Censorship of adult games on major platforms has escalated following pressure campaigns by groups like Australia’s Collective Shout, which targeted payment processors to restrict games they deemed inappropriate. While the group claims concern over content like “rape” and “incest,” many adult games removed did not contain such material or explored difficult topics artistically.
Collective Shout celebrated the removals, aiming to enforce stricter content standards on gaming platforms. In response, public backlash against the censorship flooded credit card companies, leading Mastercard to issue a statement denying any involvement in demanding game removals.
On August 1, Mastercard stated it does not evaluate games or impose content restrictions other than ensuring payments do not involve illegal purchases. The company claimed, “Nothing has changed on our end. If a purchase is legal, it’s fine by us.” However, past actions show Mastercard has pressured platforms and services before, raising questions about its claim.
Valve clarified the situation, explaining Mastercard communicated indirectly through payment processors and acquiring banks, not directly with Valve. These processors then enforced Mastercard’s policies on Valve, citing Rule 5.12.7, which prohibits transactions that could harm Mastercard’s goodwill or involve “patently offensive” content lacking “serious artistic value.”
This rule contradicts Mastercard’s public claim by allowing them to reject lawful content if deemed offensive or lacking artistic merit. Valve pointed out inconsistencies in enforcement—for instance, violent games with simulated nonconsensual acts remain purchasable with Mastercard.
Valve also highlighted the indirect nature of Mastercard’s control, where it avoids direct enforcement but influences decisions via its network of payment processors. This mechanism effectively enforces Mastercard’s morality standards on game marketplaces without public accountability.
Ultimately, games violating Mastercard’s policy faced deindexing or removal due to threatened loss of payment processing partnerships. The controversy reflects broader tensions between platform censorship, corporate influence, and free speech in the gaming industry.