Valve confirms credit card companies pressured it to delist certain adult games

I think it’s hilarious we allow stuff like Postal or Soldier of Fortune without a question, where the whole focus is on going crazy and murdering a whole bunch of people.

But try to show a sensual human body, instead of one that’s ripped into small pieces, and oh my god, this is going too far!

I think this is a bit of a strawman. The market for people who get addicted to gruesome gore and are willing to pay money to see it is several orders of magnitude smaller than people willing to pay to see porn or OnlyFans. There is simply far more risk with adult content as a result and a lot more chargebacks from disatisfied customers with a post nut clarity.

Are you saying porn buyers regret and that gore buyers do not? (As a broad generalization). Are you also asserting that's built in to risk-profole that payment gateways have?

So grotesque violence appeals to fewer people, but banning gets focused on material more people find acceptable, even desirable?

This really is a culture/posture driven issue.

It is not as if many people think (emphasis on "think", as in being honest, reasoning carefully and being scientific about evidence) that banning sexy curves in a video game is going to impact the prevalence of sexy curve imagery, or "save" anyone from anything.

Imagine if financial companies required their employees to sign a legal statement committing to not "use porn, escorts, blow ... or spicy video games!" So strange that they don't do that!!

Financial companies like to make a show of having "high standards" when it comes to "controversial" segments of the market, or unfortunate individuals who don't fit the mold, when that gets them a lot of showy theatre for being hard asses to their audience of regulators.

While keeping very quiet, and not looking into things too hard, when it comes to tens of billions of sketchy dollars going through their systems associated with very high net worth criminal actors, organizations and corrupt governments.

Epstein did not lack for financial services.

The GP highlights a classic observation: America's nearly unique cultural contradiction, where nudity and sex are considered highly offensive, while gore and violence are widely accepted.

You must be American if you think very violent games are not extremely popular.

> There is simply far more risk with adult content as a result and a lot more chargebacks from disatisfied customers with a post nut clarity.

Do you have any evidence to back this wild claim? I've never heard this argument about chargebacks made before.

I don't think it's about this at all. I think it's about policing content, but then the observation of GP's comment applies: why is violence ok, but sex is not?

I don’t have time for o look at the stats and provide quotes / cite sources but it does seem from what I’ve read on the topic that the more people play gore games the less violence there is in society.

If that’s true, maybe it’s also true that the more people have access to adult content the less babies we create as a society.

A society shrinking causes a number of issues.

They’re extremely popular in America.

This holds true in most other countries as well. Gore/ chopping of appendages is happily accepted and enjoyed (in movies, games etc) by all of India, whilst a simple kiss can be a taboo/ issue.

I think they are referring to actual gore. For example, bull fighting.

You could just ask, "why do payment processors pressure content vendors not to offer this kind of content". You're starting from the premise that there's some weird puritan thing happening, but there's really nothing puritan about American business culture. There are other explanations!

You can get a long ways just by assuming that the people involved in these transactions are utterly amoral.

If by “people involved” you mean folks who consume this kind of content then id totally agree. As soon as you offer crypto or even mildly sexual content your cc abuse rate goes through the roof. Which i suspect is the sole reason for processors getting upset in this case

Adult content is considered a high risk merchant category - meaning it is susceptible to high chargeback and fraud rates. This is because after someone pays for and consumes adult content, a certain level of "clarity" overcomes them resulting in the execution of chargebacks against the merchant.

It has nothing to do with any sort of puritanical premise.

They should instead charge a higher transaction fee on those items to cover that risk

Is that not a similar or higher percentage for games with loot boxes or other sorts of gambling?

Same with movies. Piles of dead bodies are OK for children to watch but naked skin would be highly damaging.

Japan has some of the weirdest/inconsistent rules around this stuff. Black lines or mozaic partial censorship of genitals, incest/stuff with minors widely available, and then you have some pretty violent uncensored movies, manga/anime, and games (though while it's mostly a China thing, sometimes the blood gets censored to be white instead of red which doesn't actually make it better (also sometimes done for urine)), GTA5 is as popular there as anywhere, but game franchises like Mortal Kombat are banned.

And of course, even in America, we tend to like our violence and gore more over-the-top and simulated. Most people didn't care for liveleak type content, even fewer for not so hard to find footage from ongoing wars.

