The case of *HORSES* shifted, in a matter of days, from a promising year-end release for horror fans to a public dispute over platform power, creative freedom, and the fragile financial ecosystem sustaining independent studios. The title, developed by the Italian studio Santa Ragione and conceived as a surreal horror experience in which masked humans perform the role of “horses,” was officially barred from being sold on Steam after a decision by Valve. According to the studio, the rejection was first delivered in 2023 and upheld even after changes requested by Valve were implemented. By piecing together official statements and industry reporting, three threads become unavoidable. First, the lack of transparency in the approval criteria used by dominant digital storefronts. Second, the cascading financial impact that a single refusal can have on funding and partnerships. And third, the debate over where disturbing art ends and where platforms begin to classify content as unacceptable. Santa Ragione says Steam justified the ban by claiming the game “appears, in our view, to depict sexual conduct involving a minor.” The studio denies that the final product features minors or explicit material and says it altered the scene Valve identified, only to see the ban maintained. On the institutional side, Valve’s statement, cited by outlets that spoke to the company, indicates that the initial refusal came in 2023 after reviewing the material received, and that a later review involved “extensive discussions” before the company decided to uphold its position. The existence of this second review pushes the case beyond the idea of “automatic censorship,” suggesting instead a deliberate internal decision that still lacks a publicly detailed explanation. Which frames, scenes, or metaphors crossed the line remains unanswered, and it is precisely this opacity that developers criticize. Many insist on clearer guidelines and a meaningful appeals process, especially when dealing with a platform that controls a massive share of PC game sales. Financially, the consequences are stark. Santa Ragione claims to have invested two years of work and roughly $100,000 into *HORSES*, and that the inability to access Steam dramatically raises the risk of insolvency. For small studios, Steam is not just another storefront. It is a discovery engine, a marketing pipeline, and a revenue lifeline. Losing access during the lead-up to release can erode predictable income and scare off partners or publishers. For some, the math is brutal: missing Steam can mean missing survival. Artistically, *HORSES* was described in previews as a disquieting work built on provocative imagery, surreal symbolism, and a narrative designed to explore trauma, family structures, authority, and religious pressure. Supporters argue that accusations of infantilized sexual content are the result of misreading symbolic material whose intent is to disturb, not exploit. Critics within the industry warn that vague or conservative enforcement can wipe out legitimate projects before audiences even get the chance to debate them. Others counter that platforms face legal and financial obligations toward payment processors and broad audiences, often leading them to err on the side of caution. That tension — between artistic freedom and platform liability — fuels the broader argument. Amid the controversy, Santa Ragione confirmed that *HORSES* will launch on December 2 across multiple alternative stores, including the Epic Games Store, GOG, Humble Store, and itch.io. The move does not eliminate the problem, but it reveals a competitive landscape in which rival platforms may accept titles Steam refuses, creating a parallel ecosystem that allows such works to survive — albeit with potentially reduced reach. GOG’s willingness to list the game highlights how differing curatorial policies shape developers’ options. There is also a lingering legal and reputational dimension. A public ban triggers questions about editorial responsibility and the possibility of damages — both for developers whose revenue prospects collapse and for groups or individuals who may feel offended. No litigation has surfaced so far, but the case fuels discussions about clearer rules, procedural safety nets, and healthier communication channels between storefronts and creators. If current policies encourage hyper-cautious interpretations, the predictable outcome is self-censorship within the indie scene, where teams preemptively avoid themes or imagery that might be misread. Beyond headlines, the episode reflects a structural shift in digital cultural industries. In an era where algorithms and internal committees decide what reaches the public, space for uncomfortable or challenging works narrows unless there are diverse storefronts, transparent policies, and fair mechanisms for appeal. Santa Ragione’s experience underscores the danger of financing models that rely on a single gatekeeper and the growing importance of alternative markets and public debate to preserve creative plurality. If anything, the *HORSES* affair makes it clear that the line between protection and suppression remains heavily contested. Platforms, developers, regulators, and players now watch closely to see how this decision reverberates — each group with its own stakes. Will this storm catalyze structural changes in how digital storefronts curate content, or serve merely as another warning to independent teams about the perils of a concentrated ecosystem? And in a world where a handful of storefronts wield such enormous power over what we can see, buy, and discuss, isn’t it worth asking who truly gets to define the boundaries of art?