6 ms·

It was Mastercard's rule, but any one of the companies in the payment network could have brought it up to Valve. The whole system is set up so one transaction h

It was Mastercard's rule, but any one of the companies in the payment network could have brought it up to Valve. The whole system is set up so one transaction has to go through up to 6 different companies, and they all have to abide by each other's rules. The US Internet Preservation Society explained it recently: >Each of these companies maintains its own terms of service and each of them can block a transaction by themselves. Additionally, intermediary companies that handle card transactions are mutually and individually bound to the terms of every Card Network, so even if you never do business with Discover or American Express, you must still obey their rules if you want to accept Visa or Mastercard. For online businesses, there are no alternatives: you will do exactly what they want, or you will not do business at all. >If you are banned from processing payments, you will not be informed why or by which point of failure. "Risk management" is considered a trade secret in the industry. You have no right to know, you cannot sue to discover what has happened, and you also have no right to appeal. https://usips.org/blog/2025/07/fair-access-to-banking/ https://usips.org/blog/2025/07/fair-access-to-banking/

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> was Mastercard's rule, but any one of the companies in the payment network could have brought it up to Valve Did Mastercard threaten Valve? Or did Valve precomply?
- braiamp 1y ago
  They cite a rule about Mastercard brand damage. If Mastercard didn't specify that such content would result in MC brand damage why would they cite it rather than their own rules?
  - detaro 1y ago
    Some options: a) they are worried Mastercard might randomly decide it does and punish them b) it's convenient to be able to blame someone else c) someone somewhere said something and the rest of the orgs isn't aware or over-interpreted a statement Vague rules like this are great to dilute responsibility. It can both be true that Mastercard didn't tell the payment processors to force the issue and that the payment processors strongly thought they had to.
- amiga386 1y ago
  Valve's payment processors told Valve they would withdraw payment processing unless Valve banned specific categories of game from their online store. The payment processors did not cite any law; Valve selling those games was not illegal. Instead they cited Mastercard's rules, which say that they cannot submit transactions that Mastercard believe might damage Mastercard's goodwill or reflect negatively on its brand. Those rules also say Mastercard has sole discretion as to what it considers breach these rules, and Mastercard gives a list of what it deems unacceptable: https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/public/mastercardcom/na/global-site/documents/mastercard-rules.pdf https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/public/mastercardcom/n... > 5.12.7 Illegal or Brand-damaging Transactions > 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. > The Corporation considers any of the following activities to be in violation of this Rule: > 2. 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. The payment processors threatened Valve first. Mastercard doesn't need to threaten Valve or even contact them at all to force its will on them: it just needs to threaten its payment processors, the same outcome is achieved. Valve did not remove games from sale until threatened. If they did not do that, and instead initiated some kind of fightback, they would most likely find themselves completely removed from all payment processors, with no recourse. If you want to call that "precompliance", so be it.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Valve's payment processors told Valve they would withdraw payment processing unless Valve banned specific categories of game from their online store Do we have a statement from Valve saying as much?
    - amiga386 1y ago
      Click on the article link at the top of this page and find out. Let me quote the article for you: > In a statement provided to PC Gamer, Valve said that it had tried to work things out with Mastercard directly prior to removing the games, and suggested that Mastercard did have at least an indirect influence on the outcome. > "Mastercard did not communicate with Valve directly, despite our request to do so," a Valve representative said. "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."
- rpdillon 1y ago
  Mastercard pressured their processors and the processors turned around and talked to Valve about it and cited Mastercard's rules. It wasn't pre-compliance, but there was a proxy that allows Mastercard to deflect responsibility.
- immibis 1y ago
  As I understand it, Valve was threatened by a middleman because the middleman precomplied with Mastercard.
  - jfyi 1y ago
    Both Valve and Itch use Paysafe and Paypall for processing. I'm glad someone is paying attention. I feel I've been screaming at a wall for a week now. All this rage and it's all directed at the wrong corporations.
- rtkwe 1y ago
  An intermediary between Valve and Mastercard likely was the one that brought it up because they have to comply with those rules, or the rules of someone upstream of them that has to and imports them into their own rules, so they have to interpret vague "brand damage" rules and they err to the conservative side because if they run afoul of the rules they could lose access to process Mastercard transactions ~20% of US transactions, which would really mean losing most of their customers not just the 20% of Mastercard flows.
socalgal2 1y ago
I'd be interesting to know if Valve is big enough to start their own payment system. Yea, I know it would be hard but their customers have libraries of games in their system and Valve has lots of good will. Valve could also offer discounts ($X off if you use ValvePay). It would take years. They'd have to drop the adult games now, start ValvePay, promote it until the majority of their customers used it. Then put the games back and tell Visa and MC they can eff-off.
- csours 1y ago
  Or even a Plausible Deniability system - you can't buy these games with currency, you have to use tokens. Here's a token store where you can buy tokens with your currency.
- carstenhag 1y ago
  Simpler: why can't I buy nsfw games with a regular dumb bank transaction (SEPA €) in my case? If MasterCard/Visa don't want these transactions, stupid, their loss. But at least let me use a payment method that works & doesn't have these morale restrictions?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> was Mastercard's rule, but any one of the companies in the payment network could have brought it up to Valve Did Mastercard threaten Valve? Or did Valve precomply?

