You might not immediately recognise the name Santa Ragione, but the independent Italian studio has been creating boundary pushing, award-winning games for over a decade and a half now.
Award winning, best indie game studio yet the name is unrecognisable…? It’s pretty fishy just from the beginning of the article. I checked their game, some are not well received, and their latest game have only 92 reviews on Steam. Not good, seems like the studio is already on their way out and he believe Horses gonna save the studio.
It’s an asset flip niche horror game, it’s not gonna save the studio. So what left is the dev trying to spin a sob story to hopefully rile up the anti-steam crowd to get some pity sales.
It really feels like some important piece of information is missing from this article.
The whole thing is just the dramatised opinions of the guy who’s game got banned, and it’s clear that he thinks very highly of himself:
And while Horses won’t be launching on consoles due to porting costs, Pietro says the console makers who’ve seen Horses have said they’d be “happy to have the game on [their] platform”
“We had multiple publishers actively coming to us,” explains Pietro, “and be like, ‘Hey, we want to make this game.’”
Looking at the game trailer and stills, I do not believe that this game was the talk of console-town or a publishing darling. It’s a rough as hell indie game about abusing humans with intentionally sexual imagery (I don’t believe him when he says the game is not sexual either, the trailer features people dressed as horses, followed by a shot of real-life horses fucking). If the game was so beloved by consoles, you would think that the “world’s best indie studio” could scrape together a few investors to pay for porting. Their other games have console releases. Where’s the love for the horse themed snuff game on Switch 2?
This is a misleading article implying that the poor devs have had their game ripped from them:
And nearly 18 months on, the studio still isn’t certain what triggered the ban.
Except Valve explained in their response:
we found that this title features themes, imagery, or descriptions that we won’t distribute. Regardless of a developer’s intentions with their product, we will not distribute content that appears, in our judgment, to depict sexual conduct involving a minor. While every product submitted is unique, if your product features this representation—even in a subtle way that could be defined as a ‘grey area’—it will be rejected by Steam.
Your game crossed lines that Valve has decided are too far for them. You changed the girl into a woman in later builds, but the application YOU submitted showed that there was consideration made in putting a small child into your horse-bdsm-murder game in a sexually suggestive manner. Valve cannot confirm that the rest of your game isn’t going to steer back in that direction, and has made a choice based on the information they have. They do not owe every dev a personalised response when their game is banned for exploiting minors.
The game is going to be on GoG, Epic, Humble, and Itch.io. This dev is chucking a public tanty because he’s not allowed on Steam. This is 100% just a marketing ploy to drum up sympathy and push sales on other storefronts. No doubt a future trailer will contain the phrase “The game that was too scary for Steam is now available on Epic!” or some such.
Met one of the founders years ago, acted like he had discovered the wheel and hot water himself when all he did was come up with Mirrormoon, which while good is anything but the smash hit he was pretending it was, it just happened to be the most successful italian indie game at the time of, like maybe 3 of them?
These guys are pathologically auteur, and from everything I’ve seen of them, think they’re way smarter than they actually are.
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 (a game about sexual assault, among other things) 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.
Yeah, it’s a monopoly. That’s not a value judgement. It’s not calling them evil or criminal or anything. It is a necessary recognition of their market position. I.e. - they have competitors, but those competitors do not matter.
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,
There are games exclusive to Epic that do just fine. There are games on itch and GoG that are doing just fine.
If Steam not hosting your game causes your studio to shut down, it’s not because Steam is being some unreasonable gatekeeper. It’s because you’re making something that there isn’t any market for, or so little of a market that your only hope is to get it visible to as many people as possible so the tiny fraction of them that are interested can keep you afloat.
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.
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 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
But they aren’t tied to a store? When you download a game from Steam, it’s just an executable on your box. You could put it on a hard drive and move it wherever you wanted. You don’t have to launch games you bought with Steam through Steam. They aren’t streamed. They are saved locally to your computer.
