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

Quoting: scaineAs 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.

Yeah, but why lie about this? The change happened almost 3 years ago. If they can't be straight about this... why should anybody trust them?

If their previous game Saturnalia had sold well, I'm pretty sure that they would be able to generate more keys. The game had a peak of 15 players 1.5 years ago. It's got 80 reviews on Steam. It apparently didn't sell well... so why should they be able to continue generating keys? You can still buy some keys online, so at some point they must have been able to generate keys.

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.

Yes... and that's known for years. I'm just wondering where Pete is getting the "developers can negotiate the cut" from. I'm not aware that anybody can negotiate that. Everybody has to earn it.


Last edited by kuhpunkt on 4 Dec 2025 at 4:44 pm UTC

Quoting: amataiIf 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].

They did "apologize" in a sense; they amended the scene so that it contained no children. But Valve refused to reevaluate the game.

The thing is, assuming the scene is the same as it was in that build submitted to Steam except the character in question was a child, it still wouldn't be illegal or CSAM or whatever. The game is very overtly making a point about how regressive views of sex are often instilled by parents and institutions to the overall detriment of everyone. There's nothing inherently sexual about that scene whether the character exists as an adult or a child.

Quoting: Cley_FayeCensorship 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.

Hard disagree on this from me. Valve is a private company and isn't beholden to our views on right and wrong. There's a big distinction between government oversight (aka regulation) and a private company not wanting to host things it doesn't like. It has it's own reputation to consider, by association to the content it sells. Sure, that's a low bar for Valve, but it's their decision.

This reminds me of that ridiculous situation where a gay activist asked a bakery for a "support gay marriage" cake and the bakery refused. And the gay activist got up in arms about this, and it went to court! Madness. Sure, the bakery are bigoted scum, but they're a private firm, and they get to be bigoted about the cakes they sell. Thankfully the [courts agreed](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-59882444). But in summary, if I was selling pizzas and someone came in asked me to make a pizza in the shape of (insert something offensive here), I'd throw them the fuck out of my pizza parlour. My house, my rules.

Slight addition to the article below the last quote, to note the key changes from 2023.

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: scaineAs 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.

Yeah, but why lie about this? The change happened almost 3 years ago. If they can't be straight about this... why should anybody trust them?

How are they lying?? 3 years is recent in terms of a game's life-span. They had the rug pulled out from under them on this. There was no notice of it happening, just a sudden announcement that they'd changed how they issue keys.

Quoting: kuhpunktIf their previous game Saturnalia had sold well, I'm pretty sure that they would be able to generate more keys. The game had a peak of 15 players 1.5 years ago. It's got 80 reviews on Steam. It apparently didn't sell well... so why should they be able to continue generating keys? You can still buy some keys online, so at some point they must have been able to generate keys.

Putting a poorly-selling older game into a bundle is a huge deal for a dev, generating sales that simply wouldn't happen any other way. You still get 5000 keys under the new rules, but that's not feasible for putting the game into a bundle.

Quoting: kuhpunktYes... and that's known for years. I'm just wondering where Pete is getting the "developers can negotiate the cut" from. I'm not aware that anybody can negotiate that. Everybody has to earn it.

Not that well known, no. Most people still tend to quote the "30% of all steam sales go to Valve", I find.

Quoting: scaineHow are they lying?? 3 years is recent in terms of a game's life-span. They had the rug pulled out from under them on this. There was no notice of it happening, just a sudden announcement that they'd changed how they issue keys.

Because it's not a recent change. The change happened in February 2023 and it made the news. Saturnalia didn't even release until November 2023. What rug has been pulled? What sudden change?

Quoting: scainePutting a poorly-selling older game into a bundle is a huge deal for a dev, generating sales that simply wouldn't happen any other way. You still get 5000 keys under the new rules, but that's not feasible for putting the game into a bundle.

They must have been able to generate those 5000 keys when they released the game. How many more keys do they want? The game has 80 reviews. There are some calculations out there, but you have to take those with a grain of salt... but apparently take the number of reviews and multiply them by 30 or up to 50. So the game sold maybe 2400 to 4000 times. Again, what do they want? Should Valve give them 20000 more keys? Just because?

Quoting: scaineNot that well known, no. Most people still tend to quote the "30% of all steam sales go to Valve", I find.