braiamp 1y ago
They cite a rule about Mastercard brand damage. If Mastercard didn't specify that such content would result in MC brand damage why would they cite it rather than their own rules?
- detaro 1y ago
  Some options: a) they are worried Mastercard might randomly decide it does and punish them b) it's convenient to be able to blame someone else c) someone somewhere said something and the rest of the orgs isn't aware or over-interpreted a statement Vague rules like this are great to dilute responsibility. It can both be true that Mastercard didn't tell the payment processors to force the issue and that the payment processors strongly thought they had to.
amiga386 1y ago
Valve's payment processors told Valve they would withdraw payment processing unless Valve banned specific categories of game from their online store. The payment processors did not cite any law; Valve selling those games was not illegal. Instead they cited Mastercard's rules, which say that they cannot submit transactions that Mastercard believe might damage Mastercard's goodwill or reflect negatively on its brand. Those rules also say Mastercard has sole discretion as to what it considers breach these rules, and Mastercard gives a list of what it deems unacceptable: https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/public/mastercardcom/na/global-site/documents/mastercard-rules.pdf https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/public/mastercardcom/n... > 5.12.7 Illegal or Brand-damaging Transactions > 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. > The Corporation considers any of the following activities to be in violation of this Rule: > 2. 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. The payment processors threatened Valve first. Mastercard doesn't need to threaten Valve or even contact them at all to force its will on them: it just needs to threaten its payment processors, the same outcome is achieved. Valve did not remove games from sale until threatened. If they did not do that, and instead initiated some kind of fightback, they would most likely find themselves completely removed from all payment processors, with no recourse. If you want to call that "precompliance", so be it.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Valve's payment processors told Valve they would withdraw payment processing unless Valve banned specific categories of game from their online store Do we have a statement from Valve saying as much?
  - amiga386 1y ago
    Click on the article link at the top of this page and find out. Let me quote the article for you: > In a statement provided to PC Gamer, Valve said that it had tried to work things out with Mastercard directly prior to removing the games, and suggested that Mastercard did have at least an indirect influence on the outcome. > "Mastercard did not communicate with Valve directly, despite our request to do so," a Valve representative said. "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."
rpdillon 1y ago
Mastercard pressured their processors and the processors turned around and talked to Valve about it and cited Mastercard's rules. It wasn't pre-compliance, but there was a proxy that allows Mastercard to deflect responsibility.
immibis 1y ago
As I understand it, Valve was threatened by a middleman because the middleman precomplied with Mastercard.
- jfyi 1y ago
  Both Valve and Itch use Paysafe and Paypall for processing. I'm glad someone is paying attention. I feel I've been screaming at a wall for a week now. All this rage and it's all directed at the wrong corporations.
rtkwe 1y ago
An intermediary between Valve and Mastercard likely was the one that brought it up because they have to comply with those rules, or the rules of someone upstream of them that has to and imports them into their own rules, so they have to interpret vague "brand damage" rules and they err to the conservative side because if they run afoul of the rules they could lose access to process Mastercard transactions ~20% of US transactions, which would really mean losing most of their customers not just the 20% of Mastercard flows.

socalgal2 1y ago

I'd be interesting to know if Valve is big enough to start their own payment system. Yea, I know it would be hard but their customers have libraries of games in their system and Valve has lots of good will. Valve could also offer discounts ($X off if you use ValvePay). It would take years. They'd have to drop the adult games now, start ValvePay, promote it until the majority of their customers used it. Then put the games back and tell Visa and MC they can eff-off.

csours 1y ago
Or even a Plausible Deniability system - you can't buy these games with currency, you have to use tokens. Here's a token store where you can buy tokens with your currency.
carstenhag 1y ago
Simpler: why can't I buy nsfw games with a regular dumb bank transaction (SEPA €) in my case? If MasterCard/Visa don't want these transactions, stupid, their loss. But at least let me use a payment method that works & doesn't have these morale restrictions?