This year competition excuted well in the same launch window. Arc Raiders and Battlefield, I have played neither, people seem happy with. Looking at Steam charts, Delta Force looks popular too and CS is always popular. It’s taken like 15 years but the not Call of Duty and not sort of weird gunplay in modern times/military shooters compared to Counter Strike (I play counter strike and I know it’s gunplay and movement are weird and harsh for newcomers) are hitting their strides. Call of Duty is facing the best most suitable amount of competition since the first modern warfare
Well yeah but the same thing applies regardless. Every time CoD tried to “innovate”, outside of Black Ops 2, resulted in players complaining endlessly and/or poor sales. And I say this as someone who HATES milsim obsessed manchildren who demand every FPS franchise cater to them, despite most of them already doing it. Those mfs will straight up say anything futuristic “looks like a mobile game” as if we can’t look past their buzzwords. I blame their bullshit for the failure of Titanfall 2 and CoD Infinite Warfare, which did have an EXCELLENT campaign. But, regardless of that: FPS players don’t want their favorite game to change too much in terms of raw gameplay. This has been a thing you can observe for decades. Hell, people still play Dust 2 the almost exact same way as in 2001.
MW3 was the one where Russia invades the US, right? That one was good. I think the next one, BO2, was the last one I played. After that, they really fell into the rut of minor iteration.
I might get around to playing some of the others that aren’t in the “high tech” genre. Apparently there was one set during Desert Storm.
Infinite warfare was great, at least the story mode: they went completely off the rails and let you choose where your spaceship goes for the next mission
The new games aren’t all bad for the campaigns. MW2019 was pretty good and Black Ops 6 had a really fun campaign, it had a pretty good story too at least til the end.
"“We will drive innovation that is meaningful, not incremental.”
Gotcha, so same time next year? What do you mean innovate? I played BO6’s campaign because it was free and I said fuck it why not, and it was clear to me that the devs would rather do anything else than a CoD campaign.
You can’t really innovate, CoD is creatively bankrupt it has been for years, are you going to go back to WW2 again?
Remember the "Call of Duty games are DLC" jokes? Well that is literally what they have become. There's no soul in them anymore. They are just a vessel to sell skins.
Ah yes, yes. The game from “one of the best indie game developers” that, as of 2025.12.04 (2 days since release), has <4 Metacritic user reviews (no score) and stands at 77 score with only 7 reviews by game critics. Devs get tons of free clout by being removed, but somehow their game is still unpopular. Wonder why.
They got tons of publicity by being banned from steam. They harnessed it as much as possible which spawned the infamous “one of the best indie game developers” title in some news articles. Being banned from two major game stores brings a lot of eyes on their game. And even with a bright spotlight lightning up their game - still barely anyone is talking about it. My theory is - game is below average at best and can be barely called an art piece in gaming industry. (based on what I know about the game and on one youtube playthrough)
Popularity matters cause it is a good metric to measure sales. If game is good and sells well - people will talk. People are barely talking about this game. Sales are probably very low. But also, what would sales be if it wouldn’t be banned of steam? I bet they would barely exist.
It would be an extremely risky strategy. The studio’s whole portfolio are offbeat shortforms (indeed one of the higher profile indie devs) and I don’t think getting banned from Steam and losing sales there was something they anticipated. Using this for publicity is plan B for damage control, never has been plan A.
The steam ban was ages ago, the news was recent. They decided to go loud about the steam ban as they released, its clearly pr. I dont think they got banned intentionally but the differwnce is a little academic when you cry this loudly about it.
Yes, as I said, plan B. Do you expect the studio to say “ok fuck it, let’s close up” when they projected a huge loss of sales after Steam denied their release?
(1) The devs trying to make the best out of a bad situation and marketing their game in a difficult situation is, like, not their fault? If you have a product, you want to sell it. Especially if you are an indie dev who desperately needs as much marketing as possible, and ESPECIALLY if you get banned from the largest videogame storefront on the planet because of Valve’s shitty review policies. Calling this “publicity stunt” is very narrow-minded.
