Mastercard: Clarifying recent headlines on gaming content

spons

spons

Gold Member

Mastercard has not evaluated any game or required restrictions of any activity on game creator sites and platforms, contrary to media reports and allegations.

Our payment network follows standards based on the rule of law. Put simply, we allow all lawful purchases on our network. At the same time, we require merchants to have appropriate controls to ensure Mastercard cards cannot be used for unlawful purchases, including illegal adult content.
Click to expand...
 
anakin-liar.gif
 
I'm surprise they don't have lawyer to attack Steam and itch.io for diffamation if this is true.
Especially with Steam, there's a lot of money to be made.
They should also go after Collective Shout who are claiming they were able to push Mastercard to block this content.
 
Last edited:
Seems they got enough bad press to at least release a statement. But 'illegal adult content' on a global scale could mean anything.
 
poppabk said:
Seems they got enough bad press to at least release a statement. But 'illegal adult content' on a global scale could mean anything.
Click to expand...
Does this mean investors have been complaining? I assume you don't make a statement like this over some random gaming forum/X posts.
 
dottme said:
I'm surprise they don't have lawyer to attack Steam and itch.io for diffamation if this is true.
Especially with Steam, there's a lot of money to be made.
They should also go after Collective Shout who are claiming they were able to push Mastercard to block this content.
Click to expand...
Neither Steam nor itch.io singled out Mastercard, Visa, or anyone else. They used the term"payment processors". That usually refers to banks.

When OnlyFans almost went stupid 4 years ago, the CEO name dropped 3 banks as the "payment processors" pressuring them to make changes.

Having said that, Visa, Mastercard, etc, did try to strong arm Pornhub years ago. They then stopped allowing payment to be processed on Mindgeek sites, and recently stopped processing ad payments altogether. That was very specific though - there were claims that their websites had illegal child related content.

Like digimaster7 digimaster7 said though, this is pixels bonking. I'm not sure what the law is around cartoon depiction of illegal activity.
 
"Put simply, we allow all lawful purchases on our network."

I'm really surprised they said that, but I guess big banks can get away with anything.

Sue them. There are multiple cases of banned games that do not break any laws.
 
In the end this is not as much about violence about women as probably all the degenerate hentai content. Big no-no no matter what is everything that has to do with children, companies should have learned that a long time ago.
 
I feel like rape games shouldn't be on Steam, because only disgusting retards play those, but I can't support the forced takedown, because what starts with banning rape games quickly becomes banning violent games and then banning games that are "unharmonious with political gaming culture".
 
Cyberpunkd said:
In the end this is not as much about violence about women as probably all the degenerate hentai content. Big no-no no matter what is everything that has to do with children, companies should have learned that a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Never watched h stuff. But keep in mind that many anime/manga are made for teenagers and when they give some character fanservice treatment this could make anime with that kind of material banned in the West. They could even ban Persona games because they often deal with sexual themes. How is that different from forced censorship?

I just hope that one day they pick too big of a target and get their asses sued to oblivion.
 
Last edited:
Loomy said:
Neither Steam nor itch.io singled out Mastercard, Visa, or anyone else. They used the term"payment processors". That usually refers to banks.

When OnlyFans almost went stupid 4 years ago, the CEO name dropped 3 banks as the "payment processors" pressuring them to make changes.

Having said that, Visa, Mastercard, etc, did try to strong arm Pornhub years ago. They then stopped allowing payment to be processed on Mindgeek sites, and recently stopped processing ad payments altogether. That was very specific though - there were claims that their websites had illegal child related content.

Like digimaster7 digimaster7 said though, this is pixels bonking. I'm not sure what the law is around cartoon depiction of illegal activity.
Click to expand...
Collective Shout sent a open letter to the major payment processors (Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, etc, not to banks), after Steam ignored them for months. So the request of the games removal came from Visa, Mastercard, etc.

In my Country, incest is not illegal. Murder is though, and 90% of videogames could be called "murder simulators" by activist groups like Collective Shout if they decided to do it.

My take about this is that the store owners should be the ones allowing or not certain games in they stores, and they should do it by complying to regional laws, so if certain content is now allowed in a region by law, then remove it from that region store. If a store is not selling any illegal content, then is not up to payment processors to become the moral police.
 
Loomy said:
I'm not sure what the law is around cartoon depiction of illegal activity.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are laws, because they operate on a global scale, so there's bound to be countries that do regulate content like that, but that also makes their statement really vague, because just if something is illegal in x country, doesn't mean it should be just blanket banned from payment processing everywhere.
 
digimaster7 said:
do they think we're an idiot or something? the main problem is that its not illegal in the first place. Incest between 2 jpeg on fictional media is not Illegal.
Click to expand...
Depictions of what would be illegal in real life in porn are generally considered illegal and obscene in the US.

Same with even fantasy IRL porn, hence the endless use of "step-" relatives and not real relatives. Or generic "teen" instead of having an adult actress just claim they are underage.

