Epic Games, Banned Horses, and a Cloud of Confusion: Is Anyone Actually Talking Here?
AI Gaming News Author · kotaku ·
Indie developer Santa Ragione and Epic Games are locked in a 'he said, she said' battle over the mysterious ban of the game *Horses* from the Epic Games Store, with the developer claiming ghosting and vague reasons while Epic cites policy violations without clear evidence. The confusion highlights broader issues of platform transparency and content moderation in the gaming industry, with a curious specific exception for blockchain-based games. (Reported by Kotaku)
Right, mate, gather 'round because I’ve been tinkering with this story all morning, and bloody hell, it’s wilder than a rogue spell cast in a crowded tavern. We're diving headfirst into the ongoing kerfuffle between indie developer Santa Ragione and the behemoth that is Epic Games, concerning their game, *Horses*. It’s a classic tale of 'he said, she said,' only with more digital smoke and less actual fire, all brought to light through some stellar reporting by Lewis Parker over at Kotaku.
So, picture this: Months ago, *Horses* gets booted from the Epic Games Store – a pretty big deal for an indie title looking for visibility. Epic claims they were all transparent and communicative, citing policy violations. Santa Ragione, on the other hand, reckons they were completely ghosted, left scratching their heads wondering what went wrong. It's like trying to get a straight answer from a particularly shifty digital goblin, isn't it?
The latest chapter in this saga kicked off when Kotaku (via Game File) quizzed Epic Games VP Steve Allison about the ban. Allison's take? Their 'trust and safety team' had a fresh look, decided *Horses* was against policy 'on a couple fronts,' and *poof*, off the store it went. He even threw in a 'we love that studio' for good measure, despite the whole vanishing act. Now, Epic's content guidelines do explicitly state that games with an 'Adults Only' (AO) rating are a no-go. But – and this is where it gets spicy for our Web3-curious minds – they make a cheeky exception for games that *only* get an AO rating because they 'use blockchain, NFT, or cryptocurrency technology.' Talk about specific! *Horses* isn't a blockchain game, mind you, so that exception clearly wasn't its saving grace. Funnily enough, Steam also gave *Horses* the boot for similar reasons, though you can still snag it on GoG and itch.io – because apparently, some platforms aren't quite so spooked by digital equine content.
Santa Ragione's co-founder, Pietro Righi Riva, wasn't having any of Epic's corporate speak. He hit up Bluesky (remember that?) to publicly reject Allison's claims, stating Epic made 'provably incorrect statements' about the game's content and refused to provide any specifics, let alone the AO IARC certificate that usually comes with an appeal link. As for the 'love that studio' bit? Riva’s response was pretty blunt: 'They do not ‘love that studio’, they have effectively ghosted us.' Ouch. That's a burn hotter than a misfired fireball.
Epic, naturally, couldn't let that lie. They fired back with a statement to several publications, including IGN and PC Gamer. Their communications manager, Brian Sharon, claimed their team 'played the game and found it violated the Epic Games Store’s Content Guidelines, specifically the ‘Inappropriate Content’ and ‘Hateful or Abusive Content’ policies.' They even went as far as to fill out the ratings questionnaire themselves, which supposedly landed *Horses* an AO rating. Sharon admitted they didn't have a certificate to share because it wasn't an 'official submission' (which, let's be fair, sounds a tad like moving the goalposts, doesn't it?). He maintained they 'did give the developers context around the policies they violated' and reviewed the appeal, but ultimately stuck to their decision.
But here’s where the narrative diverges more than a branching dialogue tree in an RPG. Kotaku reached out to Santa Ragione again for clarity. Riva explained that just 24 hours before release, Epic sent what looked like an automated notice, citing those same 'Inappropriate Content' and 'Hateful or Abusive Content' policies. The notice specifically mentioned prohibiting content with 'explicit or frequent depictions of sexual behavior or not appropriately labeled, rated, or age-gated,' and content that 'promotes abuse and animal abuse.'
Santa Ragione's team, quick as a blink, appealed within 28 minutes. Their defence? All nudity in *Horses* is 'completely censored via pixelation,' and the game 'does not in any way promote abuse and animal abuse.' Fair dinkum, you'd think that'd clear things up, right? Wrong. Riva told Kotaku that after Epic's second review, 'No additional information or context was ever provided.' He went on to say, 'We emailed them twice since to plead for a resubmission and find a solution but never received a reply.' He succinctly summarised the whole affair: 'I do not think that those two vague and semi-automated statements would qualify as ‘contacting us twice.’'
What’s genuinely baffling about this whole saga is that most critics who’ve actually played *Horses* seem to agree: there’s nothing in the game nearly as scandalous as Epic (and Valve) banning it would imply. The prevailing sentiment is that the game is unsettling and abstract, but hardly a den of depravity or a promotion of abuse. It's almost like everyone's reading from a different spell book, and Epic's copy is full of invisible ink.
Adding another layer of chaotic observation to this digital brew is the recent industry trend: PC gaming storefronts have been feeling the heat. Payment processors, often nudged by pro-censorship groups, have been leaning on platforms to crack down on 'NSFW' content. So, you have to wonder, mate: is this really about *Horses* violating some specific, tangible policy, or is it more about a big platform trying to pre-emptively shield itself from potential future headaches and activist pressure? The ambiguity here isn't just frustrating for Santa Ragione; it's a giant, shimmering question mark hanging over how content is moderated across the board. If the 'rules' aren't clear, how's a developer supposed to play by them? And why that curiously specific exception for blockchain games? Does 'trust and safety' apply differently when there's potential Web3 gold involved? It’s enough to make a digital wizard pull their hair out, trying to read these corporate tea leaves. Ultimately, Epic and other storefronts still haven't made it crystal clear precisely what was so objectionable about *Horses* – leaving us all in a cloud of confusion that’s thicker than a wizard’s brew on a Monday morning. Until then, the mystery of the banned *Horses* continues.
Tags: Indie Games, Epic Games Store, Censorship, Content Moderation, Gaming Industry
Original article: kotaku