You can only download it from that store, sure, but that’s not apples to apples. If I buy a game from GameStop, they won’t give me another copy for free, just cause I threw away the copy they gave me. Once you download the game, that’s what they sold you, and it’s notionally your responsibility to keep track of it. Them allowing you to keep downloading new copies forever isn’t strictly necessary, and costs them money every time you do it.
And if you can run the games you downloaded without Steam, all you’re saying is “there should be other places to buy your games.” But there are. Those exist. Less people use them, sure, but what do you propose? Kill Steam because too many people use it to buy their games? Legislate that people are required to shop at other stores?
well, many games are tied to the steam client (through the steam runtimes, steam DRM, steam input, needing a steam account for online play…). for most games, no, you can’t just take the executable and do whatever you want with it. you’ll need the steam client, and this creates a lock-in effect. because you need steam open to play all your steam games, you won’t look elsewhere for games, and you won’t see games not on steam, unless they’re big enough.
imo, the solution to this is to break the lock-in, have interoperability between clients. there’s no good reason why cross-play between steam and GOG, for example, is an exception and not the norm. there’s no good reason why the steam client is required for so many games, there should be offline installers. there’s no good reason why steam input only works with the steam client. part of the reason why proton is so amazing is that it’s open-source, other steam technologies should be the same!
Sure, many games are tied to various Steam services, but that’s by the choice of the games developer. Steam offers various built in services that game devs can choose to use if they want. It’s not like it’s some kind of requirement.
You might as well complain that game devs use Windows binaries, locking their games to only run on Windows. Sure, I prefer it when they target other platforms, but that’s 1000% not Microsoft’s fault that the dev chose to dev for their platform. I’m not mad at Microsoft for so many games being Windows only. I’m mad at the devs.
And games that build themselves around Steam services are of course going to be tied to Steam. That’s a choice the devs made. If they wanted their game to run without needing the Steam client, they trivially could have built it that way. They just would have had to either reimplement all those Steam features themselves, or done without.
And if people want those Steam features, every store client who wants to run those games would have to implement those features in an interoperable way. It’s easy to say “have interoperability between clients,” but that’s glossing over the potentially thousands of dev hours required to implement all of the features needed. And that’s assuming they could all agree on a spec.
And to your final point about being open source. First, it gives very “any musician who gets paid is a sellout” energy. But more than that, it doesn’t actually solve the problem you have. Even if Steam open sourced their tooling, that doesn’t mean other players in the space could integrate it. Steam has grown organically for the past 30yrs, and trying to extricate the deep inner bits and then graft them on to your own solution isn’t as easy as it sounds.
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.
I think I read a different article because there are some key factors here:
(not super important but overlooked here) The “horse” is a woman
(definitely important) The scene was only an unfinished scene still being worked out
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”.
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.
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.
(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.
In the early build reviewed by Valve, day six featured a scene in which a man and his young daughter visit the farm. The daughter wants to ride one of the horses, resulting in an interactive dialogue sequence where the girl rides on the shoulders of a naked “horse” while it’s led by the player.
Young girl interacts with naked man and you saw no problem with it…
“The scene is not sexual in any way,”
Maybe not to you but that doesn’t change the content of what you submitted to Valve.
the young character was changed into a twenty-something woman. “Both to avoid the juxtaposition,” it explains, “and more importantly because the dialogue delivered in that scene, which deals with the societal structure in the world of Horses, works much better when delivered by an older character.”
Cool, the review build still featured a young girl riding a naked man and you thought that was a great idea…
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.
BEING SAID, this might not be the reason anyway, reading the struggles of this games development process, steam had already posted concern about the live action portions of the game, so I’m expecting it might have been a combination of the nudity aspect of the game (even if not intended to arouse) and the live action portions. I assume steam was already looking for a reason to block this release, and when they were given one they just went with it.
That’s the one of the very few things in the devs’ favor imo, that Valve took too long to let them 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, though.
The dude acts clueless and said that someone was probably “having a bad day” and banned it just because fuckem, but this sounds like a more likely reason.
Genuinely do not care about your horror-bandwagon pedo ponyplay game. Valve has made the right call, and I can’t blame them for not wanting to become a pedo bar. Roblox can keep that title.
