Updated: 8/1/2025 4:18 p.m. ET: In a statement to Kotaku, a spokesperson for Valve said that while Mastercard did not communicate with it directly, concerns did come through payment processor and banking intermediaries. They said payment processors rejected Valve’s current guidelines for moderating illegal content on Steam, citing Mastercard’s Rule 5.12.7.

“Mastercard did not communicate with Valve directly, despite our request to do so,” Valve’s statement sent over email to Kotaku reads. “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 states, “A Merchant must not submit to its Acquirer, and a Customer must not submit to the Interchange System, any Transaction that is illegal, or in the sole discretion of the Corporation, may damage the goodwill of the Corporation or reflect negatively on the Marks.”

It goes on, “The sale of a product or service, including an image, which is patently offensive and lacks serious artistic value (such as, by way of example and not limitation, images of nonconsensual sexual behavior, sexual exploitation of a minor, nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part, and bestiality), or any other material that the Corporation deems unacceptable to sell in connection with a Mark.”

Violations of rule 5.12.7 can result in fines, audits, or companies being dropped by the payment processors.

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 198 points 1 year ago (14 children)

I don't think they realize how much worse their brands look now, after starting all this shit...

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 69 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I want to cancel ally visa and mastercard cards and never give them my business ever again after this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This might just be my insomnia talking, but I thought a reasonable idea might be to call and reduce the available credit by however much is comfortable. For me, it would be fairly reasonable to reduce it by 50%. I assume they use some kind of magicians handshake to value their company based on how much potential credit is out there... Maybe it'd do nothing though. Anyone know?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    I am not a financial guru so hopefully someone will correct me if I’m wrong about this, but your credit score is affected positively the more available credit you have. So by voluntarily lowering your available credit, you’re actually hurting yourself way more than the card companies. At least I think that’s how it works, or rather one of many factors.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Amex is still reasonably good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Amex charges up to 14% of every transaction. If a place takes it, they are almost always ripping you off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Amex typically charges between 1.7 and 3.3%.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    As someone who does not take amex they want to charge me between 7% and 14%. Maybe if I did more sales they would not charge as much, but the reason amex is not taken in as many places as mastercard or visa is the 7% to 14%.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Weird. All the info I can find shows a maximum merchant fee of 3.3% + $0.10 per transaction.

    Even this article about the topic says the reason is because amex charges .5% - 1% more. Not 6-13% more.

    Maybe it varies by country? Are you in NoAm or somewhere else?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I am in Canada, and amex is famous for charging way too much in merchant fees. They also charge it under a silly system based on the type of card used (the more "elite" the more the merchant pays).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 185 points 1 year ago (30 children)

    nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part

    I feel like a strict reading of this rule would also put a lot of fighting games, shooters, horror games etc in the not approved category

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 123 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I think some christian items could also be affected, like the bible. Cane and Able, crucifixion, etc are all in that book

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    And circumcision of children.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Right now in Rimworld I am sending child soldiers to bring more ammo to the mortars that are busy pounding away at some primitive tribesmen that are angry at me for dumping a few tons of toxic waste on their home or something.

    Those that survive the mortar bombardment will be lobotomised and enslaved. If they have enough limbs remaining to be useful to me I will probably use a few of them as slaves and the rest will be sold to the empire. Any that the empire don't want will be harvested for organs and dumped in a corpse pit.

    I didn't ask if the tribesmen consented to any of this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I keep trying to learn rimworld. I drop out of most tutorials some time after building a refrigerator. Any recommendations on how to get further along? This is a game I'll love once I know it but I'm not there yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Lower difficulty, in all present difficulty options the raid strength is determined largely based on your colony wealth. If you have massive towers of gold then expect big raids.

    Even flooring adds up to wealth, massive rooms with carpets can become a non insignificant value. This isn't to say don't build them, but you should make sure a reasonable amount of your total wealth is invested into warfare. It can be quite easy to hoard things that are useless to you but have a fair bit of value to them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Is there really a game that allows you to do all that??!!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Absolutely and more! We also have psychic powers, murder robots, friendly murder robots, vampires, genetic engineering, organized religion, semi-sentient plants, space ships, cannibals, space drugs, drugs in space, rabid woodland critters, eldritch horrors beyond comprehension, giant bugs, orbital bombardments, and also the looming threat of starvation as you watch all that you built burn. That's all before we talk about things that the modding community has brought to the game.

