Mastercard‘s Shifting Sands: Control, Hypocrisy, and the Future of Game Payments
Mastercard’s recent actions regarding adult-oriented games have sparked notable controversy, revealing a troubling pattern of inconsistent enforcement and veiled control.The company’s stated policies, intended to prevent transactions involving explicit or harmful content, are being applied in a remarkably arbitrary manner. This isn’t a simple case of upholding standards; it’s a demonstration of how payment processors are increasingly acting as moral gatekeepers, and it’s a trend you should be paying attention to.
The Illusion of a Clear Policy
Mastercard’s rules, on the surface, seem straightforward. They prohibit transactions involving “illegal” content, including depictions of violence, obscenity, and exploitation. However, the request of these rules is far from consistent. It’s not simply “if it’s lawful, it’s all good.” Instead, it feels more like “if it’s lawful, it’s all good…unless we deem it offensive or not artistic enough.”
This subjective interpretation creates a dangerous precedent. It allows Mastercard to selectively enforce its policies based on internal preferences, rather than objective legal standards.
Hypocrisy in the Gaming world: A Case Study
Consider the world of video games. You’ve likely engaged in virtual combat, “mutilating” non-player characters (NPCs) without their consent – a common mechanic in countless titles available for purchase with a Mastercard. Yet,this is routinely accepted.
But let’s look at a more pointed example: Baldur’s Gate 3. The game gained notoriety for a scene that some have described as involving bestiality.While the scene features a druid transforming into a bear, the potential for interpretation is undeniable. Despite this, you could purchase Baldur’s Gate 3 using your mastercard on Steam. This highlights a clear inconsistency in enforcement.
The Smoke and Mirrors of Indirect Enforcement
Mastercard attempted to distance itself from the recent adult game purges, claiming it didn’t directly contact game marketplaces. This is a technicality, and a disingenuous one at that. The company isn’t directly enforcing its rules, but it’s leveraging its network of partner processing companies to do so.
Here’s what’s happening:
Mastercard sets the rules.
Its processing partners enforce those rules.
Game marketplaces risk losing payment processing if they don’t comply.
This indirect approach allows Mastercard to maintain plausible deniability while still exerting significant control. The outcome remains the same: games deemed unacceptable by Mastercard face payment processing restrictions. It’s a complete non-denial, and frankly, a meaningless distinction.
The Real Power Dynamic
The core issue isn’t just about specific games or content. It’s about the growing power of payment processors to dictate what you can and cannot access. They are becoming de facto arbiters of morality, and their decisions have far-reaching consequences.
This raises critical questions:
Should private companies have this level of control?
What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse?
How can we ensure a fair and open marketplace for digital content?
A Question of Morality and Market Dominance
Ultimately, Mastercard’s actions appear driven by the concerns of a vocal minority. It seems a small group is attempting to impose its values on everyone else. With hundreds of billions of dollars in market capitalization,you’d expect a company like Mastercard to stand its ground against such pressure. Instead, it’s caving to demands, jeopardizing the freedom and diversity of the digital marketplace.
This situation demands scrutiny. It’s a reminder that the seemingly neutral infrastructure of our digital world is often shaped by hidden agendas and subjective interpretations. As consumers and creators, you deserve openness, consistency, and a marketplace free from arbitrary censorship.
Filed Under: control,gatekeepers, payment processors, video games
Companies: [collective shout](