Me neither but popular doesn’t necessarily good or unknown doesn’t mean bad but to first come up with a scene of a young girl riding a naked man, then to model this, and in al that time not thinking that this depiction is seriously fucked up (they only changed this scene later because the scene “works much better when delivered by an older character.”
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.
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
The world getting increasingly moralistic and neurotic.
ps: Watched the trailer, read a bit, it seems like the game is very horror-oriented, not sure if the message is dehumanization or what, but looked like a great opportunity to show parents teaching fucked up morals to children and perpetuating a system of oppression was prevented because moralists see nudity and think it can only represent sex - meanwhile, by the screenshots, it represents dehumanization.
How the American WASP-culture addiction to guilt and shame came to control the world after the popularization of internet is quite sad.
“yes yes, a young girl asks to and then rides a naked man. I don’t understand why anyone would hear that sentence and immediately assume it was something sexual.”
On another note, I remember some time ago reading a forum where people were discussing how to explain to their children that scene from My Neighbor Totoro where the father takes a bath with the daughters, and how that scene wasn’t appropriate for children or something like that… culture shock (for me).
Did you watch the game trailer? Are you really saying this is pony play fetishism? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYewjNYxV-8
The equivalent here is the idea that something became wrong because it’s “young child” and “naked man”. It’s literally the same discussion I saw in that forum about My Neighbor Totoro, because, again: moralists see nudity and think it can only represent sex
(I’d add that if you believe abuse, torture, slavery, possibly racism, and suicide - the things on the trailer - are remotely equivalent in your mind to some fetish consenting adults participate for fun, then you are the one unable to have this conversation)
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
I understand that this is a problem for the studio, but no one would expect Disney to distribute a David Cronenberg movie.
Steam is THE mainstream distribution platform for games, and for that they are already pretty open for weird shit.
It’s this weird american free speech thing only for video games: “I’m allowed to make it so you have to sell it!”. No?
Award winning, best indie game studio yet the name is unrecognisable…? It’s pretty fishy just from the beginning of the article. I checked their game, some are not well received, and their latest game have only 92 reviews on Steam. Not good, seems like the studio is already on their way out and he believe Horses gonna save the studio.
But if you look at the game
https://youtu.be/JYewjNYxV-8
It’s an asset flip niche horror game, it’s not gonna save the studio. So what left is the dev trying to spin a sob story to hopefully rile up the anti-steam crowd to get some pity sales.
Because you clickbait vultures don’t use proper nouns in your goddamn headlines?
It really feels like some important piece of information is missing from this article. The whole thing is just the dramatised opinions of the guy who’s game got banned, and it’s clear that he thinks very highly of himself:
Looking at the game trailer and stills, I do not believe that this game was the talk of console-town or a publishing darling. It’s a rough as hell indie game about abusing humans with intentionally sexual imagery (I don’t believe him when he says the game is not sexual either, the trailer features people dressed as horses, followed by a shot of real-life horses fucking). If the game was so beloved by consoles, you would think that the “world’s best indie studio” could scrape together a few investors to pay for porting. Their other games have console releases. Where’s the love for the horse themed snuff game on Switch 2?
This is a misleading article implying that the poor devs have had their game ripped from them:
Except Valve explained in their response:
Your game crossed lines that Valve has decided are too far for them. You changed the girl into a woman in later builds, but the application YOU submitted showed that there was consideration made in putting a small child into your horse-bdsm-murder game in a sexually suggestive manner. Valve cannot confirm that the rest of your game isn’t going to steer back in that direction, and has made a choice based on the information they have. They do not owe every dev a personalised response when their game is banned for exploiting minors.
The game is going to be on GoG, Epic, Humble, and Itch.io. This dev is chucking a public tanty because he’s not allowed on Steam. This is 100% just a marketing ploy to drum up sympathy and push sales on other storefronts. No doubt a future trailer will contain the phrase “The game that was too scary for Steam is now available on Epic!” or some such.
Of course it was Santa Ragione.
