71
An unsettling indie game about horses keeps getting banned from stores (www.theverge.com)
submitted 1 week ago by t3rmit3@beehaw.org to c/gaming@beehaw.org
55 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Horses, a first-person narrative horror game, was banned from the Epic Games Store just hours before it was set to launch on December 2nd. Then, a day after launch, the Humble store (temporarily) banned it as well. The decision shocked the developers at Santa Ragione, makers of the critically respected Saturnalia, as these storefronts were the homes they’d found for their game two years before it was preemptively banned from Steam.

Valve and Epic say Horses violates their sexual content policies. Humble hasn’t yet said why it banned the game.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] justdaveisfine@piefed.social 48 points 1 week ago

I keep seeing the "well its got nudity what did they expect" take and saw this article that talks about the meta-narrative and theme:

https://noescapevg.com/all-that-fucking-bullshit-abouthorses-and-for-what/

It being weird and uncomfortable is the point - Though obviously its not meant to be a game for everyone.

[-] hzl@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 days ago

It's not that it has nudity. It's that it had a child riding around on a fully naked adult in a horse mask.

[-] VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 week ago

I love the tone of this article. Fuckin tell em.

[-] karashta@piefed.social 21 points 1 week ago

My sleepy brain was expecting something about Umamusume or however you spell that horse girl game

[-] snooggums@piefed.world 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Banned is the wrong word.

Steam chose not to distribute it because it they understood an early build to include children in sexual situations. Further builds did not dissuade them from the original decision.

Epic, who originally was going to distribute based on the developer filling out some form chose not to after filling it out themselves and finding it had a higher rating (adult only) at the last minute.

The developer speculated it was about a specific scene, but based on both steam and epic there are fundamental concerns about the content that led to no distributing on their platforms, which is not banning, that do not align with the story the developers are presenting. It is not likely to be about one scene that was in an earlier build that was the issue for them.

The important thing is that the game is not BANNED in any way whatsoever. It is available on fewer distribution platforms, which reduces visibility, but is not banning any more than exclusive deals or limited releases are banning on other platforms.

Personally I get the impression that the developers see the content very differently than steam and epic because the developers focus on intent and steam and epic focus on what actually exists in the game.

[-] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 11 points 1 week ago

No, banned is the right word colloquially. The media is not eligible to be distributed in the monopolistic or anti-competitive web service run by Valve. It wasn't banned by a government, but it was indeed banned.

[-] SGforce@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago

ban 1 of 3 verb ˈban banned; banning; bans Synonyms of ban

transitive verb 1 : to prohibit especially by legal means ban discrimination Is smoking banned in all public buildings? also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of ban a book ban a pesticide 2 : bar entry 2 sense 3c banned from the U.N.>

[-] Wolf314159@startrek.website 5 points 1 week ago

So, by that definition and the definition everyone else is using, the game has been banned from various marketplaces for games. Context matters. In this context ban is used EXACTLY the same way we talk about banned books at the library.

[-] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 14 points 1 week ago

Terrible timing. There was just that payment processor panic with the porn games. Now you wanna have a kid talk to a naked man with a horse mask. I get its not sexual but read the room. It was clearly a bad idea even if it was meant to convey some profound message. Honestly I dont think that would have ever worked out. Its just whack.

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 43 points 1 week ago

Submitting to moral panic bullshit doesn't placate them. It only emboldens them.

[-] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 9 points 1 week ago

Okay, cool. Do you think having a little girl talk to a naked horseman is something that would help sell the game? Or make it onto a marketplace anywhere? Thats why it was removed and they already tried to placate by makkng the girl an adult and that didnt work obviously. So whats your point here? Leave that content in the game? That doesnt solve the developers problem.

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 21 points 1 week ago

I literally don't care if they had a little girl talk to a naked horseman (who is being treated by the game like a regular horse and not a man at all to make a point). My point is that banning things that aren't child porn because of moral outrage leads to the moral crusaders escalating. Next thing you know they're gunning for lgbt themes, then going after violence. It's ridiculous and should be ridiculed and dismissed instead of pretending things are child porn just because you don't like them.

[-] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yeah all I am saying is this isn't surprising. It should have been expected. I doubt you will ever be able to put a child model in a game next to nude adukt models and not get your game pulled from mainstream marketplaces. Thats just the current reality we live in and is not surprising. I mysslf dont think its offensive in this context. But again this outcome is completely expected.

