I've never seen any argument from them that this is the reasoning.

What argument have you seen from them that is their reasoning?

But removing them from the specific games they object to would not lose any more revenue than removing the games entirely, and reduce the backlash significantly, as long as they could find 1 obscure payment provider to handle the obscure games and keep some form of access.

Do you have a source of where they are saying that?

I have seen an article about the Australian political action group that was claiming credit for getting the games banned. The story behind the start of the controversy.

And I have seen an article about the communication from Steam that they were banning games which were in conflict with the rules of their payment providers. The result basically.

But I've only seen conjecture and speculation about what went on to get from the start to the result. I haven't seen any article that spelled out exactly what the different payment providers demanded from the gaming platforms, nor anything about what they discussed in between them.

Edit: after 12 hours there's 4 downvoters and 0 sources. Another victory for vibes over facts.

I only use Steam myself, so I hadn't checked Itch Io's communication yet. I don't know the platform myself so it's quite possible that I'm misinterpreting this, but to me it appears that Itch Io will allow creators to delist payment options that they are not compliant with: "For NSFW pages, this will include a new step where creators must confirm that their content is allowable under the policies of the respective payment processors linked to their account.".

Source: https://itch.io/updates/update-on-nsfw-content

Likely not worth the effort.

If people had used cryptocurrency as a currency instead of as a "it's totally not a security, we swear, even though we're only saying that to evade SEC regulations a little longer"

...LTC definitely has been. Monero has and is. BTC's fall was a massive pullback on an extremely new and volatile idea that not even half the buyers entirely understood. BTC now is held up by ETF funds, private equity and everyone that cares putting a few chips in. Is it a scam now? Is everyone scamming everyone?

...there'd be a lot fewer people calling it a scam. For sixteen years, crypto's only use cases seemed to be buying illegal goods and securities fraud.

Some would call that decentralization and freedom. Spin it however you like. lol, "Illegal goods". Fuck the system, unless it's not against the grain of the community, right?

Finally, we have another use case presenting: perfectly legal transactions that credit card companies have gotten cold feet about.

They deserve every negative degree.

That slope got real slippery real quick.

Yay were back to the 2000s again, Jack Thompson rises again !

According to the statement someone else linked now, they will ask devs about whether they comply with the payment processors' terms, and it sounds like those processors will otherwise be unavailable. They just had to blanket remove like this for now because they don't actually have sufficient knowledge about all the games' content.

We'll see what will happen, and if it turns out devs are getting screwed in the long run, someone will fill the new market niche anyway.

Wait, that's actually their logo? A butthole?

Agreed. Fear and Hunger has it's issues and I would not broadly recommend it to anyone. I would also say that the FREQUENCY of sexual assault in the game, and the presence of some weirdly sexual status effects like anal bleeding are a bit overboard. That being said, when one of the earliest enemies can sexually assault you, or maim your character in a way that leaves you able to keep playing, but effectively crippled, it really nails home not just that the world is dark, but that your assumptions about what is in the game don't apply here. Anything could happen. REALLY anything. And exploring a harsh, hostile world with that expectation set is one of the best parts of the game, because it's a unique experience that you just can't get at that quality anywhere else.

Time to sue my credit card company for preventing my purchases, but failing to prevent a purchase that was detrimental to me

We don't know their reasoning. However, we do know their requirement, which is not "no illegal content." It's "no content involving rape or incest" or something like that. They have also stated publicly they do not want to be involved in regulating legal content, but, again, that isn't what they required. If they only cared about illegal content then that's what their requirement would say, but it isn't.

Okay so none then.

And also none from the person above, but the logic doesn't check out. Using basic inference, we know it isn't about legal content. That already wasn't allowed, so no changes needed to be made. There must be another reason. What is it? I don't know. I'm not making a claim to knowledge of what it is. I'm only proving that it isn't what the other person claimed. Burden of proof is on the person making a claim, not the one disputing it.

A stretched out pink butthole full of cum, yes

That's one way to not understand what I meant, I guess.

The point is "I haven't heard them say this" is not a legitimate argument, because you haven't heard them say anything about anything, because they haven't said anything, and speculation is all we have.

And kids, that's how I met your mother

Nah, most likely Veggie Tales. Elmo is too woke and might cause dissonance with supremacists and Christian Nationalists. Oh, wait. I just repeated myself - sorry.