Not many computer games get banned these days. Fewer still get banned before they’re even released.
That’s what happened to Horses this year – a horror game described as “unsettling and creepy” by critics that was pulled from stock inventories at major retailers Steam and Epic Games.
But what was so bad about this title from Italian developer Santa Ragione? Is it really that bad we can’t even view it?
A small horror game that became a flashpoint
Santa Ragione’s previous projects, including MirrorMoon EP and Saturnalia, didn’t set out to shock people but instead earned praise for their experimentation and atmosphere. Horses looked set for the same until Steam suddenly removed it from its stock in late November.
The Epic Games Store did exactly the same within a week, while The Humble Store removed the game and then quickly reinstated it. None of the stores explained publicly what was going on. They simply offered vague references to internal content controls instead.
For Horses, the timing was important. The game hadn’t launched yet, so the public perception was mainly related to its absence from the market. This created an unwelcome narrative for the developer: if the biggest PC platforms wouldn’t touch it, surely it must cross some unseen line.
Yet the suspicion of it also fuelled interest. On platforms that did carry the game, like itch.io and GOG, it quickly rose through sales charts.
Ultimately it helped the sales. Players weren’t just buying a horror game – they were buying into the whole story.
What caused the ban?
Fans have yet to receive a clear official explanation for the ban. Apart from confirming that Horses had been reviewed and judged as incompatible with current guidelines, Valve has said very little else on the matter.
Epic Games Store spoke of violations related to “inappropriate” and “hateful or abusive” material, though Santa Ragione claims it was never told which scenes or themes caused the concern.
What complicates the matters is that Horses doesn’t behave like a typical transgressive title. There’s no fixation on spectacle and no obsession with graphic detail. Its content warnings are heavy, but its presentation is restrained to the point of austerity.
The game is closer to an experimental film than a conventional horror release. Dialogue is few and far between, while there’s very little sound. You might hear the odd unsettling mechanical hum somewhere, but that’s about it.
The game does close in on faces quite regularly, which might make some people uncomfortable, but then it cuts to real-world footage at odd moments – water being poured, food slopping into a bowl – without explanation or context.
If the ban was meant to prevent players from exposure to explicit violence, Horses is an odd candidate. Its cruelty is mostly implied, and the discomfort comes from being asked to participate in a system that treats brutality as routine, not from witnessing violence play out on screen.
A strange kind of horror
If you haven’t played it, you may be wondering how the game goes. In short, you play as Anselmo, a 20-year-old sent to work on a rural farm as a character-building exercise. The premise collapses almost immediately. The farm’s “horses” are actually naked humans wearing horse heads that appear permanently fixed. A “dog” is treated the same way.
Your days are filled with chores: chopping wood, tending crops and feeding the animals. The pace is deliberately slow, almost irritating, until the boredom is shattered by a shocking moment: one famous example is finding a dead “horse” hanging from a tree and being asked to help bury it.
Visually, the game avoids detail. Injuries are blurred, and sexual content is obscured and awkwardly staged. When punishment occurs, it’s suggested rather than shown. The result is an experience that feels hollowed out, as though the worst parts are always happening just out of sight.
Around this point, players inevitably compare Horses to other “restricted” digital experiences. Many online games are labelled unsafe for children or for people prone to addiction or certain conditions. Casino-style titles are a common example: plenty of people can’t safely engage with them, which is why there are websites that host free-to-play versions with no financial stakes.
Horses sits apart from that category entirely. It doesn’t entice players with rewards or fast cycles but instead plays on their discomfort.
The debate that outgrew the game itself
After all the online fuss, many fans were underwhelmed when they finally bought the game. Instead of feeling outraged, they were slightly confused, and very few found it shocking.
This shows just how the decisions a platform makes can influence a game’s reputation before anyone has even played it. If a work is seen as dangerous regardless of its intent, then it can easily affect sales – both positively and negatively.
It also leaves the final question: will Horses be remembered as a cult curiosity or fade into obscurity? Time will tell.
Whether Horses will endure as a cult curiosity or fade into obscurity remains uncertain. What is clear is that the conversation around it became larger than the game itself. The ban created expectations that the experience never fully aimed to meet.
In the end, Horses may be remembered less for what it shows than for what its removal revealed about how games are judged, distributed, and debated. Sometimes the loudest noise comes not from the work, but from the doors that close around it.
