In a digital age where pixels often become battlegrounds for politics, a quiet game of solitaire has sparked a deafening roar over censorship, corporate responsibility, and human rights. The gaming giant Valve finds itself at the centre of a storm, accused of silencing LGBTQ+ voices to appease the Kremlin, while its tech rivals stood firm.
The removal of the seemingly innocuous card game Flick Solitaire from the Steam paltform in Russia raises an uncomfortable question for the industry: when a government demands the erasure of a community, who holds the line?
The Solitaire Scandal Unfolds
The controversy erupted when Valve, the powerhouse behind the Steam platform, removed the free-to-play title Flick Solitaire from its Russian storefront. According to a report by Video Games Industry Memo, the decision came after Russia's media censorship body, Roskomnadzor, issued a demand to remove the game due to its inclusion of LGBTQ+ themed card decks.
The agency cited a 2006 federal law prohibiting the 'promotion of non-traditional sexualities, ' a statute frequently used to target queer content.
What makes this decision particularly stark is the response from other tech giants. The same censorship notice was sent to Apple and Google, as the game has been available on their Russian mobile stores since 2020. Both companies reportedly ignored the request, leaving Flick Solitaire available for download.
Valve, however, not only complied by blocking the game in Russia but also placed the blame squarely on the developer. '[Flick Games] promised Valve under the Steam Distribution Agreement that your game complies with all applicable laws,' the company wrote in a message to the studio, justifying the removal by citing local compliance rules.
A Creator's Fight for Visibility
For Ian Masters, founder of Flick Games, the issue transcends mere compliance; it is a matter of basic human dignity. He argues that erasing queer representation is a dangerous concession to authoritarianism.
'Since launching Flick Solitaire, it has been available in 40+ countries that criminalise LGBTQ+ people. Russia is only one of these,' Masters explained. 'As we started adding decks that celebrated Pride, or were created by our queer artists, we did not self-censor in any of these countries.'
It's incredibly important that LGBTQ+ people in these countries can see that other LGBTQ+ people exist, that it's 100% normal and should even be celebrated.'
Masters slammed the decision, calling for transparency if Valve cannot support free speech. 'This isn't "wokeness", it's basic human rights and equality and nothing more,' he added. 'If Steam can't support free speech of LGBTQ+ people, then at the very least they should be transparent about this.'
A Pattern of Compliance?
This incident is not an isolated event for Valve. Reports from PC Gamer indicate that the company has previously removed over 260 items from Steam at the request of Roskomnadzor, suggesting a pattern of acquiescence to Russian state demands.
While Valve has historically taken a hands-off approach to content moderation—famously stating in 2018 that it would allow everything except 'illegal' content or 'straight up trolling'—critics argue that defining 'illegal' based on local authoritarian laws effectively deputises the platform as a censor for oppressive regimes.
The inconsistency in Valve's moderation policies has drawn ire from multiple directions. Earlier in 2025, the UK government criticised the platform for hosting No Mercy, a game featuring graphic sexual violence, which was eventually pulled by the developer rather than Valve.
Conversely, the company faced backlash for blocking the release of the horror title Horses by Italian studio Santa Ragione, a decision the developer claimed could threaten their business.
As the digital curtain falls on Flick Solitaire for Russian PC gamers, the broader implications remain. With Apple and Google holding their ground, Valve stands alone in this specific instance of censorship, painting a complex picture of how Western tech companies navigate the murky waters of international law and moral obligation.
Originally published on IBTimes UK