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 16 points 1 week ago
  1. The person in these comments that has actually played the game said there isn't actually a single child in the game.
  2. I'm never going to decide to just accept bullshit "because it's not surprising". That's completely asinine.
[-] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Go to horses.wtf if you really want to know more. I myself dont think this is a hill worth dying on.

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You're not even trying to understand what I'm saying if you think that deciding if this particular game is the hill to die on is what I care about. I don't give a shit about this particular game. I care about maintaining the principles of not letting moralists dictate what art and media is appropriate for everyone else.

[-] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 3 points 1 week ago

Yeah and what I am saying is this is stupid shit to do that for. Someone tried to make a "grotesque story experience" and they got too close for comfort for main stream distributors. You can still acquire the game, just not on these platforms. You can still play it in its intended state, just not on those platforms. So what you are arguing for really is for Steam and Epic to distribute this.

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago

Yeah and what I am saying is this is stupid shit to do that for.

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

So what you are arguing for really is for Steam and Epic to distribute this.

Yes, I am. There doesn't appear to be a non-moral-panic reason for it to be barred, and being barred from steam will have a deleterious effect on the game and on the studio's ability to keep making games. I wish company didn't have that power, but they do.

[-] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Its their platform. In what world can you force people to sell shit they dont want to sell? You can literally go buy it and experience the art right now. But its not on Steam with achievements and friends seeing me play it so fuck it? Lmao what logic is this? Theres not much left to discuss here tbh. This seems pretty straightforward and your argument is incoherent at this point. They are getting loads of marketing from this

[-] Psionicsickness@reddthat.com 2 points 19 hours ago

I’m with you until I got here. What world can you force people to sell shit they don’t want to sell? In a world with anti trust laws.

I like steam, but arbitrary decisions like this is going to get them under fire by the FTC sooner rather than later.

[-] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 0 points 18 hours ago

This all happened because they had a literal child riding one of the naked adults on a lead and then wanted to play dumb. I dont agree with Steam practically controlling the PC market, but this one is a case of the developers stepping on their own rake and then turning around and saying "look what they've done to me!" I don't know why this is such an unpopular opinion. But I digress. Because in actuality I would simply not buy the game, I don't actually care if it is available on Steam, I'm just saying having a kid ride a naked adults shoulders is very obviously not going to pass their content checks.

[-] Psionicsickness@reddthat.com 2 points 18 hours ago

And I would agree with you if that content were still in the game.

If they are disallowed on Steam, with no recourse, and Steam’s market share is 75%, this is the letter and verse WHY we have antitrust laws. They are the textbook definition of a monopoly.

[-] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 0 points 18 hours ago

If you burn someone like that, they aren't going to accept do overs. "Sorry for what you perceived as CSAM" doesn't work.

[-] Psionicsickness@reddthat.com 1 points 18 hours ago

A monopoly giving zero recourse doesn’t work, either. It’s a shame, because I like steam for the most part.

[-] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 1 points 7 hours ago

A federated game distribution platform would be cool. Something no one can own. I dont think that will happen in our capitalist world. But I also dont think this particular problem would be solved by that.

[-] Psionicsickness@reddthat.com 1 points 2 hours ago

That would be so cool, I suppose we can dream.

[-] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 1 points 2 hours ago

Maybe we should just do it. Idk if I have the skills but I'd be willing to contribute. I'm tired of this paradigm, grandpa.

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They are getting loads of marketing from this

This particular game is. It won't always apply to every game, which is why I want digital marketplaces that have so much market dominance they can make or break studios to not choose which games they allow on their platforms to not be based on vibes.

This seems pretty straightforward and your argument is incoherent at this point.

My argument isn't incoherent just because you refuse to engage the scenario from a systemic rather than one-off perspective.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago

There was one in the version they sent to Steam. That's what started all this.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

isn't the point of the game to be disturbing?

self censorship won't help.

[-] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 2 points 1 week ago

Who is self censoring here? Horses.wtf states the game is available in an unchanged state elsewhere. Just not on Steam or Epic. They're big ass corpos. Dont know why this is shocking or why people want them to be forced to sell it. Valve was never your vanguard for self expression or art exploration.

[-] carotte@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 week ago

but can that content be removed without changing the game? they already changed her from a kid to a grown woman, because it fit the story and the message better, apparently. but would removing that entirely still work?

idk, i haven't played or analysed the game. i'm guessing that it's there for a reason. but i do know that demanding content be changed because it makes us uncomfortable is not a good thing!

