“Steam started blocking Australian users from viewing or buying 18+ rated games on September 9, 2026, unless they attach a valid credit card to their account. Valve’s rollout affects hundreds of mature-rated titles, including Cyberpunk 2077 and Doom Eternal, and it doesn’t matter whether the account is brand new or fifteen years old with a library full of paid-for adult games. Without a credit card on file, those store pages, search results, and even home-page recommendations simply disappear.”
This implementation of age verification by Valve is at-best so poorly considered that I expect them to re-evaluate soon. The first issue is that they want the card on-file. I purchased a game for my child on Monday, using a Credit Card. So, I obviously have a credit card. I didn’t keep the card on-file, I used it for a single purchase. My Steam account is still age-locked.
I will concede that ‘age of account’ alone isn’t too good of a test - I created a Steam accounts for my kids when they were little (2 and 5). The oldest has started using his account, the youngest will probably start next year. XBox used account activity - and that’s a better test. Having 15 years of gaming history is a better test than a 10-year-old account that only started seeing regular use 2 years ago.
Because I know far too much about these age verification laws (for obvious reasons), I can also attest that Valve is not complying with the Age Verification as outlined in Regulatory guidance. If you are willing to go through the document, the relevant section is:
That same section also goes on to give advice on verification means, saying it should not discriminate end-users based on pretty-much any metric you can think of. They especially call-out discrimination against Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. A demographic where the majority of citizens do not have credit cards. They also fail to follow the guidance “Providers should offer a choice between a range of age assurance methods”.
Valve wrote to the eSafety commissioner a year ago, requesting to be exempt from the law. They were denied. Assorted sites are claiming that eSafety Commissioner’s office is engaging with Valve (example), though I haven’t found anything on their website to acknowledge that. In short, Valve are not presently complying with the law and something will need to give.
I called their age verification implementation “poorly considered”, because I actually think they’re being intentionally belligerent. I suspect they are hoping the government is going to back down. I don’t know how that’s going to play out, or how the eSafety commissioner is going to respond. I don’t know what ‘big guns’ the government has here. This case is fascinating to observe from the side-lines.
Yeah, this screams malicious compliance.
They’re waiting to see if the Australian government will blink.
It’s gonna be a nasty battle but the truth is the Gov should stand firm, because there is gonna be a wave of other tech that will be testing the line soon. There are non invasive options to prove you are over 18 but tech just wants to continue its unregulated abuses
I like steam however I will never be handing over credentials to a company just to be on a social media or platform. I’d rather stick an old fashioned disc in.
I agree with the other comment, valve knows piracy is a service problem. Unfortunately as with cigarettes the gov is happy to test legal VRS black market routes.
We’re not discussing exploitative porn or handing out guns and drugs here, this is a platform for distributing art.
I don’t want the Australian Government censoring things, or deciding who can and cannot view art and in what circumstances.
I want them making guidelines about labelling, so that citizens can make informed decisions about what they and their children view.
Discussing the particular method that Valve should implement this farce is talking past the point as far as I’m concerned.
The government is not doing those things. Valve is. The purpose of the social media law is to prevent people under 16 from from being able to post online (they’re allowed to read).
Is it a stupid law? Yes.
Should it be the parent’s responsibility to be aware of what their kids are doing/exposed to online? Also, yes.
I don’t know how this has turned into some sort of discussion about the games themselves. It’s the Community Hub where users discuss games that is the issue as far as the government is concerned. Valve has responded by making it about the games. Probably because if they blocked our access to the Community Hubs, most of us wouldn’t notice/care.
All that said: Whether I agree with a law or not, I do believe the government should have the leverage to enforce the law. The other side of the discussion is valid also though. I believe Valve should have the right to say ‘no’ to laws from foreign nations. I don’t know what the consequences should be in that case though. Provide refunds for our purchases and close our accounts? I can’t see that being viable.
Like I said: fascinating to watch this play out.
Age verification for app stores including the Steam store, adult media etc is only slightly related to the under 16 social media restrictions on the interactive side. The social media rules were rushed through in a moral panic but all the other restrictions have been in the works for a long time and there has been a lot of industry discussion.
The reported aim is to bring online 18+ content into line with the physical world where a minor can’t walk into a brothel, adult shop or casino or buy alcohol or tobacco. Obviously quite a lot of us think there is a secondary objective of de-anonymizing Internet use for data collection, both corporate and government.
The scope and ambition of the esafety commisioner is very broad. There are discussions down to the level of operating systems, devices and browsers.