But that's on people not being informed. The change happened in December 2018. That's literally 7 full years ago... so where do people get the idea from that people can even negotiate that?


Last edited by kuhpunkt on 4 Dec 2025 at 5:20 pm UTC

Quoting: kuhpunktI'm just wondering where Pete is getting the "developers can negotiate the cut" from. I'm not aware that anybody can negotiate that. Everybody has to earn it.

just a turn of phrase, sorry for the confusion.

"negotiation" in the sense that if you're EA or activision and you pull your games from steam, valve is happy to drop their cut to bring you back.

Quoting: Petethegoat

Quoting: kuhpunktI'm just wondering where Pete is getting the "developers can negotiate the cut" from. I'm not aware that anybody can negotiate that. Everybody has to earn it.

just a turn of phrase, sorry for the confusion.

"negotiation" in the sense that if you're EA or activision and you pull your games from steam, valve is happy to drop their cut to bring you back.

Again, where are you getting this from? What makes you think that EA or Activision are getting a better cut?

They mean in the sense of Valve's reduced cut for the biggest sellers, I assume. Which is a very real thing Valve announced.

@kuhpunkt - I have no idea why you're being so argumentative about this - your quote-cutting sounds really aggressive, so apologies if I've pissed you off somehow.

But if you believe that a game only takes 6 months to develop, and that everyone was just instantly cool about this change, you're deceiving yourself. Similarly, 5000 keys, many of which would have gone out to press already, is nowhere near enough to cover the possibility of a top-selling bundle. Finally, sure, the Valve cut change happened seven years ago, but is predated by nearly two decades of an unchanging, non-negotiable 30% cut, a cut that's still valid for the vast, vast majority of developers. It's perfectly normal for people to have latched on to that??

Quoting: scaine@kuhpunkt - I have no idea why you're being so argumentative about this - your quote-cutting sounds really aggressive, so apologies if I've pissed you off somehow.

I just care about the facts, that's all. They depict themselves as the poor victims who suddenly can't generate keys anymore... when that's distorting what happened. There was no rug pull. There was no sudden change.

Quoting: scaineBut if you believe that a game only takes 6 months to develop, and that everyone was just instantly cool about this change, you're deceiving yourself. Similarly, 5000 keys, many of which would have gone out to press already, is nowhere near enough to cover the possibility of a top-selling bundle.

I never said that the game only takes 6 months to develop, nor did I suggest anything like that. And I doubt that there were that many keys given to press. How many outlets are even there that would get a key? 100? 200? The game isn't attractive to a lot of people... if it had, it would have sold better. Again - how many keys should they be able to generate? Does Valve owe them infinite keys now? And would those keys ever sell?

Quoting: scaineFinally, sure, the Valve cut change happened seven years ago, but is predated by nearly two decades of an unchanging, non-negotiable 30% cut, a cut that's still valid for the vast, vast majority of developers. It's perfectly normal for people to have latched on to that??

I think people should know better now, yes - and that's still not the argument that was made. Pete claimed that Valve negotiated with publishers like EA or Activision to lure them back... when we have no indication of that ever being a thing.

As if Valve said "Hey EA, if you come back, we start with a 20/80 share, pretty please."

Quoting: kuhpunktI think people should know better now, yes - and that's still not the argument that was made. Pete claimed that Valve negotiated with publishers like EA or Activision to lure them back... when we have no indication of that ever being a thing.

As if Valve said "Hey EA, if you come back, we start with a 20/80 share, pretty please."

it's fairly obvious this is exactly what happened. from liam's article above -

It's a smart move, one I expected Valve to do at some point given how bigger studios and publishers have been leaving Steam for their own launchers.

there's a reason EA and ubisoft and activision all stopped selling games on steam for several years and have been coming back since this change went into effect. valve didn't decide to give successful games a better deal out of the goodness of their hearts.

Quoting: Petethegoatit's fairly obvious this is exactly what happened. from liam's article above -

That's simply just speculation on your end.

Quoting: Petethegoatthere's a reason EA and ubisoft and activision all stopped selling games on steam for several years and have been coming back since this change went into effect. valve didn't decide to give successful games a better deal out of the goodness of their hearts.

Yeah, because they didn't like the 30/70 share. But that doesn't mean that Valve offered them special deals to bring them back as you suggested.

They get a better deal - if they earn that.