←back to thread

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

(www.pcgamer.com)
819 points freedomben | 1 comments | 18 Jul 25 15:54 UTC | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
maxbond ◴[19 Jul 25 00:26 UTC] No.44611358[source]▶
Why do payment processors do stuff like this? Is there some regulation that requires them to? I get that they don't want to process fraudulent transactions, but I'd think the response to a higher percentage of fraud from some industry would be to charge them more. It doesn't make sense to me why they would be concerned about the content of games, as long as everything is legal and the parties concerned aren't subject to sanctions.

Some of these games seem completely abhorrent, and probably illegal in more restrictive jurisdictions, but not the United States. And I've not seen any suggestion they're funding terrorism or something. So I'm perplexed.

replies(29): >>44611411 #>>44611419 #>>44611451 #>>44611517 #>>44611528 #>>44611604 #>>44611625 #>>44611674 #>>44611713 #>>44611790 #>>44611866 #>>44612085 #>>44612637 #>>44612830 #>>44613322 #>>44613401 #>>44613483 #>>44613691 #>>44613744 #>>44614120 #>>44614860 #>>44615550 #>>44615769 #>>44616205 #>>44616269 #>>44616805 #>>44616821 #>>44616872 #>>44618565 #
noduerme ◴[19 Jul 25 01:11 UTC] No.44611625[source]▶
My guess is it's simply a chargeback risk. It's the reason casinos and adult sites have trouble getting credit card processing and are charged much higher basic rates, even under the best of circumstances when the casino or adult site is operating entirely within the law in the jurisdictions it allows.

Punters run a lot of chargebacks on casinos, and people whose spouses catch a XXX video or game on their card statement will lie and run chargebacks too.

In the case of Valve, a lot of chargebacks would drastically increase the processing rates demanded by the payment providers for all transactions across the board, not just those related to adult games.

There's probably a great market opportunity here for a game store focused on adult games and willing to take on that risk.

replies(7): >>44611768 #>>44612096 #>>44612185 #>>44612558 #>>44612724 #>>44613431 #>>44614446 #
atomicnumber3 ◴[19 Jul 25 01:39 UTC] No.44611768[source]▶
That's the problem though. The risk means the market for those riskier credit transactions is literally categorically not a great market. You think JP Morgan gives a shit about Japanese titty games? Hah. No. They care that these games get charged back way more often.

If there is a market opportunity, it's probably in a processor for debit-based transactions that are harder to reverse. But then that makes fraud harder to combat, and one of the reasons everyone loves credit cards so much is because consumers are far more confident to buy from random shops if they know they can always get their money back if the shop scams them.

So - this whole system's lucratively is entirely predicated on easy credit and low risk meaning low fees. Anyone who wants to play in the mud that's leftover by these companies taking the good business are inherently playing a low margin risky game.

replies(2): >>44611913 #>>44611938 #
nerdsniper ◴[19 Jul 25 02:05 UTC] No.44611913[source]▶
With the CFPB under threat, there may be room for payment processors which don’t protect consumers from fraud. (Regulation is only as strong as its enforcement)
replies(2): >>44611978 #>>44612467 #
mafuy ◴[19 Jul 25 02:19 UTC] No.44611978[source]▶
Might be a good idea. This is so curious.

The US has a weird fetish with privatizing things that the government should handle, like consumer protection. If there were a reasonably robust infrastructure for this outside of payment processors in the US, there would be far less pressure on porn providers to comply with fucked up morals about porn. What we have here is an instance of late stage capitalism, and half the people are too narrowminded to see how it hurts their freedom.

replies(1): >>44613256 #
1. noduerme ◴[19 Jul 25 07:08 UTC] No.44613256[source]▶
I'm not sure about that. Late stage capitalism would involve the government bailing out credit card companies if there were fraud. I kind of prefer for them to deal with it themselves. And whether they deal with fraud themselves or the government does, they're going to classify certain types of transactions as riskier than others. My point was that this is probably not a "moral" decision, just a business decision. It would be a lot worse if it were the government mandating it, and worse still if they were mandating it because it conflicted with the moral code of some plurality of voters. That's not the case here, and I'm glad it's not. I wouldn't want the government to control consumer protection to the degree that voters in Texas could decide whether to protect certain consumers or not.