Epic and Steam banned it but HORSES is out now on other stores

Free PR. Makes it even more appealing to play.

My understanding is that the game was banned, at least by Steam, for depiction of children in a sexualized way that was then removed. The game designer dont have my sympaty for using such underhanded marketing technique and I stand by Steam if this is the situation.

I'm of two minds here. It's art and I don't believe it is actually harming anyone... so I'm inclined to "live and let live". It's their story to tell and if they want to tell a horror story about a farm, go for it.

That being said, Steam/Epic have the right to refuse to carry the title. They, like the artist in question, should be able to ultimately decide what their messaging and business is.

**PERSONALLY** it feels to me like a bit of an overreach. There are titles so much worse that are regularly given PRIZES by these organizations.

I read their post, and it seems like there is a scene in the game which depicts a young lady being led around as if she were a horse while she is naked. That sounds pretty dark and terrible, with depictions of abusive and coercive behavior at the very least.

[Far Cry 5](https://store.steampowered.com/app/552520/Far_Cry_5/) actively showcases corpses reworked as animatronic jump-scares in a haunted house. (Faith's area)

[FNAF](https://store.steampowered.com/app/319510/Five_Nights_at_Freddys/) The entire FNAF series involves targeted and mutilated children and a dead-cant-stop-him antagonist that certainly feels akin to Nightmare on Elm Street.

Clearly the list could go on and on.

I understand their desire to limit the game, naked horsemasked people don't sound exactly like a game I want to play. But standing on some kind of righteous stance of "It offends our virgin gaze" feels performative.

having played the game, while uncomfortable and sometimes upsetting, the actual content is not really substantially pushing any boundaries, even in AAA videogame context!

the steam delisting is stupid but consistent with their policies. the epic delisting is genuinely concerningly dumb, given they apparently did a sudden re-review of the final game.

anyway, i'd recommend it if you're interested. doesn't outstay it's welcome, and definitely has interesting things to say.

Quoting: amataiMy understanding is that the game was banned, at least by Steam, for depiction of children in a sexualized way that was then removed. The game designer dont have my sympaty for using such underhanded marketing technique and I stand by Steam if this is the situation.

A source for that would be lovely.
According to the linked statement, the scene you are likely referring to, depicted a scene where a naked woman carried a clothed "young girl" on her shoulders, in a manner similar to someone riding a horse.
According to the developers, the scene was never sexualized (which, considering the subjects of the game, I see no reason not to believe) and it was certainly never used in any marketing, as you suggest, but was in an early - non-public - prototype, only uploaded to Steam to be able to create their "Coming Soon" page.

The finished game does not depict any characters under the age of 20.

Quoting: simplysevenI read their post, and it seems like there is a scene in the game which depicts a young lady being led around as if she were a horse while she is naked. That sounds pretty dark and terrible, with depictions of abusive and coercive behavior at the very least.

not singling you out, but there's been lots of misunderstanding of the content.

the game features censored (pixellated) adult male and female nudity. there's slavery, sexual violence, and a good bit of other nasty stuff. (there's a more thorough content warning on the store pages and when you start up the game)

according to their FAQ, the early build rejected by steam had a scene where a (clothed) girl rode one of the nude horse-slaves, as you would a horse. the final game does not have any children in it.

while it's true that steam or any store does not legally have to host every game, it's worth remembering that steam does host the entire "sex with hitler" franchise, and epic will explicitly make exceptions to allow AO rated games if they feature blockchain/NFTs. :)

As much as I like Valve for their investment in FOSS, things like this push me back to GOG. I understand they're a business and sometimes they make decisions based on what they think a portion of their customer base with different values than mine expect, and sometimes they make decisions based on pressure from more powerful entities (payment processors, my arch nemeses); but while I understand it, I don't like it and I'm gonna complain and vote with my wallet.

