Valve confirms credit card companies pressured it to delist certain adult games

Credit card control and lack of alternatives

• Commenters describe Visa and Mastercard as a de facto global duopoly: processors must follow their rules or face higher “risk” fees or disconnection.
• Even if a processor is willing, the schemes’ own “restricted lists” around adult content dominate.
• Regional systems (JCB, UnionPay, Pix, Interac, UPI, Wero, etc.) exist but don’t substitute globally for Visa/MC, so large platforms like Steam have little leverage.
• Several people note: if Valve kept any targeted titles, it risked losing card payments for all of Steam.

Fraud/chargebacks vs moral crusade

• One camp claims porn and gambling are high‑chargeback, high‑fraud categories; card brands simply don’t want that risk.
• Others strongly doubt this explains Steam: generic “STEAM” descriptors, generous refunds, and harsh penalties for chargebacks should keep rates low.
• Selective targeting of specific porn subgenres (incest, rape, child‑abuse themes) and not all adult games is cited as evidence it’s about “brand safety” and moral pressure, not pure risk.
• Prior crackdowns on Pornhub, OnlyFans, guns, cannabis, and other controversial but legal sectors via banks and card networks are invoked as precedent.

Nature of the banned content and censorship line‑drawing

• The removed titles are described as incest/non‑con/“lolicon‑ish” visual novels and similar low‑effort porn games. Some say Valve never should have listed them.
• Others stress “fiction is not real” and worry about a slippery slope: today fringe porn; tomorrow LGBTQ content, “problematic” kink, or simply any explicit sex.
• Repeated contrast: graphic murder and torture in mainstream games and TV are fine to monetize; explicit sex, especially taboo themes, triggers financial deplatforming.

Valve’s role vs infrastructure power

• Some argue Valve used card pressure as cover to do long‑overdue curation of shovelware without openly owning the decision.
• Others see Valve as constrained: payment networks now function like unregulated utilities that can silently decide which legal content and businesses survive.
• There’s disagreement over whether private intermediaries should have a moral veto, or whether only democratically enacted law should define what’s off‑limits.

Proposed solutions and their limits

• Regulatory ideas: treat card networks as common carriers/financial utilities; enforce payment neutrality for all legal commerce; apply antitrust and anti‑cartel law.
• Technical workarounds suggested: crypto or stablecoins, Steam wallet/points, a separate adult storefront, direct bank rails (ACH/SEPA/FedNow/UPI).
• Many note practical barriers: user friction, on‑ramps that still depend on Visa/MC, KYC and AML rules, and lack of mass demand.

Broader worries

• Widespread concern about a “choke point” model where governments and activist groups achieve censorship indirectly by leaning on financial and infrastructure chokepoints.
• Several connect this to the decline of cash and fear a future where access to payment rails — and thus to speech and livelihood — depends on opaque moral standards set by a handful of firms.