Met one of the founders years ago, acted like he had discovered the wheel and hot water himself when all he did was come up with Mirrormoon, which while good is anything but the smash hit he was pretending it was, it just happened to be the most successful italian indie game at the time of, like maybe 3 of them?
These guys are pathologically auteur, and from everything I’ve seen of them, think they’re way smarter than they actually are.
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 (a game about sexual assault, among other things) 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.
Yeah, it’s a monopoly. That’s not a value judgement. It’s not calling them evil or criminal or anything. It is a necessary recognition of their market position. I.e. - they have competitors, but those competitors do not matter.
There are games exclusive to Epic that do just fine. There are games on itch and GoG that are doing just fine.
If Steam not hosting your game causes your studio to shut down, it’s not because Steam is being some unreasonable gatekeeper. It’s because you’re making something that there isn’t any market for, or so little of a market that your only hope is to get it visible to as many people as possible so the tiny fraction of them that are interested can keep you afloat.
Alan Wake 2 took an entire year to become profitable.
It’s because the one store everyone uses didn’t carry it.
Satisfactory made $11 million in the first year when it was exclusive to Epic (and not available on “the one store everybody uses”).
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.
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 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
But they aren’t tied to a store? When you download a game from Steam, it’s just an executable on your box. You could put it on a hard drive and move it wherever you wanted. You don’t have to launch games you bought with Steam through Steam. They aren’t streamed. They are saved locally to your computer.
You can only download it from that store, sure, but that’s not apples to apples. If I buy a game from GameStop, they won’t give me another copy for free, just cause I threw away the copy they gave me. Once you download the game, that’s what they sold you, and it’s notionally your responsibility to keep track of it. Them allowing you to keep downloading new copies forever isn’t strictly necessary, and costs them money every time you do it.
And if you can run the games you downloaded without Steam, all you’re saying is “there should be other places to buy your games.” But there are. Those exist. Less people use them, sure, but what do you propose? Kill Steam because too many people use it to buy their games? Legislate that people are required to shop at other stores?
well, many games are tied to the steam client (through the steam runtimes, steam DRM, steam input, needing a steam account for online play…). for most games, no, you can’t just take the executable and do whatever you want with it. you’ll need the steam client, and this creates a lock-in effect. because you need steam open to play all your steam games, you won’t look elsewhere for games, and you won’t see games not on steam, unless they’re big enough.
imo, the solution to this is to break the lock-in, have interoperability between clients. there’s no good reason why cross-play between steam and GOG, for example, is an exception and not the norm. there’s no good reason why the steam client is required for so many games, there should be offline installers. there’s no good reason why steam input only works with the steam client. part of the reason why proton is so amazing is that it’s open-source, other steam technologies should be the same!
Sure, many games are tied to various Steam services, but that’s by the choice of the games developer. Steam offers various built in services that game devs can choose to use if they want. It’s not like it’s some kind of requirement.
You might as well complain that game devs use Windows binaries, locking their games to only run on Windows. Sure, I prefer it when they target other platforms, but that’s 1000% not Microsoft’s fault that the dev chose to dev for their platform. I’m not mad at Microsoft for so many games being Windows only. I’m mad at the devs.
And games that build themselves around Steam services are of course going to be tied to Steam. That’s a choice the devs made. If they wanted their game to run without needing the Steam client, they trivially could have built it that way. They just would have had to either reimplement all those Steam features themselves, or done without.
And if people want those Steam features, every store client who wants to run those games would have to implement those features in an interoperable way. It’s easy to say “have interoperability between clients,” but that’s glossing over the potentially thousands of dev hours required to implement all of the features needed. And that’s assuming they could all agree on a spec.
And to your final point about being open source. First, it gives very “any musician who gets paid is a sellout” energy. But more than that, it doesn’t actually solve the problem you have. Even if Steam open sourced their tooling, that doesn’t mean other players in the space could integrate it. Steam has grown organically for the past 30yrs, and trying to extricate the deep inner bits and then graft them on to your own solution isn’t as easy as it sounds.
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.