Valve’s justification for an exemption according to that letter I linked above was that Community Hub was an incidental side feature of Steam. Essentially the same argument that got GitHub an exemption. I even agree with them.
An overall age verification strategy for all online content would answer the question though.
I’ve come at the situation in the context of the social media changes, because that’s what Valve cited in their letter.
I absolutely agree about the hub. I see this less of an issue about the game. Its more about the platforms who are choosing to ignore bigger issues. This is then causing issue in our wider communities.
Its like asking are Cars good or bad?
Do you think tech will play fair and self regulate?
I think Valve would be one of the ‘least dirty’ players out there. This isn’t just gaming, its all media really, this is just one of the first to tackle incoming changes. In terms of the games Guidance and signposting has been in place for a long time. Games are not simply Art open to interpretation, most are harmless, but there’s a rating system on them for a reason.
Another aspect is the extension of gaming culture and what comes with that, there are arguments that boys and young men are more susceptible to their identities being shaped from people in the gaming sphere. Those actors can be unhealthy (mentally). I think the game is seen as the root of the problem…therefore an easy target for regulation.
I agree the Gov shouldn’t have to censor but its still sensitive information shared so they have stepped up. I hate over authoritative compliance, but at this stage no one else is going up against tech and the way they operate to hook young users.
I also agree that parents play a part but TBH the amount of parents who are equally conditioned just as much a problem.
I don’t quite get your logic about ‘age of account’
Going by age would mean that by the time the account is 18 your kids would be 20 and 23. So when they turn 18 they would have to wait another 2/5 years before this method would work for them.
Using account activity, if you’re 18 but only started gaming at 12, you’d have to wait till you’re 30.
Why would that be better? Imho, that’s worse.
Aside from the fact, that neither is actually a confirmation of a person’s actual age.
Poor wording on my part. People are saying things like ‘unless I made my account when I was 3, my fifteen year old account should be enough’. Fifteen years of gaming history on the other hand is reasonable evidence of the account holder’s age.
In my example, My son will have a 15-year-old account by the time he turns 17. I made them because I thought it’d be a fun bit of clout when they start playing with their mates. ‘How do you have a 10+ year badge already?’.
It is interesting to see where this goes, but as an Australian, it is far from fascinating; concerning seems a more accurate descriptor. Australia is obviously a very small market for steam, so it would not surprise me if they are using us as a testing ground for all of this. I assume something will have changed in another weeks time, not necessarily for the better though.
The cosy game industry is clearly behind this /s
We are small, but lucrative. If something is introduced where Valve faces losing access to the Australian market, they’ll 100% cave. No ‘principal’ from their end is worth however many Millions of dollars they receive from this market - particularly since they do honestly have actual competition. Valve enjoys market share mostly because they were first and are convenient. If they cease to be convenient, they will lose that share overnight. We’re already seeing people in this thread say they are going to stop buying games on Steam. The main reason I do most of my shopping at the Steam Store is that most of my library is there. Not for any other particular reason.
I don’t know what the the government can do that will stop people dealing with Steam, unless they can intervene at the bank level. That’s where the fascination is coming from. This is the first decent-sized site to show this level of resistance to the policy.
Steam won’t lose access to the market, this will just be a hiccup
Any customers that steam loses due to this, will be quickly replaced, large companies are generally not overly worried about losing customers due to new customers being born every single day
“This is the first decent-sized site to show this level of resistance to the policy.” What?
The government has the ability and precedent to direct Australian banks to cut off merchants. It’s used routinely for scammers, dodgy overseas pharmacies, online gambling sites - stuff that isn’t compliant with Australian law. I don’t know whether the eSafety Commissioner has access to those powers, but yes - the possibility that Valve loses the Australian market has precedence.
Of course, I can’t see it going that far, because I think they’d cave and comply with Australian law before we got to that stage.
Can you name another company with hundred of millions of dollars in revenue in Australia that has played this sort of game with the Social Media law? The closest I can think of was when Facebook tried to play games with Online News - and they caved and paid up for three years before abandoning Facebook News in Australia.
I’m not aware of steam giving any reason for anyone to believe they are resisting anything, they appear to be doing the opposite since the Australian government wants ID on everything digital.
Wanting to believe they are playing a game, doesn’t mean that they are.
I’m guessing credit card applications have increased in the last week.
This is incorrect. In fact, the OAIC recommends that providers do the opposite:
Plus, there are a bunch of extra rules if you do have ID on your users. I don’t know how you got that impression, but it is mistaken.
Removed by mod
Absolutely this is Valve trying malicious compliance. And it’s going to bite them hugely.