    To be clear, the RimWorld doesn't force you into any one play style, and most of the things listed above can be disabled or avoided if that's not your jam. At its core the game is trying to tell a story, it's up to the player to help shape that story. It's absolutely fantastic; quite literally the best $30 I've ever spent on a game (if we're talking hours played, I'm just about to turn the corner on 2,000 hours (in the spirit of disclosure, a chunk of that is also spent making mods for the game)).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Mutilation seems to imply more than just violence or killing. For example, Days Gone has a scene very early that involves flaying someone's skin off, I would imagine that type of stuff would qualify.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Wouldn't that have artistic value? Since that adds to the story.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    That's true but anyone agaimt its inclusion would just say it doesn't add to the story. "Clearly it detracts from the story, as the player would be distracted by the horrific event instead of enjoying the game" -some hypothetical mastercard Exec, right before fining Valve.

    It's not a court, so there's no appeal from that, unless there's an appeal granted by the contract itself.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That's the thing, who defines what artistic value is? I've seen some pretty creative pornography over the years. Is that artistic value? I've seen very creative depictions of violence and uses of profanity too. What about on the other end of the spectrum, Is Tetris have artistic value?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Tetris is artsy as shit, especially with that kickass score, Korobeiniki.

    For a better example, maybe contrast it against the more generic marvel movies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    I think pornography is an "art" the same way gastronomy is an "art". Both serve a simple function: one to arouse you, the other to be enjoyable food to eat.

    I think the more general definition of art is something that generates more complex emotions and thoughts.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    They didnt have to show it so explicitly, although I'm not sure simply implying mutilation would qualify too.

    Its hard to say what the right level of shock for that kind of thing is, it probably should just be restricted to adults only.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 158 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Brilliant, just make your rules vague and force everyone else down the chain to self-censor. Surely this will result in the best outcome.

    Fucking mastercard

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] -24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Up to the third comma, yes, but all the rest seems to go beyond that pretty arbitrarily.

    When they say anything that "may damage the goodwill of the corporation", and qualify that with "in the sole discretion of the Corporation" that just means "anything we don't want to be associated with, and we will be the judge of that".

    That's what makes it so vague, how is a Merchant or an Acquirer supposed to know what Mastercard might find damaging to the goodwill? They have to guess, or use trial and error*. Most will just err on the side of caution, which means customers get blocked from even more purchases, just to be safe.

    * Or talk to Mastercard, which Valve apparently tried, but they wouldn't respond.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Their rules seem to just follow the law

    Whose law? The US? UK? Netherlands? Japan? Or Singapore?

    That's why it's vague.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It's much worse than that. How they word it is "if it may damage the public image of mastercard". And they don't review the content, they review the means used to prevent the damage to their brand.

    So valve doesn't even need to have anything that actually damage mastercard brand, it just need to be that mastercard is not comfortable enough with the measures used to prevent it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Like buying anything would actually damage the brand of Mastercard. It's such a nonsensical excuse that I'm surprised nobody laughed in their face.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yeah, right up until assholes start posting "MASTERCARD SELLS SMUT INCEST HENTAI GAMES" on TikTok. Then it's a problem, and MasterCard considers that damaging to the brand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Except that's entirely false. Even now they are pretending they do nothing, it's the intermediaries who force things.

    Mastercard sells absolutely nothing. And they have no responsibility for anything sold. And no one ever thought it was mastercard selling or even allowing to sell illegal things.

    In fact, most people will believe no one sound of mind will buy something illegal with a credit card because mastercard and the likes will give your identity to the police.

    So it's not about illegal things, and it's not about their image.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 309 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    "Nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part" includes just about every fighter or shooter game. They really want to have COD delisted over this?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    you're missing some context in that.

    "The sale of a product... which is patently offensive and lacks serious artistic value... (such as... images of... Nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part"

    insert joke about COD lacking artistic value, but clearly there is more to COD than just body mutilation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 136 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I love how this has damaged Mastercards brand much more than anything Valve sells. MC would rather pressure Valve for selling NSFW games, than clean up billionaires buying and trafficking children.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Mastercard is living the corporate dream. They've colluded their way to a near monopoly and don't have to care about the value of their brand. They just have to be invisible enough that they don't pull heat for something or other from various governments.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 108 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    “Mastercard did not communicate with Valve directly, despite our request to do so,” Valve’s statement sent over email to Kotaku reads. “Mastercard communicated with payment processors and their acquiring banks. Payment processors communicated this with Valve

    This whole thing reads like a telephone game where nobody wants to take any responsibility.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 78 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Honestly, I don't care if MasterCard doesn't want to take responsibility. It was their rule and their intermediaries that caused the situation and they did not intervene when valve tried to reach out directly.