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.
puritan bullshit all up and down this thread, and bronies protesting too much
i’ll get it from https://www.gog.com/en/game/horses
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.
I’m not going to buy it but I think it’s awesome 😃
I think I read a different article because there are some key factors here:
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”.
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.
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’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.
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.
The reviewer asked for a playable copy after being unsure from screenshots and text alone. I think that’s pretty fair.
Young girl interacts with naked man and you saw no problem with it…
Maybe not to you but that doesn’t change the content of what you submitted to Valve.
Cool, the review build still featured a young girl riding a naked man and you thought that was a great idea…
I came in to read what caused Valve’s fall from grace, but nope, still the good guy.
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.
BEING SAID, this might not be the reason anyway, reading the struggles of this games development process, steam had already posted concern about the live action portions of the game, so I’m expecting it might have been a combination of the nudity aspect of the game (even if not intended to arouse) and the live action portions. I assume steam was already looking for a reason to block this release, and when they were given one they just went with it.
That’s the one of the very few things in the devs’ favor imo, that Valve took too long to let them 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, though.
this is what they are afraid of https://assetsio.gnwcdn.com/HORSES_Screenshot_1.jpg ?
I believe so, except in review build it was a minor who was riding it, and we don’t know what else was there in the “interactive dialogue sequence”
That’s what they changed it to, after the damage was done.
They first submitted a build with a child riding the naked horse-man, which is probably what flagged it for good.
The dude acts clueless and said that someone was probably “having a bad day” and banned it just because fuckem, but this sounds like a more likely reason.
Never heard of them, nothing of value lost
Genuinely do not care about your horror-bandwagon pedo ponyplay game. Valve has made the right call, and I can’t blame them for not wanting to become a pedo bar. Roblox can keep that title.
Me neither but popular doesn’t necessarily good or unknown doesn’t mean bad but to first come up with a scene of a young girl riding a naked man, then to model this, and in al that time not thinking that this depiction is seriously fucked up (they only changed this scene later because the scene “works much better when delivered by an older character.”
LOL sure being unknown doesn’t mean bad. It does mean not one of the world’s best, though.
Well this guy seems totally full of shit. Might be time to flush
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.
Feels like some key piece of information is omitted here tbh
You mean the key information im the middle of the article that I quoted in a comment 15 minutes before yours?
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
The world getting increasingly moralistic and neurotic.
ps: Watched the trailer, read a bit, it seems like the game is very horror-oriented, not sure if the message is dehumanization or what, but looked like a great opportunity to show parents teaching fucked up morals to children and perpetuating a system of oppression was prevented because moralists see nudity and think it can only represent sex - meanwhile, by the screenshots, it represents dehumanization.
How the American WASP-culture addiction to guilt and shame came to control the world after the popularization of internet is quite sad.
lol it’s just undisguised pony play fetish
Except in the review build submitted to Valve there was a young child riding that naked man.
That’s no exception at all. “moralists see nudity and think it can only represent sex” clearly defines it.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ponyplay oops, its literally a sex thing
Did you watch the game trailer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYewjNYxV-8 It’s not a sex thing.
“yes yes, a young girl asks to and then rides a naked man. I don’t understand why anyone would hear that sentence and immediately assume it was something sexual.”
On another note, I remember some time ago reading a forum where people were discussing how to explain to their children that scene from My Neighbor Totoro where the father takes a bath with the daughters, and how that scene wasn’t appropriate for children or something like that… culture shock (for me).
If pony play fetishism is remotely equivalent in your mind then you are unable to have this conversation and should go away
Did you watch the game trailer? Are you really saying this is pony play fetishism? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYewjNYxV-8
The equivalent here is the idea that something became wrong because it’s “young child” and “naked man”. It’s literally the same discussion I saw in that forum about My Neighbor Totoro, because, again: moralists see nudity and think it can only represent sex
(I’d add that if you believe abuse, torture, slavery, possibly racism, and suicide - the things on the trailer - are remotely equivalent in your mind to some fetish consenting adults participate for fun, then you are the one unable to have this conversation)