←back to thread

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

(www.pcgamer.com)
819 points freedomben | 3 comments | 18 Jul 25 15:54 UTC | HN request time: 0.843s | 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 #
jhanschoo ◴[19 Jul 25 02:41 UTC] No.44612096[source]▶
Does Valve actually have a high risk of chargebacks? I was under the impression that moreso than other platforms, most Valve customers would rather go through Valve's own refund system. I understand that chargebacks is supposedly the reason for adult-only platforms.
replies(5): >>44612108 #>>44612149 #>>44612176 #>>44613296 #>>44613669 #
Arrowmaster ◴[19 Jul 25 02:55 UTC] No.44612149[source]▶
Chargebacks of legitimate purchases on most large platforms are extremely rare. Most will be from stolen cards. On most large platforms, if you start a chargeback you can expect your account to get locked. Do you want to give up your entire account just for a refund on one purchase? Luckily these large platforms typically have their own refund process.
replies(1): >>44615505 #
1. mrkramer ◴[19 Jul 25 13:56 UTC] No.44615505[source]▶
>Chargebacks of legitimate purchases on most large platforms are extremely rare. Most will be from stolen cards.

I never used ecommerce back in the day on the internet but I can imagine that ecommerce fraud was widespread. And that's why excluding other reasons Satoshi invented Bitcoin[0].

I wonder if cryptocurrencies didn't exist would someone nowadays burn the midnight oil to figure out P2P crypto coin since modern payment solutions are fairly good.

Tbh I think Satoshi invented technology around which he wanted to build products unlike Steve Jobs who said that you first need to figure out the product then build technology.

[0] "Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party" https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

replies(1): >>44615934 #
2. Levitz ◴[19 Jul 25 14:51 UTC] No.44615934[source]▶
I don't see how this makes any sense. A reason for the creation of Bitcoin was offering less service than traditional methods?

"Financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes" is nonsense, they "can't" because it's constantly demanded by their clients, attempting to sell that as a bug rather than a feature is preposterous.

replies(1): >>44617183 #
3. mrkramer ◴[19 Jul 25 16:58 UTC] No.44617183[source]▶
Satoshi wanted to bypass banks and make P2P direct payments with no trusted party besides Bitcoin protocol hence >no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party

And crypto community speculated that Satoshi or team behind Bitcoin worked at the internet gambling industry and what use to happen is that angry customers would chargeback the money they lost at the internet casino and cause numerous problems for "merchants" or in this case internet entrepreneurs.