That sounds like a reasonable argument. We should force them to make it publicly with data. Maybe even force them to release aggregate statistics every quarter going forward.

I don't think that can explain why they're only targeting certain sub-categories of porn, and it's also contradictory to the public statements by Valve:

> We were recently notified that certain games on Steam may violate the rules and standards set forth by our payment processors and their related card networks and banks

Individual games violating "rules and standards" doesn't really fit with prohibiting a category because of high rates of fraud.

> You're starting from the premise that there's some weird puritan thing happening

Credit card processors don't have to be puritanical. Instead, puritanical people simply have to be smart enough to figure out that the best way to deplatform content that they disagree with is by putting pressure on their payment processor monopolistic vendors.

Giving in to a pressure campaign by ideological people can be a completely amoral and smart business decision.

Mastercard and Visa needs some serious competition. How come a payment company decides who to partner with and dictates what people use their system for. Ridiculous bullshite.

At the same time those "games" that were affected, well, who on earth pays for that seriously fucked up crap? People need to get a grip. I'd rather send a psycho team to evaluate people who pay for these games...

note: PCGAMER the epitome of games journalism. They didn't even checked which were the affected banned games.

That seems disingenuous. (1) in this case, this is a not a tiny fly-by-night wannabe game company. (2) which is good for paying back (or never seeing) the money of chargebacks.

For a new company, the risk of chargebacks might rest on a credit card company (for a little while anyway). But not for a long established one.

Gender of who is murdered has a lot to do with it too. I don't think you'll find a video game where you predominantly kill women. The most infamous scene of murder in video games is the Call of Duty mission "No Russian" where you optionally commit terrorism at an airport. If you pay attention you'll notice they kill much more men than women, and made sure that despite pleasant weather none of the women were wearing dresses or skirts. Murder of men is a lot more digestible.

This genuinely baffles me. Who cares! It's a video game. It's pixels on a screen. True crime podcasts and movies are a-okay but when its a video game that's where the line is drawn?

Do you think this happened because Valve was getting lots of chargebacks? I don't.

> You can get a long ways just by assuming that the people involved in these transactions are utterly amoral.

Which begs the question. Why would amoral people decline cash?

I suspect all new frontiers are like this. There was probably a similar outcry over violence in films. And maybe violence in fictional books too. Both long lost from living memory.

It does feel different in a video game, because you're the one pulling the trigger. I played that CoD mission when the game came out, and I felt a bit sick in my stomach playing that mission out. But I'd probably have exactly the same feeling from violence in films if I wasn't so desensitised to it after growing up watching american movies and tv shows.

Its just new.

I hereby declare that everything you like should be banned.

> That seems disingenuous.

Why are you assuming bad faith? There’s no indication parent is being insincere at all.

OK well this is interesting information, what are the connections between crypto or even mildly sexual content exactly that create this phenomenon? I mean they do not seem to be related - if you said crypto or drawings of currency I would say huh, well they are sort of related, but the graph connection between crypto and even mildly sexual content would seem to me to be about as tenuous as that between crypto and meat eating.

So why do these two things cause credit card abuse to go through the roof?

Furthermore if it caused the credit card abuse to go through the roof wouldn't Valve just remove it of their own accord - at some point the abuse would mean money was taken away from Valve right?

Finally the article doesn't give this as a reason why it was removed - it said "violate the rules and standards set forth by our payment processors" - which sure, that may mean "high rates of credit card abuse were reported", but I doubt it.

Anyway, a link to studies of this phenomenon?

ps: I would probably believe credit card abuse increase under crypto, due no doubt to my innate prejudices.

There are still taboos even for pixels on a screen, even for video games. It's a good thing. There should be.

Perhaps you're just saying that you're mostly comfortable with the depiction of some forms of violence in some contexts. But what about other scenarios though? Would you feel the same about a game where the player runs around raping women, or capturing and lynching escaped slaves? It's just pixels!

I think it's about the simulation and agency that video games afford the consumer.

I mean, these films usually get rated 15 or 18 in the UK, so I’d not say it’s “OK for children to watch.”

Then you have an open world game where you can do all sorts of insane stuff, but everyone loses their shit specifically over feeding suffragettes to alligators.

Just plain wrong and a puritanical group already claimed responsibility for this

Because, in expectation, they're going to lose money.