Just because nobody is currently going out of their way to police something and arrest people doesn't mean it isn't illegal. All the more legit porn sites scrubbed a ton of their material a couple years back because US lawmakers threatened them.
 
Last edited:
Aenima said:
Collective Shout sent a open letter to the major payment processors (Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, etc, not to banks), after Steam ignored them for months. So the request of the games removal came from Visa, Mastercard, etc.

In my Country, incest is not illegal. Murder is though, and 90% of videogames could be called "murder simulators" by activist groups like Collective Shout if they decided to do it.

My take about this is that the store owners should be the ones allowing or not certain games in they stores, and they should do it by complying to regional laws, so if certain content is now allowed in a region by law, then remove it from that region store. If a store is not selling any illegal content, then is not up to payment processors to become the moral police.
Click to expand...
Collective Shout used the same strategy Sweet Baby used where they talked about taking the HR person out for a cup of coffee and put the fear of god in them if they don't do what you want.
 
Magister said:
Never watched h stuff. But keep in mind that many anime/manga are made for teenagers and when they give some character fanservice treatment this could make anime with that kind of material banned in the West. They could even ban Persona games because they often deal with sexual themes. How is that different from forced censorship?
Click to expand...
Here's an easy guide:

1000-year old dragon in loli body - no no.
 
The "bank" thing is odd. Here we have payment processor iDeal, which Wero is based on, and it's slowly becoming a pan-European payment method.
It's basically a straight connection to your bank without anything in-between, for better and worse: good in that they don't dictate what you do with your money, bad in that they literally don't give a shit even if you buy something from a fake store, or anything like that (you can't get your money back like with some credit card providers). You'd need external insurance to cover that.

Is this the solution to this problem? It basically puts the burden on the buyer of a product or service, but it doesn't assume anything either, as long as it's lawful content.
On that chart thing it would really be "lawful neutral".
 
Last edited:
Relevant portion from the above Kotaku article with Valve's response:

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.
Click to expand...
 
IntentionalPun said:
Depictions of what would be illegal in real life in porn are generally considered illegal and obscene in the US.

Same with even fantasy IRL porn, hence the endless use of "step-" relatives and not real relatives. Or generic "teen" instead of having an adult actress just claim they are underage.

Just because nobody is currently going out of their way to police something and arrest people doesn't mean it isn't illegal. All the more legit porn sites scrubbed a ton of their material a couple years back because US lawmakers threatened them.
Click to expand...

This is entirely untrue. Pretty much all the content you list is constitutionally protected speech in the US, as long as it's fake/dramatized and not an actual recording of an illegal act.

There may be laws that limit the spaces in which certain obscene content can be presented (ie, no broadcasting porn in a public place) or that restrict the ability of minors to access it, but it's not illegal to create or own (once again assuming that it's a fictionalized depiction and not a real record of an actual crime).

Edit: To be a little more clear, I think the phenomenon you're describing has more to do with wanting to prevent the content in question from being confused with actual illegal content (like, do you really want to advertise your porn as featuring an underage actress and then have to prove that she's actually 23 when the feds show up?) than it does with it truly being illegal.

There's obviously a very real and very understandable desire on the part of distributors of pornography to not have their fictionalized content that panders to more fucked up fantasies be confused for the real thing.
 
Last edited:
blacktout said:
This is entirely untrue. Pretty much all the content you list is constitutionally protected speech in the US, as long as it's fake/dramatized and not an actual recording of an illegal act.

There may be laws that limit the spaces in which certain obscene content can be presented (ie, no broadcasting porn in a public place) or that restrict the ability of minors to access it, but it's not illegal to create or own (once again assuming that it's a fictionalized depiction and not a real record of an actual crime).
Click to expand...
The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Thats the test for 'obscenity' in the US, obscene materials being illegal. Some of the games that were removed would be walking very close to that line, especially with some judge who calls all video games 'space invaders' or 'nintendo'.
 
poppabk said:
The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Thats the test for 'obscenity' in the US, obscene materials being illegal. Some of the games that were removed would be walking very close to that line, especially with some judge who calls all video games 'space invaders' or 'nintendo'.
Click to expand...

You're right about the first half, but wrong about the second. You have the standard for obscenity right, but obscene content is not inherently illegal.

Content being "obscene" under the law only means that it enjoys less complete constitutional protections than other forms of speech, which is why access to it can be restricted. That's very different than it being illegal to create, own, or purchase.
 
Last edited:
So, Mastercard is lying.
Or the totally grassroots movement deceived everyone by possibly pretending to represent them. Oooh, maybe they can go to jail!

*sound of bones groaning from intense finger-crossing*

EDIT: Aww. Actually read the content. Slimy bastards, pretending they didn't do exactly the thing they did.
 
Last edited:
If they or their intermediaries that they totally aren't feeding a script want to take a stance on anything they should stop processing all transactions in third world shit holes. Like France.
 
