Horses Devs Accuse Epic of Making "Provably Incorrect Statements About the Game’s Content", After Store Exec's Declaration of Love

Why It Matters

The showdown underscores how platform rating rules can block mature indie games, jeopardizing developers’ revenue streams and eroding trust in digital storefronts.

Key Takeaways

• Epic denied Horses due to AO rating conflict
• Developer claims Epic's content claims are inaccurate
• Epic blocks adult‑only games without blockchain exception
• Horses sold enough to repay development loan
• Studio halted operations, seeking new work

Pulse Analysis

Rating systems like the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC) are designed to standardize age‑appropriate labels across digital storefronts, but platform‑specific policies can override those designations. Epic Games’ policy forbids adult‑only (AO) titles unless they involve blockchain or NFT technology, creating a narrow loophole that excludes many mature indie experiences. By re‑evaluating Horses and assigning an AO rating, Epic exercised its trust‑and‑safety mandate, effectively barring the game from its store despite the developer’s original mature rating submission.

For independent studios, such policy enforcement can be a make‑or‑break factor. Horses managed to recoup its development costs and even repay a loan, yet the inability to list on a major platform forced Santa Ragione to suspend operations and hunt for alternative work. This illustrates a broader risk: when a single storefront controls distribution, ambiguous or retroactive rating decisions can cripple cash flow, limit audience reach, and stifle creative risk‑taking in the indie sector. The dispute also raises questions about transparency, as Epic declined to share the alleged IARC certificate, leaving the developer unable to appeal through standard channels.

The episode may prompt industry stakeholders to reevaluate content‑moderation frameworks. Platforms could consider more granular rating options or clearer appeal pathways to avoid punitive outcomes for games that do not contain illegal or overtly hateful material. Meanwhile, developers might diversify distribution strategies, leveraging services like Steam, Humble Bundle, or direct‑to‑consumer models to mitigate reliance on any single marketplace. As the conversation around digital content standards evolves, balancing safety policies with artistic freedom will remain a critical challenge for both publishers and creators.

Horses devs accuse Epic of making "provably incorrect statements about the game’s content", after store exec's declaration of love

Image credit: Santa Ragione / Rock Paper Shotgun

Late last year, horror game Horses was denied a release on Steam and the Epic Games Store. Both Valve and Epic judged that Santa Ragione’s surreal work violated their rules regarding adult content, while the studio asserted that the game “uses challenging, unconventional material to encourage discussion” rather than sexually titillate.

Now, an interview given by one of the Epic Store’s executives has reignited the war of words between the storefront and Santa Ragione, with the latter accusing Epic of making “provably incorrect statements about the game’s content”.

Speaking to Game File (as reported by PC Gamer), Epic Games Store vice‑president and general manager Steve Allison offered his version of the process which led Horses to be denied a listing. The exec recounted Santa Ragione having filled out an International Age Rating Coalition (IARC) form which determined a mature rating to be suitable for it.

“At that point, Epic Games’ ‘trust and safety’ team thought Horses was worth taking a fresh look at, and subsequently filled out their own version of the form, this time determining an adult‑only rating to be suitable for Horses.”

“Since the Epic Store doesn’t allow games rated adult‑only—unless the rating is a result of the game using blockchain or NFT tech—that meant it wouldn’t host Horses.”

“The call came late – and we love that studio; we did their previous game as a short exclusive – but because that ‘trust and safety’ team, that’s their job and that is, if you do the letter of the law on our policies, it is what it is,” Allison said.

Santa Ragione has since disputed the executive’s retelling via a post on Bluesky:

“Epic made provably incorrect statements about the game’s content, refused to provide details supporting their claims, and has not shared their claimed AO IARC certificate, which normally includes a link for the developer to appeal,” the studio wrote.

“They do not ‘love that studio’, they have effectively ghosted us. The fact that the game does not deserve an AO rating is apparent from the widely available full walkthroughs on YouTube and Twitch, as well as from its distribution on the Humble Store.”

Epic was quick to dispute the disputing, via a statement from senior communications manager Brian Sharon given to Eurogamer. The statement reiterates Epic’s position that Horses violated their “Inappropriate Content” and “Hateful or Abusive Content” policies and notes Allison’s assertion that Epic opted to fill out a second rating form themselves.

“Because this wasn’t an official submission, we do not have a certificate to share with the team,” the statement continued. “We did give the developers context around the policies they violated. When they appealed, we reviewed the content again, and let them know the decision was appropriately applied and will remain in place.”

Many of the above arguments were thrown about around the time of Horses’ original Epic ban in December, but this exchange of fire makes clear there hasn’t been any simmering down of tension between the two sides in the interim, regardless of how much Epic’s execs might profess to love Santa Ragione.

Horses, which is worth reading Edwin’s full review, sold well enough to allow Santa Ragione to repay the cash they borrowed to develop it. However, the studio said they’ve had to suspend operations and look for other work to keep themselves afloat, rather than being able to move straight on to prototyping their next game.