But your heart is not pixels.

> puritanical people ... deplatform content that they disagree

so that begs the question - what if the non-puritanical people also pressure the credit payment processors to stop curtailing to those puritanicals? Why is it effective one way, but not the other?

You’re risking potential revenue.

This really isn't unique to America.

Japan runs custom scratch-built implementation of ethics reverse engineered from Western cultures. That's all. Consistence is key, but it's consistent only with itself, and nothing else, and explicitly not aligned to Christian religious scripts. Nothing Japanese is compatible with anything unless and until it is the sole dominant standard, like Sony storage media or Apple hardware. Always has been.

I think that's the classic US/UK culture split though.

US is strict on language and nudity, but comparatively lax on violence (except blood).

UK is lax on nudity and language (comparatively), but very strict on violence.

UK being the country that considered the word "ninja" too violent for children, for example.

>Implying that you like the idea of fucking your own children. You have just exposed yourself.

You imply that people that play shooter games like the dea of killing people, and people that play GTA like the ideas of being criminals and killing cops and innocents, do this people also exposed themselves?

Do you also imply same things for movie watchers and book readers ? And metal listeners are Satanists right ?

If we let the Christian extremists ban something without any proof then they will move to the next thing and soon enough they will ban your favorite video game because it gives you the option to be bisexual. (I read about such extremists moving from Texas to Ruzzia since Texas is not Christian enough, it did not end well)

To be fair, Postal and SOF haven’t been relevant in almost 20 years, though your point stands.

I wonder how a modern implementation of these two games would look given the vast visual improvements since then. I assume UE5 or 6 already comes with a Ghoul-esque framework ready to go. Though I hope they would feature a curmudgeon caricature of Jack Thompson.

Bad-faith argument. Incest can also be between adult same-age siblings or cousins (and not everyone considers the latter case to be incest).

Also, I don't insult or look down on sick or disabled people. Why are you?

The people who care signed their names[1]. It's not a secret or anything.

Most of the signatories are associated with Australian anti sex trafficking and exploitation groups, although there are several UK signatories and a couple Americans.

A publication[2] by one of the signatories connects the dots. It's driven by the core idea:

"Pornography Use Shapes and Changes Sexual Tastes"[3] which is supported by "In a survey of men involved in online sexual activities, 47% reported being involved in practice or seeing pornography which previously was not interesting to or even disgusted them."[4]

I'm trying to steelman when I say I believe that the authors would agree that this also applies to games with sexual content.

To address your comment specifically, while I see the appeal of consistent moral framework. I personally believe that moral frameworks trade consistency for completeness and rarely accomplish either. You have to assume the value-perspective of the other in order to understand why consistency might take a back seat to some other value we could only speculate on.

1. https://www.collectiveshout.org/open-letter-to-payment-proce...

2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391732869_Not_A_Fan...

3. ibid. pg 30

4. ibid

I hereby declare that you are only allowed to like veggie Burgers

> Would you feel the same about a game where the player runs around raping women, or capturing and lynching escaped slaves? It's just pixels!

Yeah. Same thing. Should be ignored. If someone feels an urge to run around raping women and lynching slaves, I'd much rather they were sitting around at home playing videogames than doing anything else in their spare time. What do you want them to be doing, the traditional creep move of figuring out how to get into positions of power and influence?

In addition taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bill in the war on pixels; if the banks are taking a firm moral stand then clearly the government is involved and that means they're probably spending money on expunging victimless non-crimes which is a low.

GTA, Elder Scrolls and Fallout series all allow for violence against women and not just the mutual violence of combat or whatever. One small example in one game from a long-ass time ago isn't really a broader trend (not to say that society at large doesn't view violence against men and women differently in different contexts)

TBF that’s US media culture going back several decades.

Now i imagine control concerned mothers rallying against papyrus which ruins the youth for healthy outdoor activities like warfare, sieges and murder.

This isn’t about “trying to show a sensual human body”, it seems to be about incest porn specifically. There are still plenty of pornographic games available on Steam, even absurdly offensive ones such as the multi-part “Sex with Hitler” series.

The difference I see is that the player is getting sexual pleasure from what is being simulated in porn type games. I.e. they are trying to simulate the feeling of doing that in real life.

