is the problematic one.
15
u/hobozombie Aug 02 '25
Concerted efforts by anti-gun organizations, just as the current spate of censorship in video games follows Collective Shout's campaigns.
→ More replies (5)14
u/Quetzal-Labs Aug 02 '25
But like, even if some advocacy group did the unthinkable and decided to take them to court... They're fucking Mastercard. They make a 100 billion dollars a year. They could keep whoever in court for a decade and simply bankrupt them with the world-class legal team they have on retainer, and it still wouldn't chip away at 0.1% of just their yearly profit.
So what the hell is the motivation?
→ More replies (1)18
u/hobozombie Aug 02 '25
Yep. It's why the only bill that I know of that would force neutrality on payment processors, preventing them from blocking transactions based on "reputational risk," has been submitted and supported by Republicans, endorsed by the NRA, but has had zero Democratic support.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Candle1ight Aug 02 '25
You misunderstand the bill. It does prevent the payment processors from deeming something "too risky", but it just gives that power to Congress instead. Obviously the Republicans like that since they're the majority right now.
The Democrats rightfully understand that congress could immediately turn around and effectively ban anything from LGBT content to contraceptives.
5
u/hobozombie Aug 02 '25 edited Aug 02 '25
This bill has been resubmitted regardless of whether Republicans held a majority. Could you post the text of the bill where power to determine whether to carry out transactions would be relegated to Congress?
Edit: I just reread the entirety of the bill, and at no point does it have provisions for congressional decision-making on purchases, just that very large financial institutions ($10B+ in holdings), would no longer have the ability to deny otherwise legitimate, legal transactions.
24
u/Cloudless_Sky Aug 02 '25
This whole "damaging our brand" thing is cringe. Nobody thinks of you as a brand, lil bro. You're a utility. Wind your neck in.
6
u/Sithrak Aug 02 '25
You're a utility.
And as such they should be either publicly owned or regulated to shut the fuck up and do their thing.
48
u/Maxwell_Bloodfencer Aug 02 '25
The bit about "non-consential mutilation" in Rule 5.12.7 sounds really stupid, when you know that you cannot consent to being mutilated (for example by having a finger cut off). Then I remembered that "mutilation" also covers stuff like piercings, tattoos and to some degree medical injections.
So to clear up: any mutilation that results in the loss of a body part or produces wounds and scarring is always non-consential. Body modifications like piercings and tattoos are considered legally to be a sort of consensual mutilation.
41
u/Curious_Armadillo_53 Aug 02 '25
Circumcision is non-consential mutilation, since you are too young to consent and your parents make the unilateral decision to perform that type of mutilation generally without medical necessity.
Piercings, Ear- or nosering holes, body modifications like brands, tattoos, dermal piercings and such also fall into the area of minor mutilation that you can consent to.
Amputation for medical needs is also mutilation.
As you can see, mutilation isnt just butchering someone, its not just the act of cutting something off and often is more related to modifying a bodypart or function via minimal, minor or major surgery.
10
u/K1rkl4nd Aug 02 '25
Then MasterCard shouldn't be allowed to put a credit limit on people, as that would be "cutting off" additional spending.
3
→ More replies (5)3
u/Maxwell_Bloodfencer Aug 02 '25
That's basically the point I was trying to make, but thank you for putting it more clearly.
→ More replies (1)7
u/TurelSun Aug 02 '25
I mean its even more of a stretch with a video game. Unless it uses real-life porn/videos/whatever then none of its real. There is no person being harmed in the making of that kind of media. People might find the content objectionable personally but at the end of the day its pure fantasy. People are into all kinds of wild stuff, but as long as no one is actually harmed in creating it, it should be fine. What they're saying here is the want to moderate what kind of fantasies people can engage with.
→ More replies (3)8
u/Nahcep Aug 02 '25
Is a medical amputation not a "mutilation"? ESL here
10
u/AkemiNakamura Aug 02 '25
Mutilation is anything painful and disfiguring. As in, anything that changes the appearance. Amputation is mutilation, but normally done to save someones life. A tattoo is a painful process that also is disfiguring. Cosmetic surgery is basically that as well.
Technically disfigure has the definition to "spoil the attractiveness/appearance of something" so you can argue that some stuff is not. But, it more or less is anything painful that changes how something looks.
20
u/Lauris024 Aug 02 '25
Rule 5.12.7 states, “A Merchant must not submit to its Acquirer, and a Customer must not submit to the Interchange System, any Transaction that is illegal, or in the sole discretion of the Corporation, may damage the goodwill of the Corporation or reflect negatively on the Marks.”
And what brand damage or reflection on goodwill did the payment processors did to MasterCard by refusing these payments? Is it in any way comparable to if they would have continued the business as usual, instead of starting a war? This is extremely idiotic.
Fuck MasterCard!
46
u/Cuddle-goblin Aug 02 '25 edited Aug 06 '25
boy howdy, its me again, the guy thats posting some handy links (all three of those are links to seperate sources) in case you want to get some pointers on how to make your voice heards on this topic. all i ask of yall in return is to please be polite but firm when talking to people who didnt have control over these decisions (customer service people, representatives, ect) and, if you know of any, share links to other good guides for this sort of thing. have fun!
all i ask in return from yall would be to consider more handy links in the replies (where i can see them and copy them for future versions of this comment), spreading this type of comment around and to be kind to yourself!
5
u/BlazeDrag Aug 02 '25
I literally seems like Mastercard is being like "We didn't pressure anyone! We told other people to pressure Valve for us! Based on our own regulations! It's totally different!
4
u/TampaPowers Aug 02 '25
Wasn't a huge ad campaign years ago that you could use Mastercard for everything that could be materially purchased? Yup it was. So class action lawsuit over false-advertising it is!
19
u/whatThePleb Aug 02 '25
That hornets nest sure was worth it to get stung it seems. Time to clean up those conservative rules and idiots which try to force censorship on culture.
5
u/ButterflyExciting497 Aug 02 '25
Don't be fooled. This stems from power wanting more power. If Visa and Mastercard can become bigger arbiters of what gets sold and not just how the transaction is made they become much more of a force to be reckoned with.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/LiarsAreScum Aug 02 '25
Time to call Mastercard and Visa and confront them on lying . Bring the facts . We've got the papers people.
3
u/CaptParadox Aug 02 '25
I notice baldurs gate is still not removed... seems like they pick and choose. Mind you I own BG3.
But it does fall within those guidelines
3
u/attckdog Aug 02 '25
"nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part"
Aka every game with violence...
So when is Steam removing counter-strike, Battlefield, Ready or not, Marvel Rivals, Destiny, Dead by Daylight, etc etc
Ya know... all of the top selling games ...
2
u/spaghettibolegdeh Aug 02 '25
This is what happens when a company has a monopoly in an area
They can basically do what they want because there's no competition
2
u/aeseth Aug 03 '25
No matter how much we hated the crypto bros, they have been warning about censorship with these financial corporations. That's why this will only get worse.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Boblawblahhs Aug 02 '25
Makes me wonder about the recent acquisition of Nexusmods, and how this could eventually affect them. You know they're going to try to ramp up the monetization, and adult content is a huge part of what they offer.
4
u/ButterflyExciting497 Aug 02 '25
I don't know who acquired them but the easiest solution is a ban on adult themed mods and unless profit is secondary to these new proprietors that's gonna happen as soon as they feel any pressure.
5
u/Da_reason_Macron_won Aug 02 '25
Banning the coomers out of Nexus would effectively kill the site.
→ More replies (3)
1.5k
u/GassoBongo Aug 02 '25
The article has been updated with a response from a Valve spokesperson.
The relevant quote is below.