For enthusiasts of adult-themed games, recent developments in the digital marketplace may seem disheartening. Both Steam and itch.io have recently implemented significant restrictions on adult content, signaling a notable change in how explicit games are managed online.

The implications of this shift raise numerous questions about censorship and the disappearance of beloved titles. Understanding these changes is essential, as they could influence the future of gaming and the discourse surrounding free expression.

Reasons Behind the Ban of Adult Games

The crackdowns primarily originated in Australia. On July 11, Collective Shout, an organization advocating against the sexualization of women and girls, issued an public letter to payment processors. This letter was directed at major companies such as PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard.

In their open letter, Collective Shout requested these companies to halt payment processing for platforms that feature games centered around themes such as rape and child exploitation, explicitly mentioning titles like No Mercy.

Removed Titles from Steam and itch.io

In response, Valve, the parent company of Steam, took immediate action on July 16, removing numerous games classified as extreme. Traditionally, Valve has maintained a more lenient approach toward adult games. However, they justified these removals by citing violations of the standards set by payment processors and internet service providers.

In addition to the removals, Valve updated its onboarding guidelines, advising developers against submitting content that could breach the rules of payment processors and related entities.

Similarly, itch.io escalated its response by eliminating all content tagged as “NSFW” from its storefront, while also releasing a list of prohibited themes, which includes:

• Non-consensual content (both real and implied)
• Themes involving minors or “barely legal” scenarios
• Incest or pseudo-incest narratives
• Animal-related or bestiality content
• Rape, coercive acts, or forceful interactions
• Implications of sex trafficking
• Revenge porn or voyeuristic materials
• Extreme harm or bodily waste fetishes (e.g., “scat” or “vomit”)

Itch.io has committed to conducting an extensive review of the content that was taken down to align with payment processing standards, hinting at the possibility of re-adding titles that meet compliance criteria.

Censorship or Business Decision?

The classification of these actions as censorship depends on one’s definition of the term. The legality of the removed titles remains unchanged; they simply are no longer offered by these private entities. Consequently, what once was widely accessible is now often out of reach.

Payment processing companies may operate under different motives compared to government entities. Risks associated with adult content can lead to increased fraud and chargebacks, which present significant challenges for these businesses. As explained by Gil Tov-Ly, CMO of Appcharge, “Certain products inherently carry more risk.”

Additionally, varying laws regarding adult content across different jurisdictions complicate how payments for these games are handled, as certain locations may classify them as illegal.

Moreover, public perception plays a crucial role. Any potential profit for financial institutions from facilitating adult game purchases is often overshadowed by the risk of negative public associations.

Where to Draw the Line?

The challenge lies in determining which games might be deemed excessively graphic or objectionable. Titles that allegedly imply elements of sex trafficking may range from No Mercy to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and even to educational initiatives.

The subjective nature of censorship could lead to excessive self-censorship among developers. As noted by game designer Naomi Clark, a vague prohibition against specific adult content leaves developers uncertain about what is permissible.

While it can be argued that certain games cross ethical boundaries, defining those boundaries remains complex. The sentiment expressed by Justice Potter Stewart regarding hardcore pornography holds true: recognizing unethical content can often rely on instinct.

Ultimately, many may agree that a world without titles like No Mercy is preferable. This outcome, achieved without governmental interference or legal repercussions, may reflect a certain kind of triumph for freedom of expression. It illustrates that advocates and platforms can exercise their rights to shape the narrative in a manner they deem fit.