Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Games

Steam Now Bans Games That Violate the 'Rules and Standards' of Payment Processors (engadget.com) 80

Posted by BeauHD from the steam-cleaner dept.
Steam has begun banning games that violate the payment rules of banks and card networks, targeting adult content in particular -- especially titles with extreme or controversial themes. Engadget reports: The new clause states that "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" is not allowed and could result in removal from the platform. In other words, if credit card companies get mad about something, they could actually have the power to ban a game. The clause goes on to say that this will affect "certain kinds of adult-only content."

This has likely already resulted in many games being pulled off the platform. SteamDB doesn't give a reason for these removals, but the timing does match up.

Steam Now Bans Games That Violate the 'Rules and Standards' of Payment Processors More | Reply

Steam Now Bans Games That Violate the 'Rules and Standards' of Payment Processors

Comments Filter:

  • I understand. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Wednesday July 16, 2025 @06:16PM (#65525644)

    The payment processors have all the power here. I doubt Steam particularly wanted to do this - otherwise that content would have been blocked before payment was an issue. And since the threat really is existential, Steam will bend. No shade to them. They aren't in the business of protecting freedoms. They just want to sell games.

    My guess is that it's the mixed situation that is problematic. After all, porn companies use providers that take credit cards. Gambling sites, too. But those companies aren't selling the equivalent of Barbie dolls and bubblegum as well.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      The payment processors have all the power here. I doubt Steam particularly wanted to do this - otherwise that content would have been blocked before payment was an issue. And since the threat really is existential, Steam will bend.

      Is it really? If Steam said, "No, we'll find another processor that isn't trying to run our business for us," they would probably not get as low a fee, but that's far from existential. It's not like the actual payment networks give a crap. They get paid either way, even if the transaction gets refunded. It's the merchant account providers that are the issue, and if one is a problem, there are almost a thousand other companies who will gladly step in and fill the void.

      So from my perspective, this is Stea

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by evanh ( 627108 )

        The big two work in lock-step on this stuff. When MasterCard and Visa decree something is so, all businesses, including other payment processors, obey and follow.

      • Re:I understand. (Score:5, Informative)

        by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Thursday July 17, 2025 @12:16AM (#65526160)

        If Steam said, "No, we'll find another processor that isn't trying to run our business for us,"

        You seem to be confused just how much of a monopoly the payment processing world is. Payment processors have acted as the moral police for decades now and have killed entire genres of the adult industry single handedly. There are many out there who have actively tried just going to someone else, and repeatedly failed.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          If Steam said, "No, we'll find another processor that isn't trying to run our business for us,"

          You seem to be confused just how much of a monopoly the payment processing world is. Payment processors have acted as the moral police for decades now and have killed entire genres of the adult industry single handedly. There are many out there who have actively tried just going to someone else, and repeatedly failed.

          *shrugs*

          There are literally almost one thousand companies that do this. There's no way that none of them would be willing to process your payments for a high enough fee.

          There are quite literally payment processors that specialize in high-risk merchant accounts (e.g. PayCompass [paycompass.com]).

          Yeah, there have been problems over the years caused by payment processors being a**holes. And other companies have come in to fill the holes they left behind. That's the thing about capitalism: When one company won't do business

          • ...nothing stops them from walking away.

            To me it sounds like pragmatic business. Do these "questionable" titles earn them enough to make it worth the cost? Probably not.

            There would have to be really good reasons to march down the path of higher transaction fees and alternative payment processors. If ultimately that path was financially good for Steam, they would have done it. But I doubt it's worth all the hassle.

            The idea that an extremely mainstream company with the profile of Steam would resort to "hig

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mjwx ( 966435 )

          If Steam said, "No, we'll find another processor that isn't trying to run our business for us,"

          You seem to be confused just how much of a monopoly the payment processing world is. Payment processors have acted as the moral police for decades now and have killed entire genres of the adult industry single handedly. There are many out there who have actively tried just going to someone else, and repeatedly failed.

          Not really a monopoly, rather a cartel. I know this is largely a semantic difference because to you, I and millions of businesses the end result is the same but a monopoly is a single entity, payment processors are 2 large entities (Visa and MasterCard) and a few smaller ones (notably AMEX and Discover) colluding together.

          And the issues come from governments, specifically the US government giving them too much power. Most other western countries (EU, UK, Australia) have laws that state they must process

    • They changed their mind when they opened up the store to any/all. The solution devs used back then was free patches you would acquire off platform. HuniePop, Nekopara etc. were all clean on Steam because they came about before the rule changes, and what users would do is grab the developer patches to add in the otherwise banned adult content.