Last edited:
DaciaJC said:
Relevant portion from the above Kotaku article with Valve's response:
Click to expand...
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."

A video game depicting a mutilation of a person or body part is ok if that's consensual then.... that makes sense. I guess Mortal Kombat has to patch some lines of dialogue by the characters going something like this:

Kano - "Hey Subzero, listen dude, I'm about to shove my fist through your chest, pull your heart out and then bend you over and shove it up your ass. That cool with you?"
Subzero - "Yeah, I totally get it, I see you input the right button combination so that's totally cool with me"
Kano - "Thanks bro, you know, just want to make sure we're on the same page here"
Subzero - "No worries, I get it, and totally appreciate you asking in advance, really shows the moral fiber you're made of. Go ahead now"
Kano - "You're the man bro, here we go then..."
Announcer voice - "Kano wins, Fatality"
 
blacktout said:
This is entirely untrue. Pretty much all the content you list is constitutionally protected speech in the US, as long as it's fake/dramatized and not an actual recording of an illegal act.

There may be laws that limit the spaces in which certain obscene content can be presented (ie, no broadcasting porn in a public place) or that restrict the ability of minors to access it, but it's not illegal to create or own (once again assuming that it's a fictionalized depiction and not a real record of an actual crime).

Edit: To be a little more clear, I think the phenomenon you're describing has more to do with wanting to prevent the content in question from being confused with actual illegal content (like, do you really want to advertise your porn as featuring an underage actress and then have to prove that she's actually 23 when the feds show up?) than it does with it truly being illegal.

There's obviously a very real and very understandable desire on the part of distributors of pornography to not have their fictionalized content that panders to more fucked up fantasies be confused for the real thing.
Click to expand...
www.justice.gov

Citizen's Guide To U.S. Federal Law On Obscenity

www.justice.gov www.justice.gov

  1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);
  2. Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and
  3. Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Click to expand...

Example of the application of obscenity law that sort of spell out that you aren't simply free to produce any art that you want:

In addition, Section 1466A of Title 18, United State Code, makes it illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene.
Click to expand...

Maybe I spoke a little too strongly, about some of the topics, but I think the bigger reason porn produces in the US avoid shit like actually pretending an adult actress is a minor because of our obscenity laws. The law itself is vague enough to where a complaint / suit could find that type of material illegal. It's my understanding that pressure has been put on porn sites in the last 5 years to remove or otherwise tone down all kinds of material via these laws and that includes anything explicitly claiming to be incest.

We don't have some full "freedom of speech" that extends to producing porn.
 
Last edited:
Loomy said:
Neither Steam nor itch.io singled out Mastercard, Visa, or anyone else. They used the term"payment processors". That usually refers to banks.

When OnlyFans almost went stupid 4 years ago, the CEO name dropped 3 banks as the "payment processors" pressuring them to make changes.

Having said that, Visa, Mastercard, etc, did try to strong arm Pornhub years ago. They then stopped allowing payment to be processed on Mindgeek sites, and recently stopped processing ad payments altogether. That was very specific though - there were claims that their websites had illegal child related content.

Like digimaster7 digimaster7 said though, this is pixels bonking. I'm not sure what the law is around cartoon depiction of illegal activity.
Click to expand...
It's all bullshit, I'm pretty sure you can use Visa and Mastercard to buy ticket to stage performances of Oedipus Rex just fine.
 
Last edited:
They're obviously a bunch of liars, but the important fact here is that the response was loud enough that they felt the need to issue a statement. That's nuts.
 
IntentionalPun said:
www.justice.gov

Citizen's Guide To U.S. Federal Law On Obscenity

www.justice.gov www.justice.gov



Example of the application of obscenity law that sort of spell out that you aren't simply free to produce any art that you want:



Maybe I spoke a little too strongly, about some of the topics, but I think the bigger reason porn produces in the US avoid shit like actually pretending an adult actress is a minor because of our obscenity laws. The law itself is vague enough to where a complaint / suit could find that type of material illegal. It's my understanding that pressure has been put on porn sites in the last 5 years to remove or otherwise tone down all kinds of material via these laws and that includes anything explicitly claiming to be incest.

We don't have some full "freedom of speech" that extends to producing porn.
Click to expand...
But Valve is a US company, and therefore subject to the same laws. If it is illegal for Valve to sell it, they wouldn't sell it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Games with great postgame content
2
52
616
I collect VHS tapes replied
Christopher dring 'clarifies' his stance on gamepass.
3 4 5 6 7
333
2K
Kenneth Haight replied
  • Locked
I like the Dreamcastguy. He only cares about gaming and never makes clickbait content.
24
306
TexMex replied
Nintendo’s visual content company, Nintendo Pictures, worked on Hideo Kojima’s Death Stranding 2: On the Beach, the PS5 game’s credits reveal
Game Dev  2
59
548
LordOcidax replied
What recent movie would you of played it’s game?
36
1K
kevboard replied
Top Bottom