How about taking time to think about what the actual issue and situation is. And think upon it for an actual level of understanding.

It's not that Visa/MC are being used to buy these games, it's the fact that they are being sold by a store they are in a financial relationship with. Visa/MC do not want to be associated with financial partners that sell things they disapprove of.

Is that easier to understand now?

yes it is understandable that they don´t want to be "associated " with morally complicated matters. BUT as a banking institute, they should not have any grounds to dictate on what people should spend their money on.
an other example could be: you want to buy something trivial, like a certain type of food, or clothing. your bank declines the card payment, because they say disapprove the product...
my point just would be WHOM are they to decide these matters, because i pay MY money into said bank / billing system, I am not taking any loans which need approval, just spending my money on things of my interest.

Originally posted by Kaldri:

yes it is understandable that they don´t want to be "associated " with morally complicated matters. BUT as a banking institute, they should not have any grounds to dictate on what people should spend their money on.
an other example could be: you want to buy something trivial, like a certain type of food, or clothing. your bank declines the card payment, because they say disapprove the product...
my point just would be WHOM are they to decide these matters, because i pay MY money into said bank / billing system, I am not taking any loans which need approval, just spending my money on things of my interest.

There is no realistic "workaround" like all of the other threads; the content being ON the store is the issue.
Businesses are allowed to choose what not to associate with unless forced to the contrary by law. Being a payment processor doesn't mean incest/rape/pedophilic games have to be allowed as a transaction nor tolerate at a place that accepts their brand especially when contracted. In the USA the SCOTUS already has sided with businesses in terms of not forcing them to associate with something they don't want to be associated with.

If people want adult material, they can go to an adult site, and use any payment method that site is ok with.

Originally posted by Kaldri:

yes it is understandable that they don´t want to be "associated " with morally complicated matters. BUT as a banking institute, they should not have any grounds to dictate on what people should spend their money on.
an other example could be: you want to buy something trivial, like a certain type of food, or clothing. your bank declines the card payment, because they say disapprove the product...
my point just would be WHOM are they to decide these matters, because i pay MY money into said bank / billing system, I am not taking any loans which need approval, just spending my money on things of my interest.

They don't really care about morals, but they do care about cases where they can be found co-guilty and liable to being sued. Like in this case[www.bbc.com].

Originally posted by Kaldri:

yes it is understandable that they don´t want to be "associated " with morally complicated matters. BUT as a banking institute, they should not have any grounds to dictate on what people should spend their money on.

They aren't dictating what people should spend their money on. They are deciding what products THEY don't want to be associated with.

Originally posted by Mad Scientist:

Originally posted by Kaldri:

yes it is understandable that they don´t want to be "associated " with morally complicated matters. BUT as a banking institute, they should not have any grounds to dictate on what people should spend their money on.
an other example could be: you want to buy something trivial, like a certain type of food, or clothing. your bank declines the card payment, because they say disapprove the product...
my point just would be WHOM are they to decide these matters, because i pay MY money into said bank / billing system, I am not taking any loans which need approval, just spending my money on things of my interest.

There is no realistic "workaround" like all of the other threads; the content being ON the store is the issue.
Businesses are allowed to choose what not to associate with unless forced to the contrary by law. Being a payment processor doesn't mean incest/rape/pedophilic games have to be allowed as a transaction nor tolerate at a place that accepts their brand especially when contracted. In the USA the SCOTUS already has sided with businesses in terms of not forcing them to associate with something they don't want to be associated with.

If people want adult material, they can go to an adult site, and use any payment method that site is ok with.

You are right, tho payment processors should not have anything to say on that point, as long as the stuff is legal that is, but for that we will need to have laws made to prevent payment processors from using their market dominance to censor stuff they don't like, and the first and only places as of yet, that seems to be doing anything is Japan.

Originally posted by Aluvard:

Originally posted by Kaldri:

yes it is understandable that they don´t want to be "associated " with morally complicated matters. BUT as a banking institute, they should not have any grounds to dictate on what people should spend their money on.
an other example could be: you want to buy something trivial, like a certain type of food, or clothing. your bank declines the card payment, because they say disapprove the product...
my point just would be WHOM are they to decide these matters, because i pay MY money into said bank / billing system, I am not taking any loans which need approval, just spending my money on things of my interest.

They don't really care about morals, but they do care about cases where they can be found co-guilty and liable to being sued. Like in this case[www.bbc.com].

No they don't cause if they did, then they would be doing something against actual CP and not a bunch of fictional stuff

Originally posted by Kaldri:

yes it is understandable that they don´t want to be "associated " with morally complicated matters. BUT as a banking institute, they should not have any grounds to dictate on what people should spend their money on.
an other example could be: you want to buy something trivial, like a certain type of food, or clothing. your bank declines the card payment, because they say disapprove the product...
my point just would be WHOM are they to decide these matters, because i pay MY money into said bank / billing system, I am not taking any loans which need approval, just spending my money on things of my interest.

That's completely immaterial. The fact of the matter is that there is no workaround for the issue, which had you actually tried to understand, would have realized instead of making a post in a gaming forum that is not a solution to the actual problem.