(2) Some random news article calling them “one of the best indie game developers” is, again, not their fault. First of all, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and secondly, the devs are not out there brainwashing people to like their game. If someone liked their game enough to consider them a GOTY contender, good for them. My 2018 GOTY was CrossCode despite other big titles releasing that same year (MH World, RDR2, Spiderman, Celeste, God of War just to name a few), is it the dev’s fault?
(3) You calling it “barely an art piece” means shit all. It’s not up to you (or anyone) to decide what’s art and what’s not. This is blatant censorship, but I guess that’s alright as long as it’s not something you like?
(4) The problem is not that they would’ve sold fewer copies had they be available on Steam; the problem is that they weren’t allowed a chance to prove themselves to begin with, because of the shitty review policies by Valve who adamantly refuses to review any game twice (despite them having more than enough money to do so) when they find something they deem “unacceptable”, according to their nebulous metrics. Somehow Sex with Hitler is allowed to be sold on their platform, and so are many Japanese hentai games featuring questionably-legal child-like characters, but this one isn’t? Why is that?
In this crazy world where it could actually happen, I don’t think they did it with intent. Most likely the haven’t had this in their plans, but they did plan on having a minor in the game to ride a horse. They thought that it would be a great idea to capitalize on Steam ban - that is undeniable. And I can’t blame them. That is indeed a perfect advertisement campaign - loud and, most importantly, free.
It is just hilarious to me that with all this clout and attention, their game is getting barely any buzz post-release. And also that the most posted article about Steam ban is mentioning them as one of the best idie devs out there when they are like mid at best.
Thats not what theyre saying at all. Did you read the comment?
Theyre saying after the Steam ban the company decided to make use of the ban to popularize their game, which is completely normal imo. Theyre only saying the game is overhyped by controversy.
They got told “no, and never” by Steam 3 years ago. It’s absolutely a marketing move to bring it up now. The Epic and Humble removals were rug pulls, though.
Does it being a marketing move mean that it’s not worth criticizing Steam for having a one-strike-you’re-out system? I don’t think it does. If your game has (something valve considers reject-worthy) and you get rejected, you should probably be allowed to submit it again after removing the thing valve rejected you for.
that would be impossible! Lord Emperor Gaben is the sole bringer of light to a world of darkness, he, and he himself, is single-handedly the reason why there is still good in the gaming industry! for example, he, alone, by himself, birthed Linux, so we could all enjoy a world free of the tyranny of Microsoft!!!
ok but for real. why do gamers talk about gabe newell the way tech people talked about elon musk circa 2018… im seeing a lot of uncomfortable parallels
Horses, a first-person psychological horror adventure about “the burden of familial trauma and puritan values, the dynamics of totalitarian power, and the ethics of personal responsibility” set on a ranch where nude human beings in horse masks are treated as livestock.
Is this just a game for edgelords or is there something compelling under that mess of a description?
Edit: We don’t have to pretend every game is art - there’s crap out there. I’m asking if anybody thinks this thing has redeeming qualities based on actual information about the game, not hypotheticals.
Whether a piece of art is a monumental accomplishment or a fleeting novelty should have no bearing on the content it is allowed to display. Making that distinction is indulging in censorship.
Unless you’re saying that Michelangelo gets a pass, but Horses doesn’t? How do you know whether a piece of art is worth it? Where do you draw the line?
Stephen King’s IT has the famous scene where children have an orgy in the sewers. Is he allowed to write it? What’s the difference between IT and Horses, apart from the (subjective) quality of the works themselves?
I think it’s a very interesting experience, although it may not be apt for people who play for the gameplay exclusively. It’s eerie and unsettling in a way that’s difficult to replicate in more traditional/mainstream media, which I think is a good thing in a horror game. If you’re tired of random ghosts, zombies or similar and want a more unique experience, Horses provides that.