      Payment processors will lose this fight.
  • This is equivalent to advertisers censoring websites. Basically control of censorship is being passed along from Steam to banks. As one example, you will get de-banked and have your bank accounts closed if a bank finds out a business has anything to do with crypto. I've heard countless de-banking stories, including a guy that just had crypto is his linked in profile and was de-banked. That means no block chain usage for any games, and probably why steam already doesn't allow it already. The new GENIUS act

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DMJC ( 682799 )
      100% correct, de-banking should be illegal. If we do eliminate cash from the global economy there needs to be a public alternative to private banks. We cannot allow the power to censor to like in the hands of a few wealthy elites.

    • This is equivalent to advertisers censoring websites.

      Eh, I disagree. Websites are selling ad space and advertisers purchase it. They're a customer. Doesn't seem unreasonable that a customer can pick and choose who they do business with.

      In contrast, payment processors are a middleman in the transaction. It's more problematic that they exert control over commerce that both the buyer and the seller wish to engage in.

  • I don't know why they don't just adopt what other game companies do, sell tokens (in each currency) and allow the purchase of games from those tokens. This decouples the purchasing workflow, and also lets them minimize the merchant fees when buying larger bundles.
    • the very same payment processors would refuse to collect money for said tokens, they are not this easy to workaround.

  • Has anybody noticed games they purchased disappearing from their library?

    • no Steam does not delete games that you have bought and installed. AFAIK they have never done that.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sigma 7 ( 266129 )

        no Steam does not delete games that you have bought and installed

        Steam previously removed Order of War: Challenge [steamcommunity.com] from libraries.

        They might not auto-delete already downloaded content, but it still means the user has to be careful not to lose their only copy.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      That would be illegal. At least in Europe.

  • So, it's "questinable" games now.
    With no way of fighting this or even questioning the companies forcing it, when will "they" decide that they're going to decide books/movies/music are next?
    Censorship is, literally, book-burning. Just because the titles being removed aren't what you enjoy doesn't mean your media won't be targetted next.

  • Quote: "SteamDB doesn't give a reason for these removals, but the timing does match up."

    I went to the linked article to find out what else happened that this matched up with but found no follow-up statements about it.

    • they mean that the long list of games being recently delisted is due to the payment processors demands.

  • On one hand, I should kinda care because payment processors should not have that much power. On the other hand, the only thing we're losing is low-quality, low-effort, fetish porn "games" - many of which probably barely count as a game at all. So, I'll consider it a wash for now.

  • Several software vendors in Japan that do sell 18+ or spicy content have stopped accepting VISA cards and ilk for their orders, thus fighting against the orders of the money masters overlords.
    Can't imagine Steam having the balls to do the same.

  • I am still amazed that Visa and Mastercard have not been broken up. I guess Lina Khan was too busy hallucinating big tech monopolies to go after the obvious duopoly dictating terms to entire industries. Think of the MindGeek affair - you and your monopolist buddy work publicly, in lockstep, to shut down a website that every other American uses. And no politician dares go after you. Now that is raw, unadulterated power.

  • Before the investment brahs and other morons got in, this was what Bitcoin was made for. Not buying sex games specifically but it was so that you can purchase things (provided that thing is legal) without being told “no, we don’t like that product” by visa et al.

    If it’s my money, it’s a legal service, and the merchant wants to sell it and I want to buy it, what right has visa to say no? It’s none of their business.

    Imagine if you go to get cash out of an atm, and it says

    • What's worse is that Steam could obviously make certain titles crypto-only but MasterCard gets to tell them they can't sell those either.

      It's a hostage situation by Fed member banks.

  • Why do payment processors have the ability to regulate businesses? Where does this power end? What if they said they didnâ(TM)t want games that depicted violence

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Why do payment processors have the ability to regulate businesses? Where does this power end? What if they said they didnâ(TM)t want games that depicted violence

      This power ends when you stop electing ideologue, demagogues and religious fundamentalists in large numbers.

      This means electing a government that will stand up to the power of corporations and put a system in place that will allow people to bypass the payment processor cartel (like the direct bank-to-bank transfer systems most countries enjoy).

      You might not be aware, but this is not something that payment processors are permitted to do in the UK or EU (or Australia... in fact not in most countries) du

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by DewDude ( 537374 )

      Guns.

      If Visa or MC said they didn't want to process gun payments; the government would step in and say no.

      But anything short of that....it doesn't. If they decided they didn't want to process payments for a company because they disagreed with their policies; then there is literally nothing that can stop them from doing it. The company will cave. The government will say it's their first amendment right to violate your first amendment rights.

Slashdot Top Deals

In the sciences, we are now uniquely priviledged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. -- Gerald Holton

Close