If you want it to change, then the laws need to change. And for that to happen, you need to contact your lawmakers. And they aren't sitting on the Steam forums waiting for people to make useless threads to add to all the other useless spam topics on the issue.

Originally posted by Kaldri:

Hey guys, I don't know if it's a legit way around BUT: what if instead of using bank payments to purchase the (forbidden) games directly, you have to buy steam credits / gift cards ? That way it will be clearly stated and billed as "store credit", and banks wouldn't have any "rights" to say no?

I mean it's just an idea

It is not a bad idea but you are missing the point of the problem. These guys have a monopoly and they are using it to control what is allowed to be bought and sold after worming themselves in as a middleman to all commerce.

There is of course no justification for them doing this. But, being middlemen and censors, they are not going to fooled by any workarounds and have written up the regulation to ensure there is no meaningful competition and they control all commerce.

It is a tough problem to solve and not one that can be solved with a clever trick.

Originally posted by TBS AlexDK:

Originally posted by Aluvard:

They don't really care about morals, but they do care about cases where they can be found co-guilty and liable to being sued. Like in this case[www.bbc.com].

No they don't cause if they did, then they would be doing something against actual CP and not a bunch of fictional stuff

The fact that they are obsessed with drawings and not the sort of porn that actually ruins lives tells you all you need to know about this push.

Originally posted by BJWyler:

Originally posted by Kaldri:

yes it is understandable that they don´t want to be "associated " with morally complicated matters. BUT as a banking institute, they should not have any grounds to dictate on what people should spend their money on.
an other example could be: you want to buy something trivial, like a certain type of food, or clothing. your bank declines the card payment, because they say disapprove the product...
my point just would be WHOM are they to decide these matters, because i pay MY money into said bank / billing system, I am not taking any loans which need approval, just spending my money on things of my interest.

That's completely immaterial. The fact of the matter is that there is no woekaround for the issue, which had you actually tried to understand, would have realized instead of making a post in a gaming forum that is not a solution to the actual problem.

There is an easy one.

Devs design game where when you start the game, you fill in a bunch of blanks and submit your own photos.

Then the game can release without any objectionable content, and the players that want a "certain type" of game, can have it. It would certainly require some creativity to design a game like this, where you can play it and enjoy regardless of how you fill the blanks or what photos you submit.

Honestly, probably cheaper for the devs anyway.

Kinda like madlibs
https://madlibs.com/

Originally posted by BJWyler:

Originally posted by Kaldri:

yes it is understandable that they don´t want to be "associated " with morally complicated matters. BUT as a banking institute, they should not have any grounds to dictate on what people should spend their money on.
an other example could be: you want to buy something trivial, like a certain type of food, or clothing. your bank declines the card payment, because they say disapprove the product...
my point just would be WHOM are they to decide these matters, because i pay MY money into said bank / billing system, I am not taking any loans which need approval, just spending my money on things of my interest.

That's completely immaterial. The fact of the matter is that there is no woekaround for the issue, which had you actually tried to understand, would have realized instead of making a post in a gaming forum that is not a solution to the actual problem.

If you want it to change, then the laws need to change. And for that to happen, you need to contact your lawmakers. And they aren't sitting on the Steam forums waiting for people to make useless threads to add to all the other useless spam topics on the issue.

They're not useless spam topics just because you don't like them. You have to understand this is a new problem for a lot of people to have to consider. So yes, that means you have to help a lot of people through the basics. That is what it means to be on a customer service forum, after all. Being unjustifiably grouchy about it doesn't help anyone.

Originally posted by Kaldri:

BUT as a banking institute, they should not have any grounds to dictate on what people should spend their money on.

But they DO have the freedom to choose with whom they do business. Which is what Mc/Visa are doing.

It all sucks, absolutely. But the workarounds people propose are NOT actual workarounds. It does show that people don't really understand what is happening, nor that people really understand how big Mastercard/Visa really are and what they actually do.

The course Valve has now taken is the one where it hits the least amount of customers.

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

Originally posted by Kaldri:

BUT as a banking institute, they should not have any grounds to dictate on what people should spend their money on.

But they DO have the freedom to choose with whom they do business. Which is what Mc/Visa are doing.

They do currently but there is a good argument that, when you're the monopoly in charge of all commerce, it's a very bad idea to allow this sort of third world style arbitrary banning from all commerce specific products and people.

Doubly so because the government will (And have) use this to launder censorship initiatives they prefer and contract-brained people will be completely and totally fooled by this happening.

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

The fact that they are obsessed with drawings and not the sort of porn that actually ruins lives tells you all you need to know about this push.

Who says they're OK with "the type of porn that actually ruins lives"?
Besides, by your logic, nobody is allowed to complain about anything if there exists a bigger problem anywhere. That's silly.

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

They do currently but there is a good argument that, when you're the monopoly in charge of all commerce, it's a very bad idea to allow this sort of third world style arbitrary banning from all commerce specific products and people.

But it's not arbitrary.