So my source was the faq then. Steam reject the game not because they were unwiling to distribute it. Steam bas a jokingly low bar of entry. But because they were not allowed to do it in most country ( all of them except Japan I guess). So the initial rejection is unsurprising.
The only point is the rejection of the appeal once the illegal scene was removed but I sympathise with Steam not allowing appeal in such case.

Quoting: Petethegoatnot singling you out, but there's been lots of misunderstanding of the content.

the game features censored (pixellated) adult male and female nudity. there's slavery, sexual violence, and a good bit of other nasty stuff. (there's a more thorough content warning on the store pages and when you start up the game)

according to their FAQ, the early build rejected by steam had a scene where a (clothed) girl rode one of the nude horse-slaves, as you would a horse. the final game does not have any children in it.

while it's true that steam or any store does not legally have to host every game, it's worth remembering that steam does host the entire "sex with hitler" franchise, and epic will explicitly make exceptions to allow AO rated games if they feature blockchain/NFTs. :)

I don't feel called out. Thank you for the consideration though.

I did see the mention of the earlier builds and the sexual nature of the game. I agree it's an aggressive game with really dark/disturbing themes - I think you and I are on the same page. It's no worse than so many others titles they are happy to carry. Their rejection feels performative.

Those devs sure love the attention.

Quoting: kuhpunktThose devs sure love the attention.

What an odd thing to say. Of course they want attention, every developer wants attention. And they're drawing attention to a problem of the biggest PC store there is (and Epic...) refusing their game.

If I understand the situation correctly, their game got rejected not because it was disturbing (that is non issue for Steam) but because of illegal content.
Either it is in good faith, and they should apologize, either it is a marketing stunt and the press, GoL included, should not play along uncritically, [edit: no offence intended. I don't want to be rude, of course Liam is king on how is media is run].


Last edited by amatai on 4 Dec 2025 at 3:01 pm UTC

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: kuhpunktThose devs sure love the attention.

What an odd thing to say. Of course they want attention, every developer wants attention. And they're drawing attention to a problem of the biggest PC store there is (and Epic...) refusing their game.

Sure, but I think there is attention and "attention" - and all of this (like the banner on their homepage) just looks like it's shock value for the sake of itself. It's like "Too hot for TV." Because that's all it has going for it. If they hadn't been refused by Valve, I doubt most people would ever care about it. That's something I don't like.


Last edited by kuhpunkt on 4 Dec 2025 at 3:37 pm UTC

Well if developing games is your livelihood and your game gets banned, of course you are going to lean hard into it. You want the money to live.

So yes they're seeking attention, it's all marketing - but what else are they supposed to do? I really don't get the issue or why anyone sees it as a problem.

I don't think it's a problem, but what does it say about the developer? In a week this whole thing is forgotten... then what do they have left?

And their communication wasn't great either. Statement like this...

Steam has recently begun refusing to grant developers keys for their own games. In the absence of clear rules or guidance, Valve led developers for years to believe they could request keys as needed, building communities and businesses outside Steam while still creating value for Steam users. It now withholds keys from indie developers who do not meet undisclosed sales thresholds.

...don't help. Depicting Valve as the bad buys who don't let devs like them abuse the system. And they have RECENTLY begun refusing keys? That change happened almost 3 years ago. It just comes across as disingenuous.

https://newsletter.gamediscover.co/p/valves-new-stance-on-steam-keys-what

Quoting: kuhpunktAnd they have RECENTLY begun refusing keys? That change happened almost 3 years ago. It just comes across as disingenuous.

wanting to put their previous game in a bundle does not seem disingenuous. some developers can still get steam keys for other stores and bundle purposes, clearly, so when the language was changed doesn't seem super relevant.

i think steam is incredibly good for consumers in many ways - refund policy, proton, steam input, recording. it's a really good platform and it's obvious why many people (including myself!) aren't overly upset about consolidating their entire library on it.

it provides SOME value to developers. does it provide enough for the 30% cut valve take? maybe, but i don't think it's at all unreasonable to criticise them. they are not good for developers in the same way they are good for consumers - especially smaller developers who do not get to negotiate down the 30% cut.

