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.
The buyout has effectively already gone through, and as the price has been decided, any money you give to them is directly going to saudi arabia, as they will get that new value.
He cites a lot of Immersive Sim level design, Minecraft does not have that sort of detail; it merely provides a block-by-block construction system with some rudimentary decoration, it’s not gonna achieve his design requirement.
The game company seems to have thought that they could drum up sales on other platforms by making this a media thing. Based on the additional platforms pulling out, it might have backfired. They could have let their little horse-porn game quietly release on every platform but Steam and made enough to get by. Instead they drew attention to themselves.
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.
I am just gonna pretend like Epic and HB banned it only after see all this PR work they’re trying to do to save this god awful looking piece of “art.”
And just becsuse the comments here don’t seem to know the real root issue: The game originally featured a child protagonist, and that was what Valve was sent to review. They only changed the protag to an adult after the rejection and now they are throwing a hissy fit over their pedo game being banned.
No place for challenging art in video games. Books and movies have been pushing boundaries for millennia, but this new medium is way too effective at affecting people
The distinction may seem like nitpicking but no, CSAM is a legally defined term of depictions of actual children being sexually abused.
This game does not feature any such content. Not just because there are no depictions of real children, but also because the fictional children depicted aren’t subjected to sexual abuse.
Valve’s language cites “sexual conduct” which in this case reportedly (I didn’t watch it myself) has been stretched to include nudity that is non-sexual in nature.
I get why Valve would err on the side of caution, but that TOS decision is no basis to turn around and make the legally relevant claim that the game features actual CSAM.
As like 3000 other comments here have explained, Valve has a zero tolerance policy for what they consider CSAM, meaning they will not reconsider. Which is their prerogative.
I’m on the fence about the topic, but you’ve gotta be dense to believe CSAM has nothing to do here. The accusation is one of CSAM, so the argument is whether the scene is CSAM or not.
In a perfect world the question would be simple, but in the reality we live in, you have to consider if the art will be misused - and that’s assuming the artist is honest about their intentions in the first place.
It already is a unique art form. This is not defined by the commercial availability, and this game wouldn’t be the first art piece that understands controversy as part of its essence.
Y’all need to read what CSAM is. Questionable or objectionable art isn’t CSAM in the same sense that drawing a murder isn’t murder and drawing Noncon isn’t rape.
Depiction isn’t harm, if it was damn near all literature would be in the same category.
Let’s not go down that slippery slope.
Books like Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret – Judy Blume would be considered abuse material on such an asinine slope.
Y’all need to read what CSAM is. Questionable or objectionable art isn’t CSAM in the same sense that drawing a murder isn’t murder and drawing Noncon isn’t rape.
it’s literally legally defined as CSAM in most western countries. and I probably wouldn’t be arguing otherwise, since it looks like the other dude who did that got all his posts deleted by the mod.
drawing a murder isn’t murder and drawing Noncon isn’t rape.
Drawing people having sex isn’t sex, but it is porn. Verbally attacking someone isn’t assault, but it can be abuse. Drawing a comic where someone tortures and then kills the president of the United States isn’t murder, but it will get the FBI knocking on your door.
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
Based solely off the trailer I can see how a big American storefront would err on the side of caution here. There is very little to gain from carrying a game decidedly built with controversy in mind, but a lot to loose.
With the publicity around it and sales still possible through alternative stores maybe things will turn out alright for the developer in the end. “Banned” media is always in demand, after all.
Unless it unexpectedly sells gangbusters, the dev says they’re likely to shut down as not having the massive steam audience to sell to won’t net them enough to continue. And people are stupidly loyal to valve for some reason.
That's because Valve is privately owned and this has largely resisted the enshittification that largely plagues public companies and private equity frims.
I mean, he released the communication he’s received. It’s not super clear. And the things he thinks it was isn’t even in the current version of the game
If they had to scratch their heads trying to figure out what parts of the game needed to change to not include allusions to that, then they have bigger problems than not releasing on Steam.
They’d be as well carrying on. Its in a pretty unique position as being a game that people are talking about before its even finished, which is pretty uncommon for most titles, and can be “the game they tried to ban” which did wonders for Manhunt, GTA and Postal.
Valve is pretty upfront about being a business first and foremost. Their customers are loyal because they consistently provide high value at reasonable prices, even though they are in a dominating position in the market. They’ve taken unpopular decisions in the past, but never any that seriously alienated a meaningful chunk of their customer base.
Like for instance, when epic came out with their exclusive access titles being a part of their business plan, valve could have responded with their own exclusive access system and had a good chance of killing off epic and others in the process. Instead they just ignored it and people like me continued using them and didn’t even consider epic even when their anticompetitive actions switched to ones that would have benefitted me (free games), because I could see the shithole they wanted to bring gaming to if their platform achieved dominance.
pcgamer.com
Najnowsze