Where as in violent games like soldier of fortune I doubt most players are trying to achieve the feeling of brutally killing another human being.

What if it's a story but with very detailed descriptions? What if that short story is adapted into a video game but it's only a text adventure? What if we add artwork to it, but it's just pixel art? etc etc.

The ability and the freedom to explore the darkest parts of our psyche in a safe, controlled, and fictitious environment IS important. Even if we find certain aspects or fetishes repugnant and distasteful.

I find the idea that payment processors have enough power to dictate the morality of a game market concerning. Given the number of other NSFW fetishistic stuff that is still being permitted on Steam I don't buy the "chargeback" rational AT ALL.

People don't choose their fetishes. What consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of our business.

Unconvincing argument considering what was widely known about certain prominent politicians and their adjuncts long before they became as prominent as they are today.

There's no evidence these people were corrupted by games on Steam. Somehow they managed to become who they are by other means.

> Republicans literally argue it's better for the country to have school shooters and for survivors and parents to live with PTSD for the rest of their lives than to limit access to military-grade weapons.

Can you quote any Republican who has “literally argued” this or are you just spreading lies that make it easier for you to vilify and dehumanize people who disagree with you politically?

I bet it has higher chargeback percentage too and they probably pay higher fees. iirc if merchant is getting close to 2% fraud to sales ratio, they can get banned for life. It's probably different rules when you're the size of Valve though...

Or I suspect in this case there are Puritans with a lot of money who will sue the payment providers if the providers don't block things they think are bad.

Yes the payment provider is making a simple money based business decision, or possibly there is a threat of sanctions against the directors so a personal decision as well.

Or in the case of incest games, a single consenting adult and a computer application.

Violence is pretty okay in the middle east, which makes it socially acceptable by inheritance in the uk.

Sure, but why?

and never children.

I disagree. there shouldnt be any taboos for pixels on a screen

i mean, i can understand a child porn game would be disallowed but we already have anime games where characters that look like children are nearly naked

Why would having games on steam be the same as a person being an incest-child molester?

Probably because people are willing to put their real names on the "We're against incest/rape simulators" petition while most people are not going to be quite so fortright on the "Valve should reinstate the incest/rape simulators" petition.

You could have opined that allowing certain extreme content was not a politically savvy business decision for US-based Valve.

Or that healthy societies have incest taboos for very good reasons, and Valve "having standards" would have had more social (plus lobbying/marketing) value.

Angrily insulting HN's user base, on HN, is not an effective method of persuasion.

It really should be obvious that the natural objection to "if they banned this then why not X" is "they haven't gotten around to it yet" and that the reason they can be more successful is also that they have put their money where their mouth is and also named themselves, something a counter petition will probably struggle with.

In the "western" world it is.

> You could just ask, "why do payment processors pressure content vendors not to offer this kind of content". You're starting from the premise that there's some weird puritan thing happening, but there's really nothing puritan about American business culture. There are other explanations!

Someone, somewhere is making a choice to pressure content vendors to not offer this kind of content, and not to pressure them to not offer other kinds of content. It may be upstream of the payment processors but there is absolutely a weird puritan American thing going on somewhere, and it's much more interesting to get to the bottom of that since that's the point where change could happen. If everyone involved was amoral, these profitable games would continue being sold.

Your premise is that they are, for the payment processors, profitable. They very probably are not.

I also find it hilarious. Killing people in movies and video games get a lower age rating than sex.

And religious groups talking about protecting children (while raping them) is hypocrisy at its finest.

> 47% reported being involved in practice or seeing pornography which previously was not interesting to or even disgusted them

Yeah, right.

I agree with the fact there is hypocricy. I disagree that either should be banned. (Maybe you didn't mean it that way but somebody with us the argument that way)

If group A wants to control group or person B, they should prove with very high certainty that group B's behavior is harmful to someone who is not B.

>But what about other scenarios though? Would you feel the same about a game where the player runs around raping women, or capturing and lynching escaped slaves?

Yes and yes. We have worse stuff in literature already.

The source[1] for the statistic is referenced. Was there a particular part of it that you found incorrect?

1. https://www.academia.edu/27521992/Online_sexual_activities_A...

It's like we've collectively decided that digital gore is fine for teens, but a boob requires a Senate hearing. The irony is, one actually mirrors real-world trauma a lot more closely than the other