Whether you’ll like it, heavily depends on whether you are willing to forgive its shortcomings in the gameplay department in favour of the unique story and social commentary it aims to provide. I’ve played multiple games in the past where I liked the story and didn’t care much for the gameplay, but I also have friends who are unwilling to play a bad game with a good story, so, you know, YMMV.
If you’re asking whether “that mess of a description” exists solely for you to masturbate on or to provide shock value, then I disagree. While the game does feature heavy themes and abhorrent imagery, they exist to convey the narrative. The following is from a Reddit comment (user: yougotiton) that sums it up very nicely:
[…] the puritan can never be free of sexuality, but is vindictive towards the reality of sexuality. It’s easier for them to express their own sexuality through abuse and violence than it is to confront it or interrogate it.
It’s also a horror game, so, you know, abhorrent things are to be expected (and are appreciated when done right).
Happy to oblige.
To be frank, and I’m sorry if this may sound a bit blunt, you might get more thoughtful replies if your question focused less on dismissing the game up front. The front-loaded tone of your original question is what drew so many downvotes and pushed people away who may have been willing to answer your questions thoughtfully. I also completely missed your point and talked about censorship instead of the game itself because of that.
It’s alright if you don’t like the game or its content, and honestly, I don’t think the game’s for me either; but I wouldn’t be so quick as to judge it as edgelord shovelware before even trying to assess what kind of game it is, especially as the article, which you quoted, made it quite clear that the game had social commentary going on and wasn’t just porn slop.
Since I’m getting down voted I have rewritten this comment for clarity.
I first heard of this game when it was being advertised on GOG as being “Banned by Steam”
Since it was only five dollars I bought it thinking Mastercard and Visa were up to their old shit again.
Later I found Steam banned it because they mistook a placeholder graphic for CSAM and had strict no second chances policies about that.
So now I am asking why did Epic ban it? Because now I’m worried I was hustled into buying kiddie porn by GOG disguising it as an anti-censorship protest.
Wait, I thought this game was a depiction of what we subject horses to, using a horror lens to drive home the point? I’ve never heard of something less sexy?
My understanding is that there was a scene where a young girl rides a naked man/woman around. Apparently it has since been changed to make the child older, but… I can perfectly understand why anyone would be hesitant to accept such a game based on that description alone. Even if it’s not intended to be sexual, the developers were certainly pushing the line
That’s not how this works, you don’t get to decide what is acceptable for other people. It’s people like you who galvanize Mastercard and Visa in trying to control what kind of content we’re “allowed” to purchase.
To be clear this all sounds repugnant to me, but i realize Im not the sole arbiter of taste and have no interest in telling other adults what (legal) things they are and aren’t allowed to do.
If the game is so bad it’ll tank, it doesn’t need outside forces influencing it.
That’s not how that works. You don’t get to decide what a store does and does not sell. Steam refuses hundreds of games a year, this one doesn’t get special treatment.
Saying “I understand why (store) would not want to carry this product” is not the same as saying “no store should carry this product.”
I’m not admonishing the store, as you said it’s up to them to carry what they like. I’m admonishing you and people like you for trying to exert pressure on the store to not carry something you personally don’t like, because again, you’re not intended to be in charge of what others sell.
Earlier this year steam updated its guidelines to prohibit content that “may violate the rules and standards set forth by steam payment processors and related card networks”
Visa and Mastercard pressured steam to remove a game because they didn’t agree with its content. Visa and Mastercard only care because they believe they end users care - that’s you, a potential end user of visa and Mastercards service. Valve only cares because visa and Mastercard care.
You saying “I see why they wouldn’t want to sell the game” helps them to pressure steam into self censorship.
You’re speaking with an awful lot of confidence on stuff you don’t seem to be very well versed in.
For example, you somehow missed the fact that just months after payment processors forced steam to remove a game, they’re suddenly self-censoring.