[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 16 points 1 week ago

I have played the game. There's far more pornographic games on Steam. All of the nudity is censored, there are no kids or even characters that could be mistaken for kids in the game, and it's obvious in its intent - there's nothing that I'd describe as even approaching titillating; the whole experience is clearly just intended to - and successfully so - make you feel uncomfortable and unsettled. The scene in question - the one that previously had the young girl - is particularly unsettling specifically because of how it normalizes everything else that's going on, and I agree with them that the scene works better with a grown woman than it would have with a kid. There's no reason for this to be banned on Steam.

[-] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah cause the content that made headlines was changed. So you won't see it by playing you had to read into why. Look, I'll get down on some Futa Femboy House. Lets go. But maybe lets not involve kids and nudity in the global community, thats a recipe for disaster. Either way, that will for sure get you delisted and you cant act surprised in this capitalist, bland-shit-to-widest-audience world. What just happened will happen to you. Maybe if they wanted it to be considered art, which I think might have gone better, present it aa that at a gallery or your own hosted site. Valve or any big corp is not going to fuck with that 100%. I'm just honestly surprised they're surprised and this is making such a big splash.

[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 6 points 1 week ago

Whether they're surprised or not, going public with it was a good marketing ploy because I never would have known about the game if they hadn't, and I bought it. I'm sure many more of their sales can be attributed to the same.

[-] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 5 points 1 week ago

I for sure would not have seen this game if it werent for these articles. So maybe its part of the plot. Capitalism strikes again?

[-] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Valve has hundreds if not thousands of highly and expressly pornographic games on its platform, so I don't think this can be chalked up to the Collective Shout folks' spectre somehow looming over Valve. As another commenter pointed out, according to the devs' own timeline, Valve's rejection happened prior to the recent successful Collective Should payment-processor targeting.

I suspect that EGS and Humble probably halted sale at the last minute due to the added press naming them as distributors prior to launch, often in articles that included Valve's response asserting that it contained questionable content related to minors, and them going, "hey what? Hold on a sec, we don't know anything about that."

If you were about to sell a bunch of cars, and a major dealership announced they wouldn't sell them because their trunks were all full of cocaine, a couple days before launch, you'd probably delay your launch to double-check as well.

Unfortunately, the developers' own initial press statements where they sort of feigned ~~innocence~~ ignorance (after they had already changed the scene presumed to be in question, meaning they at least had some idea that was likely the issue) probably didn't help their credibility in other platforms' eyes, as far as being business partners goes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] carotte@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 1 week ago

iirc the game was refused by steam before the payment processor thing, and even then, you don't scrap your whole project because of one moral panic. not only is it bowing down to pressure, it's also just a terrible idea financially

[-] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 2 points 1 week ago

I mean are you saying they should have left the game as is? Really dont understand your argument here. It seems this is more just bad taste rather than a moral panic.

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They made an art piece that tows the line in the minefield so hard that it is causing explosions when people try to follow along...

Yeah ok, so sounds like they accomplished their goal in the art sense and just won't get the wide audience and monetary rewards for making an art piece that hurt people.

I see nothing wrong here.

[-] AngryMob@lemmy.one 14 points 1 week ago

Theyre getting more attention from all these articles every day than they ever had before for sure. Theyre loving this. None of their games have had much success, reviews low, player counts near 0... https://steamdb.info/developer/Santa+Ragione/

I dont care what obscure indie awards they won, 99% of people commenting, complaining, etc have never heard of the studio or their games, even within the indie space, the numbers show that.

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 8 points 1 week ago

Yeah, honestly this is a fantastic ad campaign for them and they are in fact getting rewarded for towing that line by getting the conversation on them.

[-] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 7 points 1 week ago

Oh, so its not just Steam banning the game. So shitting on Steam is not fair then: https://www.eurogamer.net/its-extremely-frustrating-and-also-fcked-up-one-of-the-worlds-best-indie-studios-is-facing-shock-closure-following-confounding-steam-ban

[-] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago

"Other people did thing so you can't blame Steam for doing thing" I absolutely can though

[-] Rose@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Steam is the one with monopoly power, and the Horses developer has said that publishers didn't event wasn't to publish the game if it cannot be on Steam. This argument isn't applicable to Epic, let alone Humble, which ended up reinstating the game within the day.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
71 points (94.9% liked)

Gaming

33121 readers
185 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
Whom@beehaw.org
The_Hunted_One@beehaw.org
chloyster@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org