Quoting: Petethegoat

Quoting: kuhpunktAnd they have RECENTLY begun refusing keys? That change happened almost 3 years ago. It just comes across as disingenuous.

wanting to put their previous game in a bundle does not seem disingenuous.

I didn't say anything about wanting to put their game in a bundle. I just talked about the change... 3 years ago isn't recent. It's the same with their earliest statements where they feigned ignorance and people only got to hear their side. The banner on their website doesn't help them either - it's just antagonizing Valve - so why would they even consider changing their stance?

Quoting: Petethegoatsome developers can still get steam keys for other stores and bundle purposes, clearly, so when the language was changed doesn't seem super relevant.

It's not "some" - it's everybody who is in good standing, following the guidelines and not abusing the system.

Quoting: Petethegoatit provides SOME value to developers. does it provide enough for the 30% cut valve take? maybe, but i don't think it's at all unreasonable to criticise them.

Of course they can/should be criticized - when there's a good reason to. Just in this case here... what incentive would Valve have to NOT sell the game? Why would they care? It would make them money - so they must have had a pretty good reason to reject the game.

This is what Valve said:

"This happens sometimes if content on the store page causes concern that the game itself might not fall within our guidelines. After our team played through the build and reviewed the content, we gave the developer feedback about why we couldn’t ship the game on Steam, consistent with our onboarding rules and guidelines. A short while later the developer asked us to reconsider the review, and our internal content review team discussed that extensively and communicated to the developer our final decision that we were not going to ship the game on Steam."

Quoting: Petethegoatthey are not good for developers in the same way they are good for consumers - especially smaller developers who do not get to negotiate down the 30% cut.

Which developers get to negoatiate the cut?!

Censorship is censorship, no matter how some people think they have the high ground.
Disturbing content in fictional media should not be regulated the same way we protect actual people, because those "in power" that decides where the line lays will change, and their decision is extremely dubious. I'm more annoyed by extreme violence, gore, and torture than nudity, but it seems that only the later is deemed horrible enough to warrant censorship.

As long as it's all fictional content, let it exist. If it can't find its public, then it will fail. But I am the one making the decision, not some random bureaucrat/employee somewhere. This kind of issue keeps happening repeatedly, and keep coming from countries that are usually against "nanny states", but quick to accept it when a boob is visible. The hypocrisy of it is stupid.

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: Petethegoat

Quoting: kuhpunktAnd they have RECENTLY begun refusing keys? That change happened almost 3 years ago. It just comes across as disingenuous.

wanting to put their previous game in a bundle does not seem disingenuous.

I didn't say anything about wanting to put their game in a bundle. I just talked about the change... 3 years ago isn't recent.

As noted in the article itself, it's the devs themselves that bemoan that this change prevents them from putting their older games in a bundle.

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: Petethegoatthey are not good for developers in the same way they are good for consumers - especially smaller developers who do not get to negotiate down the 30% cut.

Which developers get to negoatiate the cut?!

It's not a negotiation, but bigger devs suffer from a smaller cut.

Here's the breakdown I took from a Reddit thread, so I admit I haven't verified this, but I have no reason to doubt it.

Valve's revenue share ceased being a flat 30% revenue share arrangement in 2018. Valve's cut is now:
30% of the first $10million revenue.
25% after $10million of revenue until $50million revenue.
20% on all revenue above $50million.

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: Petethegoatthey are not good for developers in the same way they are good for consumers - especially smaller developers who do not get to negotiate down the 30% cut.

Which developers get to negoatiate the cut?!

None. To my knowledge, the only way to bring the cut down is to reach revenue thresholds: 10M$ lowers a game's cut to 25%, and 50M$ lowers it to 20%.