Um, he didn’t say he was deciding for others, he said he could understand how others would be hesitant… sounded like he was supporting your very point that people have a right to have their own opinion.
The only reason someone wouldn’t want to sell something is because of pressure from others - you boil it down enough and the logic is “I don’t want to sell this because others will judge me”, which stems directly from others judgement, being my entire point.
You can claim “Valve doesn’t want to sell it for moral reasons”, but they’re not a moral body, they’re a corporation - their only job is to earn money.
The more people feel they can dictate what a retailer sells, the worse it gets for all of us, and retailers choosing to drop things rather than “roc k the boat” is a problem.
Sure, this is a pretty repugnant case, but the slippery slope starts somewhere.
I regret my short hand of “slippery slope” but it’s not a coincidence that less than 6 months ago payment processors used their influence to get a game pulled from steam and now all of a sudden steam is self censoring based on content.
Whatever the non-fallacious version of “there’s an escalating pattern here” is what’s happening.
You claimed Steam banned this because of the payment processors. The same payment processors being used by stores that didn’t ban this. Seems a relevant point to the discussion we are having.
The article from July explains why Steam banned this game last month, despite Itch (which stopped selling certain games due to the payment processors) is selling it?
Who is this article writer that can see 4 months into the future?!
Along with the official release date of the game (December 2), the statement revealed that Horses was indefinitely banned on Steam in June 2023 – days before it was set to premiere on IGN’s Summer of Gaming event.
This is useful information I was not aware of - thank you.
While I was wrong about Horses, the issue with payment processors forcing censorship on Steam is still true and an enormous issue - Visa doesn’t get a say in what I purchase.
People are free to pressure retailers on what to sell and what not too. Saying they can’t would be far worse. And the retailer is doing the job of making money… by following the 2ishes of the populace. This is the free market capitalist society we live in. Completly sucks, but it is consistent.
I don’t disagree, I’m just calling the people who choose to complain morons, because again I don’t believe they should be the arbiters of what is acceptable.
Basically, you’re free to have your opinion, but keep it to your fucking self and your fucking echo chambers you regressive fucking failures (the general you, not you specifically)
Interesting point. But in general, who are the people complaining in the wrong spot. I suspect people basically are complaining in thier echo chambers… social media. And likely noone cares. But then the media jumps in and picks it up. So is the media to blame? I read a story about a lady in Britain I think who had like 89 followers and made a statement. It went viral. Suddenly her statement to her echo chamber was in the news. It ruined her life actually.
So are we saying the media should be banned on reporting what is said inside echo chambers, or are we saying public posting of opinions should be banned?
Neither. I’m saying that visa and Mastercards opinion on what I’m buying means fuck all to me, it’s none of their fucking business. I don’t care who writes you a letter, posts on face book, what the media says, it’s not their job to police my purchases.
They’d be 100% in the clear just ignoring these people (the kind of morons who have time to cause this kind of trouble either don’t need credit or don’t have a choice in the matter, so no loss of customers), but they decided to interject themselves in a place they don’t belong. So fuck em, and anyone who tries to enforce limitations on the legal things I do via crybaby disingenuous public pressure.
If everyone felt like me, these attempts would fall flat on their face. Sadly, too many sheepish pearl clutching morons.
On the visa and Mastercard thing I very much agree. In theory they are a business, and can chose who to do business with. But the free market pressures don’t exist to impact the decisions they make. So instead of them being influenced by customer sentiment, they are actually influenced by large organization with an agenda. That agenda is usually just a BS reason to build the organization and make specific people rich. It doesn’t represent the will of the people. So… they should be treated more like a utility. Places are refusing to take cash these days, so it is an easy argument that they function like a utility.
content that appears, in our judgment, to depict sexual conduct involving a minor
I’m assuming they don’t mean a suggestive camera pan, but actually something problematic on screen, in which case, I totally support the ban. Devs were given the opportunity to change it, and they said no. Ban away imho. The fact that this is considered controversial is pretty disturbing to me.
