Itch.io recently took down its entire library of NSFW games while it conducted an audit and revised its adult content guidelines after its payments processors put pressure on the game marketplace the same way they did to Steam prior. Now, Itch.io has officially posted an update to its adult content guidelines in its FAQ. Itch.io is taking the threat of a payment processor exodus seriously, making it clear that "Our policy is not an invitation to push the boundaries of what is acceptable. Violations that result in administrative action are permanent with no chance of appeal. Any funds on the account will not be eligible for payout. There is no second chance."

The new content guidelines are somewhat similar to what we saw posted when we covered the take-down, but they go into a little more detail about what is and isn't allowed on Itch.io. The new rules basically ban content that depicts sexualized images of real-life humans, AI-generated imagery meant to resemble real-life people, minors and suggested minors, and any content glorifying non-consensual sexual activity. Itch.io also invites developers on its marketplace to read PayPal's, Payoneer's, and Stripe's terms of service in order to make sure that they are compliant with the rules set out by the payment processors as well, since they go into a little more depth than Itch.io's rules. The marketplace says it will continue to review content reports on a case-by-case basis, and it has also clarified that "If you've collected money while in violation of terms, we may be forced to refund or freeze all pending transactions, as accounts that are in violation of our terms are not eligible for payouts."

Well that blew up, huh? If you follow emulation or just gaming on the whole, you've probably heard about the controversy around the Dolphin Steam release and the Wii Common Key. There's been a lot of conclusions made, and while we've wanted to defend ourselves, we thought it would be prudent to contact lawyers first to make sure that our understanding of the situation was legally sound. That took some time, which was frustrating to ourselves and to our users, but now we are educated and ready to give an informed response.

We'd like to thank Kellen Voyer of Voyer Law for providing us with legal council for this matter. And to be clear, all of the analysis below is specifically regarding US law. Without further delay, let's begin.

You've probably heard about the recent issues regarding PewDiePie (handle of one of the most popular gaming YouTubers, Felix Kjellberg) and Campo Santo (Firewatch). The company issued a copyright strike for the YouTuber's streaming of their game, where Kjellberg used racist terms which Campo Santo didn't feel they should be in any way associated with. YouTube accepted the copyright strike, taking the video down. Legally, Campo Santo (and any video game company for that matter) can do such a thing. Kjellberg, however, is particularly worried because, as he said, "It's a pretty big deal. If I get more than three of them, my channel will shut down." As a response, users started review bombing Firewatch on Steam - id est, posting negative review after negative review, or changing their positive reviews for negative ones, so as to diminish the game's score in the light of what they see as a reprimandable action from Campo Santo.