Who wants video games? For the past few weeks, the independent industry has been in crisis. Tens of thousands of games have disappeared from Steam and Itch.io. In line of sight, certain titles deemed too explicit, which would disturb the payment intermediaries in their well -arranged affairs. While everyone is responsible for censorship, the stake becomes legal, economic and above all societal.
Hardened rules, mastercard in the viewfinder
The storm begins to update the editorial rules of Steam and Itch.io. Several publishers and developers see their game deleted without a clear explanation being provided. Very quickly, the eyes turn to Paypal, Visa, but mainly Mastercard, accused of having imposed new restrictive standards in terms of content, especially for everything related to adult or socially sensitive content.
Faced with the growing discontent of creators and part of the players, Visa and Mastercard come out of their silence and publish a press release on social networks, refuting any direct involvement in censorship decisions. For them, responsibility is the responsibility of the platforms, to whom it is simply asked to ensure that their services are not used to buy illegal content. Officially, there is no desire to control the catalog, nor of arbitrary restriction on the themes addressed.
https://t.co/ORNC1ZIyck pic.twitter.com/T4B9cVUuLY
— Mastercard News (@MastercardNews) August 1, 2025
Steam counterattack
This version is however quickly contradicted by Valve. Contacted by our colleagues from My citythe firm nuance: “Mastercard did not communicate directly with Valve, despite our request in this sense. The exchanges took place via our payment processors, which themselves transmit the MasterCard policy to us“According to the parent company of the platform, Steam’s policy has been unchanged since 2018 : offer all games “whose distribution is legal“But the financial partners reject this posture, citing precisely the rule 5.12.7 of the Mastercard regulation.
This passage, publicly accessible on the MasterCard site, widens the definition of prohibited content to everything that might seem “Obviously offensive or detrimental to the brand“, Even in the absence of a breach of the law. Among the examples given: images of sexual behavior not grantedexploitation of minors, mutilations, bestiality … but also, according to the assessment of Mastercard, any content “unacceptable” linked to his image. So many elements likely to lead to fines or to radiate the network for the faulty platform.
Mastercard above the laws?
It is therefore no longer only a formal respect for the legal framework, as Mastercard would like to assert. Steam points the subjectivity slipped at the heart of rule 5.12.7 : The concept of damage is left to the unique assessment of the company and not on a neutral legal basis. This poses a considerable problem, because many censored games were content to tackle sensitive themes in a critical or artistic way without ever falling into illegality.
The immediate consequence was felt: creators, often from the indie scene, have seen their works disappear. More than the simple censorship effect, the case that shakes Steam reveals a deep tension: which holds, in finethe power of Decide what can be soldbroadcast or simply mentioned in the digital space?
🟣 To not miss any news on the Geek newspaper, subscribe to Google News and on our WhatsApp. And if you love us, we have a newsletter every morning.
