In a recent development surrounding the removal of NSFW games from Steam, Mastercard has issued a statement clarifying its position amid growing speculation about its influence on the decision. The gaming community was stirred when Valve confirmed the takedown of certain titles, a move that followed similar actions by Itch.io. This wave of removals came in response to pressures reportedly stemming from credit card companies.
Mastercard’s Clarification
Mastercard emphasized that it “allows all lawful purchases” to be processed through its systems, asserting that it does not evaluate games or impose restrictions on game creator platforms. The company stated, “Mastercard provides the technology and the network that power transactions,” indicating that its role is more about facilitating payment systems rather than directly processing payments.
Itch.io, in its own update regarding NSFW content, noted that its payment processors include Paypal and Stripe. Notably, it was Stripe that suspended payment options for 18+ content, which led to the platform’s decision to restrict access to certain games. Meanwhile, alternatives like Verotel and CCBill, which have been recommended by the IGDA, continue to accept major credit cards.
Valve, in a statement to PC Gamer, revealed that it had attempted to engage with Mastercard prior to the removal of the games. A representative from Valve remarked, “Mastercard did not communicate with Valve directly, despite our request to do so.” Instead, the communication flowed through payment processors and acquiring banks, which ultimately led to the decision to remove the titles from Steam. Valve reiterated its commitment to distributing legally permissible games, a stance it has maintained since 2018.
“Mastercard did not communicate with Valve directly, despite our request to do so.”
Valve representative
Mastercard’s Rule 5.12.7, which pertains to “illegal or brand-damaging transactions,” outlines that merchants must not submit any transactions that could be deemed illegal or damaging to the brand’s reputation. This includes products or services considered “patently offensive” or lacking serious artistic value, such as nonconsensual behavior or exploitation. Financial institutions that fail to act on complaints risk facing significant penalties.
While Mastercard’s statement attempts to clarify its role, the implications of its influence are palpable. The ongoing dialogue suggests that public pressure campaigns, like those initiated by Collective Shout, have made an impact. As the gaming community observes these developments, there remains a sense of hope that advocacy can lead to a more balanced approach in the future.
