You know what they say about pets choosing their owners...

I will put it this way: the titular "horses" of this game are not, in fact, actual horses...but they wear about the same amount of clothing as you'd expect of an actual horse.

Me failing to proofread my posts to see that I used "regardless" twice:

Regardless, arthouse horror (or arthouse anything, really) isn't my scene, so I likely wasn't going to get the game regardless.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Have a feeling one side is going to "win", albeit with quite a bit of protest.

Overall, the situation comes off as someone at Valve going out of their way to look for reasons to bar this game from the store, and as luck would have it, that scene was right there.

Two wrongs don't make a right, so we can call Valve out...and nudge the devs to be open about this as well.

With that said, though, I find the inclusion of the "child riding a horse" scene sketchy at best, and their supposed reason for changing it rings a little hollow to me.

I'm thinking the devs got caught trying to slide this under the radar, and they don't want to admit to that.

Could be because their prior game being a timed EGS exclusive, not selling well on Steam, or their past games being known for adult content. (Reminder: this played out in 2023, before the paypro shenanigans of this past summer.)

Whatever the reason, I'm skeptical this game deserved that treatment.

First, Steam's handling of this was absolutely irregular.

Most game devs aren't asked to submit a complete version of the game just to get a store page in advance. I mean, HK: Silksong outright proves that's not the usual procedure.

Why they took that route with this specific game is unclear.