I have definitely noticed an uptick in the number of articles attacking Steam. I find all of them to be a little over blown.

Valve hate is very fashionable right now. Get ready to hear endless moaning over the Steam Machine from people who never would have bought it regardless.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ponyplay oops, its literally a sex thing

No, that sounds like moral panic bullshit. If the naked man is not in a sexual at all context because it's straight up treating them as horses the whole game to be surrealist or whatever, and the kid was fully clothed, then I honestly don't see what the big deal is. Perhaps it was worse than described, or maybe... There is something we don't know

I have to disagree to be honest. Not because I think that they should allow a naked guy with a young girl(gross), but because in the time that it took for steam to review the game and give a verdict, they had already changed it on their own to be a different model. For them to refuse re-submission of the game is pretty dumb, considering that the offending content(if that is what it was) had already been fixed in the release build and steam was operating under old information. If they haden't already changed it for the release candidate I would be fully on board, but clearly they saw wrong in it as well which was why they had changed it prior to steams decision. Steam forced an early release build of the game way earlier than they normally asked for, which meant it was exactly that, a pre-release build, meaning it had not gone through the proper channels for vetting or checking to make sure that what they wanted to publish was a final product. Then when requested for a review of the actual final build, steam refused. This combined with the fact that the only storefront that blocked the release was steam, I definitely think steam is the bad guy here.

As innocent as a naked sleepover at Neverland Ranch.

If pony play fetishism is remotely equivalent in your mind then you are unable to have this conversation and should go away

I think I read a different article because there are some key factors here: 1. (not super important but overlooked here) The “horse” is a woman 2. (definitely important) The scene was only an unfinished scene still being worked out 3. Valve has given no recourse or appeals process despite good faith efforts I’m not trying to trash Valve, and FUCK child abuse, but I definitely think Valve should have handled this more fairly. Given the established premise of the game, I don’t think the existence of that scene in an unfinished state was a move consistent with “hey let’s make a pedo game”.

I'm not going to buy it but I think it's awesome

> (not super important but overlooked here) The “horse” is a woman I'm sorry for accidentally misgendering a grown adult who's still naked with a young girl riding on top. I guess that triggers a different fetish then. > (definitely important) The scene was only an unfinished scene still being worked out True but they still thought it was a great idea to depict this scene and then only change their minds not because they realized their mistake but because it works better with an adult doing the riding story-wise. > I definitely think Valve should have handled this more fairly. The reviewer asked for a playable copy after being unsure from screenshots and text alone. I think that's pretty fair.

That's the one of the very frew things in the devs' favor imo, that Valve took too long to let tnem know. It's impossible to say if it took that long review because of csam reasons or normal reasons, or if they just sat with the notice for a while, doing nothing.

Eh, if steam saw some of the content as involving a minor and they are sick of dealing with games trying to toe the line before *and likely after* release I could see them defaulting to a no do overs policy. Especially if the game dev doesn't sell enough games to make the potential legal hassle necessary. It would be far better if they pointed out what they are using for criteria for sure and allow at least one do over in case of a misunderstanding though.

Right. I’m not saying anything like “Steam must allow all content because free speech” - I’m just saying if someone is trying to make a game with complex or even weird themes, Valve should at least participate in a conversation instead of dealing out irrevocable absolute judgments based on content that isn’t even finished.

I hate to say it but I perfectly understand why Valve wouldn't want to carry this particular title. Sucks for the makers honestly but what they're trying to convey may be best served someplace else anyway.

After reading a couple more articles I get the strong feeling that steam/valve'a early communication about concerns with the live actor portions likely did convey what they had issues with and the dev is trying to be coy about it by speculating on a scene that magically works better with a young adult. I'm leaning towards them making the change because of expecting the other storefronts to have the same issues. So they kind of did get more than one chance, but they are focused on the one with the rejection.

i think we’re missing the forest for the trees here by arguing wether valve should’ve allowed the game or not. the fact that valve is in such a dominant position that them refusing to sell a game can mean not only the game’s failure, but the shutdown of the studio making it, is a big problem. and it’s not just this game, after the payment processor affair, [VILE: Exhumed](https://dreadxp.com/vile-is-banned/) (a game about sexual assault) was banned from steam (for being about sexual assault), before it could even release game devs shouldn’t have to rely on just one vendor’s approval to sell their stuff, it’s an unhealthy ecosystem.

I honestly don't know what the answer is though, since I refuse to buy a game anywhere else. If it's not on steam I'm not buying it.

But this game is getting distribution through GoG and about a half dozen other platforms listed in the article. Do most people game through steam? Yes. But centralization of the marketplace isn't necessarily a bad thing. There's a reason why people complain when they have to use other game stores an launchers. It's the "I have 50 different streaming services" problem. If Steam starts abusing that market position, then yes, we should care about that and they should suffer backlash. Which makes the question of "did they do the right thing here," very much relevant.

That's shortsighted as hell. I cma understand not wanting to have multiple clients installed but there's GoG at the very least. Gog gives drm free installers, no laucher needed. Install it somewhere, go into steam, add non-steam game. Boom. Done.

there is another way, games shouldn’t be tied to the store you bought them in like, for physical objects, you can buy a thing from one store and another thing from another store, and they’ll be in your house no problem, you won’t even have to think about which store you bought which thing from (unless you need to return it or for customer service). it’s fundamentally decentralized. why shouldn’t digital distribution work that way too? it’s entirely possible, but obviously vendors benefit from locking you to their platform (that goes for steam, but also to epic games and, to a lesser extent GOG and itch as well) there should be no company with power to abuse in the first place. steam refused to sell your game? alright, you can sell it in other places and it’ll be fine. but that’s not how it works right now, most people buy on steam, and ONLY on steam, because it has a dominant position. so, if you can’t sell on steam, you’re done for! and we can analyse each ban on a case-by-case basis (there’s many steam game bans I am glad happened), but there’s also cases like VILE: Exhumed, where steam caved to pressure from payment processors (which are also very centralized, that’s another honestly bigger problem) to ban a game with progressive politics simply because it talked about stuff that makes reactionary prudes uncomfortable. we can’t just rely on Good Guy Valve to stay good forever