The devs were not told what needed to change even after asking, so they tried to remove anything that they suspected could be taken the wrong way, asked for reconsideration or clarification, but receive no response.
They submitted to steam, who asked for a preliminary build of the game (one would assume due to concerns about the content). The build provided included a small child reading a naked man like a horse.
Steam denied the game based on the inclusion of CSAM, and advised the devs directly of this decision in what the devs call “an automated email”, as if steam is out there personally hand writing rejection letters for every failed game out there.
The devs claim to have changed the scene, but it seems that Steam has a zero-tolerance policy on games that feature CSAM. And, I mean, Fair.
It seems a stretch to call (at least as far as I understand it), a naked (fictional) underage character riding a horse CSAM? Sure, it’s definitely not in good taste, but… CSAM?
CSAM is child abuse, there are no children here. Is there a clear line between someone drawing and actual real child abuse? Because, IMHO, there definitely should be.
I agree that steam shouldn’t allow such content, we don’t want it, but I definitely disagree with the semantics here.
You are, it wasn’t a horse in the build they sent to Steam, it was a naked man. If you have a naked girl on a horse I think that qualifies too, you have an underage character that’s naked.
Someone who claimed to have played the game said the privates were sensored.
The game concept feels very political, not sexual from what I am hearing.
My guess is the AI just flagged it, and noone actually reviewed it. Now that it is news, they don’t want any bad press, so they are standing by the ban, when otherwise they might have reversed it.
Like the other user said, porn implies some level of consent which children cannot give. Calling it csam ensures there’s no confusion about it being abuse.
Anything’s possible but I wouldn’t assume it was planned unless something else came up. I think he’s just riding the accidental publicity, which I don’t really blame him for, though the dishonesty of his spin kinda pisses me off.
I’d like to hear epic’s explanation on why the clean version was still too much.
It might not be what they planned but they’re now using it as an opportunity for more publicity to get something out of it especially now there are some potential sales they won’t be getting anymore.
Does being naked make something sexual? I would argue that for content to be sexual it has to have intent to cause arousal.
The fact that it vaguely resembles fetish content does not in and of it’s self make it fetish content.
The trailers i have seen for this game do not seem to intend to cause arousal, they seem to want to make the player empathize with the plight of domesticated animals
I can believe the the dev in that it wasn’t intended to be sexual. But should intent excuse otherwise unacceptable content? Valve says it depicts a sexual interaction, though that seems to be debated a lot.
My own opinion is that it’s too close, and that this is the kind of boundary shouldn’t be pushed. Despite intentions, the dev really should have known better than to send in anything that could be interpreted as even remotely pedo content.
It’s been about sexual abuse. I’m going to call it universally unacceptable.
Does it count? I find it just kinda sexually icky, and I think it would be harmful to the child. If you think it’d be fine, not even in the gray area, then I guess there’s no argument there anymore.
I was talking about your comment, not the quote. Weird that you assumed otherwise
“I’m assuming they don’t mean a suggestive camera pan, but actually something problematic on screen, in which case, I totally support the ban. Devs were given the opportunity to change it, and they said no. Ban away imho. The fact that this is considered controversial is pretty disturbing to me.”
Devs were not given the opportunity to change it as it wasn’t there in the first place
Steam was the first major storefront to refuse to carry Horses, a first-person psychological horror adventure about “the burden of familial trauma and puritan values, the dynamics of totalitarian power, and the ethics of personal responsibility” set on a ranch where nude human beings in horse masks are treated as livestock.
Publisher Santa Ragione said in November that Valve declined to carry Horses because it contained “content that appears, in our judgment, to depict sexual conduct involving a minor.” Santa Ragione disputed that characterization, but an appeal was rejected and the ban stands.
pcgamer.com
Aktywne