Steam Owner Valve Pushes Back Against Mastercard in Ongoing Dispute Over Gaming Censorship

by

Lately, there’s been an increase in disagreements about the deletion of mature video games from digital marketplaces. In response to allegations that they were involved in compelling platforms to suppress or eliminate adult content, Valve Corporation, who runs the widely-used Steam storefront, has openly disputed Mastercard’s claims.

The ongoing debate, sparked initially by advocacy efforts from various groups within the gaming sector, demonstrates the intricate dance between payment systems, content regulations, and freedom of speech in online commercial spaces.

By August 5, 2025, the ongoing discussion surrounding developers, consumers, and the digital content distribution landscape remains a topic of interest, carrying significant weight for each respective group.

Background: The Purge of Mature Content on Steam and Itch.io

The problem can be traced back to July 2025, as Steam and the independent game platform Itch.io started deleting or making unavailable numerous adult-themed games from their marketplaces.

As a strong advocate for upholding our platform’s integrity, I’m sharing the recent updates we’ve implemented. Valve has established new content guidelines, which exclude specific types, in order to maintain compliance with regulations set by payment processors such as Mastercard and their affiliated networks.

Valve informed PC Gamer that some games available on Steam might break the guidelines established by their payment processors. Consequently, they’ve decided to stop selling these games on the Steam Store.

Similarly, Itch.io made a blog post stating they were being reviewed by payment processors over mature content. They stressed the importance of maintaining partnerships to keep running. Temporarily, they removed all games containing mature content from search results, but later started re-listing free ones while looking for new payment methods that are compatible with such content.

A significant number of works were impacted, many of which carried adult or graphic themes. Developers contended that the content portrayed was lawful and consensual.

It seems that these actions are being driven by an intentional effort led by the Australian organization Collective Shout, whose mission is to combat the portrayal of women as objects and the sexualization of young girls in various media outlets.

In July 2025, Collective Shout publicly criticized Steam and Itch.io for hosting controversial video games, calling upon Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal to halt transactions on these platforms due to their content. The organization celebrated success after the removal of such games began, boasting on their blog about their persistence in bringing attention to this issue for several months, as Steam had initially disregarded their concerns.

Detractors, which encompass both gamers and creators, have charged that Collective Shout is engaged in a battle over cultural norms concerning sexual expression, as mentioned by Itch.io co-founder Leafo in a social network update.

The response has been strong, as gamers have inundated payment service call centers with grievances, sparking allegations of suppression of lawfully permitted content. In contrast, competitor platform GOG initiated a “FreedomToPurchase” campaign, distributing 13 mature games for free and publicly voicing their disagreement against censorship.

Mastercard’s Denial and the Role of Payment Rules

On August 1, 2025, Mastercard clarified the misunderstandings in some recent news headlines about their stance on gaming content. They made it clear that they do not assess individual games nor impose restrictions on platforms such as Steam or Itch.io directly.

The company clarified that Mastercard does not assess or impose restrictions on any games, contrary to some media reports and accusations. Essentially, their payment system adheres to legal standards, enabling all lawful transactions. However, merchants are expected to establish necessary safeguards to prevent the use of Mastercard cards for illegal purchases.

This reaction emerged as media attention and public dissent intensified, with Mastercard stressing that their policies are based on legality rather than ethical considerations. Yet, the statement fails to touch upon indirect influences through third parties or provide a clear definition of what qualifies as “illegal” content, beyond general legal guidelines.

Valve’s Rebuttal: Indirect Pressure and Brand Risk

Valve quickly refuted this Mastercard claim, providing a statement to Kotaku on the same day.

A representative from Valve stated that despite their request, Mastercard did not engage in direct communication with them. Instead, Mastercard interacted with payment processors and their associated banks. The payment processors then conveyed this information to Valve, prompting Valve to detail Steam’s policy regarding the distribution of legal games since 2018. However, the payment processors turned down this explanation, citing Mastercard’s Rule 5.12.7 and potential risks to the Mastercard brand as their reason for rejection.

Rule 5.12.7, as stated in Mastercard’s guidelines, disallows any transactions deemed illegal or, in the corporation’s own judgment, could potentially harm their reputation or create a negative impression associated with their brand marks.

The policy explicitly prohibits the sale of goods or services that are deemed highly inappropriate and lacking genuine artistic merit. This includes examples like depictions of non-consenting actions, abuse of minors, among other unacceptable content. Violations may result in penalties such as fines, investigations, or cancellation of services.

In 2018, Valve modified their policy to allow almost all types of content on Steam, excluding illegal or deliberately disruptive material. This change aimed to distribute games that are legal in the respective regions. However, Valve claims the contested games were legally permissible, yet Mastercard’s application of Rule 5.12.7 implies they consider such content a potential risk to their brand, even if it isn’t explicitly illegal.

This “clearly objectionable” provision is open to interpretation and has faced criticism because it might allow extensive censorship without needing to pass stringent legal tests similar to the U.S. Miller Test. The Miller Test assesses if material arouses inappropriate interests, depicts offensive conduct, and lacks redeeming social importance.

Broader Implications and Stakeholder Perspectives

Creators of the impacted games, who are frequently small independent studios developing specialized mature content, have shared their worries about substantial financial losses and voiced dissatisfaction towards ambiguous rules that encourage self-censoring.

As a passionate movie reviewer, I’ve witnessed firsthand the transformative impact of the Collective Shout campaign. This movement triumphs in its crusade against content that subtly or overtly normalizes threats towards women. Their past endeavors have extended beyond the silver screen, and they make it clear that their objections are selective, not a blanket condemnation of all adult-oriented material.

On the flip side, proponents of free speech caution that such a move could establish a potentially harmful pattern. In this scenario, payment processors – who serve as crucial intermediaries in online transactions – might unwittingly assume the role of unofficial censors.

In simpler terms, legal professionals point out that content considered “blatantly inappropriate” might not be safeguarded if it’s deemed as obscene. However, a large portion of the removed content from Steam (a platform based in the U.S.) probably complies with the country’s constitutional standards.

On platforms such as Itch.io experimenting with different processors and gamers persistently voicing their opinions, the future could significantly alter how adult content is managed within digital environments. Valve’s resistance hints at a readiness to contest payment giants, yet without open communication, the outcome remains unclear.

Mastercard continues to emphasize its dedication towards legal transactions, yet the ambiguity surrounding content that could harm their reputation may lead to persistent disagreements.

Read More

2025-08-05 18:00