What We Know

Game distributors like Steam and Itch.io have recently delisted a wide range of adult-oriented games, reportedly following concerns raised by their payment processors, including acquiring banks operating under Visa and Mastercard networks. These actions appear tied to internal compliance with rules like Mastercard’s Rule 5.12.7—even though public statements from the card networks have attempted to distance themselves from direct responsibility.

Notably, a recent statement from Mastercard suggested a more permissive stance:

“Our payment network follows standards based on the rule of law. Put simply, we allow all lawful purchases on our network. At the same time, we require merchants to have appropriate controls to ensure Mastercard cards cannot be used for unlawful purchases, including illegal adult content.”

However, Valve’s statement to Kotaku paints a different picture:

“Mastercard did not communicate with Valve directly, despite our request to do so… Mastercard communicated with payment processors and their acquiring banks. Payment processors communicated this with Valve, and we replied by outlining Steam’s policy since 2018 of attempting to distribute games that are legal for distribution. Payment processors rejected this, and specifically cited Mastercard’s Rule 5.12.7 and risk to the Mastercard brand.”

Rule 5.12.7, as found in the Mastercard Rules PDF, includes broad language that requires merchants to avoid submitting any transaction that may “damage the goodwill of the Corporation” or “reflect negatively on the Marks.” It also references content that is “patently offensive and lacks serious artistic value,” with examples including non-consensual acts and other criminal material—but the inclusion of ambiguous terms leaves room for interpretation, especially when no specific game titles are named. Visa has a similar rule 1.3.3.4 in Core Rules PDF which prohibits usage of Visa marks “In any manner that may bring Visa-Owned Marks or Visa Inc. or its affiliates into disrepute” with a similarly vague language.

If applied literally, these rules could even cover mainstream titles like Fallout: New Vegas due to it including “nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part,” and Steam would enforce the takedown due to a recently added rule that prohibits “Content that may violate the rules and standards set forth by Steam’s payment processors and related card networks and banks.” This illustrates how vague the standard is, since even widely accepted games can be read as violating it.

As the two most dominant entities in global payments, Visa and Mastercard wield enormous influence over which types of content can be monetized online. Developers are increasingly seeing their work removed not because of illegality, but because of opaque, brand-risk rules enforced by third-party banks and payment intermediaries. Compliance becomes next to impossible for anyone whose products target adults rather than the general public.

And this isn’t happening in a vacuum—advocacy groups have been lobbying payment processors to enforce these rules more aggressively.

Why It Matters

This trend closely mirrors lobbying efforts from lesser-known organizations like Collective Shout, which have actively campaigned against adult games on major platforms. While these efforts are often framed as moral safeguards, several developers and critics argue the real-world impact disproportionately affects marginalized creators and legal forms of creative expression. You can read more about their recent targeting of payment processors here: PCGamer.com article

Collective Shout has previously expressed opposition to titles such as Detroit: Become Human because it explored topics the group deemed too inappropriate, as well as GTA V back in 2014 due to the game’s sandbox nature. Titles like Saints Row or Duke Nukem may also be at risk, according to one retro game seller’s statement to GamingOnLinux.com.

I’d like to highlight this quote from Naomi Clark’s interview with 404 Media, a game designer and chair of NYU Game Center, where many students share their first games on Itch.io:

We’re really hamstringing the future of arts and communication and creating meaningful culture if we adhere to the kind of position that says you can’t make games about serious things.

And another quote by Ana Valens from their statement to PC Gamer, whose reporting about Collective Shout was pulled by Vice’s parent company Savage Ventures after publishing (read on web.archive.com):

“I fact-checked every article’s content rigorously. I believe that Collective Shout and its related organizations deserve further journalistic investigation by other reporters in the games industry. I hope more writers look into the clear and obvious signs of payment processor-based censorship that are occurring toward Steam, and have occurred against Pixiv, itch.io, DLSite, Gumroad, Patreon, and other sites.”

What I Think

As someone who is part of a marginalized community, I find these developments to be quite unsettling in terms of what it means for what kind of content will be monetizable in the future, as well as freedom of expression online as a whole. I’ve lived most of my childhood in Russia, which is infamous for its censorship of anything that doesn’t follow traditions and family values, and I can tell you with certainty that banning queer content did not result in queer people not existing.

Same goes for games discussing controversial topics that are otherwise legal to sell and distribute, which is what Collective Shout’s been going after recently. Banning games with depictions of abuse does nothing to address abuse in real life—it only censors discussion of it. In fact, such games often show how illogical and absurd violence can be rather than glorify it, but unfortunately, the context around such scenes is often twisted or removed to push a specific narrative.

Therefore, I urge everyone who cares about freedom of expression online to copy the strategy of groups like Collective Shout and begin advocating for what you believe in. Gaming is no longer the niche entertainment that it once was, and there are many more people who believe in it than those who oppose it. These groups spend a lot of time advocating to non-gaming groups like payment processors or even the United Nations for the removal of lawful games, and the only way to generate any pushback is to do the same, meaning reaching out to these organizations and clearly stating the facts rather than fiction.

However, I must emphasize, do NOT harass anyone from any group, organization, or company. Or better yet, don’t harass anyone, period. Remaining calm and collected is the only way to effectively communicate what we believe in, and sending hateful messages only gives these groups examples to show regulators about why they should ban games. Just like The Shawshank Redemption, action only comes with firm but respectful and repeated advocacy.

If representatives from Visa or Mastercard are reading this: I urge you to reconsider the unintended consequences of vague brand-risk policies that result in disproportionate censorship of lawful creative works. Embracing transparency and inclusivity is a path toward leadership—not risk.

And to organizations lobbying for increased content bans: I invite reflection. Rather than trying to find new ways to censor content, consider how we can help amplify marginalized voices that’ve been silenced for the longest time.

The future of gaming should be decided by creators and players—not by opaque financial rules or pressure campaigns.