    They are responsible through action or inaction, no matter how they try to deny it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    It seems like, if they're publicly denying responsibility, Steam and Itch now have legal cover to restore everything.

    I'm not a lawyer, etc. etc., but don't public statements from these kinds of entities inform how these clauses can be enforced?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago

    they did the exact same thing in the porn industry. naturally Visa and MC didn't communicate directly with the individual porn companies. So thats' how places like CCBill and what have you took off. and then Visa and MC laid out their weird rules to CCBill who then passed it along to the individual companies.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 84 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    So obviously somebody is lying. I really don't understand why Valve or Itch would be the ones lying about this. My money is on the group of self righteous censorship soldiers with too much time on their hands, and the payment companies. I could always be wrong I though.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    MasterCard is so big they don't even know what all their departments are doing. The PR department probably asked a couple of the top level execs if they were pushing for this and they said no so they claimed it didn't happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago

    Not necessarily. Valve says they haven't heard from Mastercard directly. Is there evidence of Itch.io having been approached at all? It seems to me that they just made the move to delist and investigate to be safe in the wake of Valve's rule changes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 60 points 1 year ago

    Gotta love it when companies put something in their legal agreements that just says “we can do whatever the fuck we want.” Is the rest of the wall of text just there to hide that somewhere someone won’t read?

  • source
  • [–] 55 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    so it was about potential brand damage that doesn’t exist? and/or has this actually brand damaged visa and mastercard more than ignoring collective shout?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    What I see is Mastercard hiding behind their generic rules for processors and being fine with the processors taking unilateral action that could damage their brand.

    Mastercard should demand they rescind the decision based on a flawed interpretation of their rules since the content IS NOT ILLEGAL where Steam provides it, or drop those processors entirely due to the brand damage their unilateral decision has caused. If Mastercard lets this sit, that signals that they agree with this decision, regardless of what they say, and they should be treated as such.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    What I read is that it is not about illegal content. It is about the measures taken to prevent illegal content from being sold. It's much more devious than simple censorship.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Read mastercard’s actual rule that is literally in the OP. The processor’s interpretation isn’t flawed and in no way does Mastercard limit their rule to what is illegal.

    The rule is so open ended and vague that it’s entirely on Mastercard (and Visa) that this shit happened.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    It is intentionally vague, because companies want to be able to weasel out of any and all accountability whenever possible.

    But Mastercard isn't off the hook either way even if we accept the rules as they are currently. Before this incident, Mastercard has been starting to censor adult content in general with rules changes. To the point where there was already a petition on the ACLU site about this exact type of censorship.

    https://action.aclu.org/petition/mastercard-sex-work-work-end-your-unjust-policy

    Mastercard is trying to weasel their way out of this particular instance because they didn't directly have a hand in this video game situation, even though they clearly would agree with it based on other recent changes. They're trying to play both sides by assuming that people didn't know they were already doing these things.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 109 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Tl;dr: Mastercard says they didn't "force" Valve to remove nsfw games. They just told them that if they didn't remove the games that were complained about by Collective Shout, they'll block them.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Couldn't they just block collective shout thus probably losing far less business?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Unless MC and Visa are run by people who already agree with Collective Shout and are just using them as an excuse to enforce this policy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Don't they have shareholders though?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If they do, that includes them. Decision makers at all levels, nobody gets to say "hey I didn't make Mastercard act this way." Because the status quo would have been to carry on processing video game payments, even in the face of a minority faction like Collective Shout.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 50 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 50 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    We have seen the same behavior out of the credit card companies before. Its pretty clear that they do pressure companies to remove content they don't approve of. Its censorship and its legal since the companies are not the government. They are just tied in at a high level to the banking industry. Its a good example of how lack of regulation harms both creators and consumers.

    It lets a bunch of poorly adjusted individuals force their personal mental problems on us all.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago*

    Taking away our freedom of speech is something to go to war over.

    If this trend of giving all the government power to companies continues, well, let's just say I'm glad we have the 2nd amendment to fight back against tyranny.

    I'm not going to live in a reddit cuck-world without a fight.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›