A rape-fantasy game has been removed from an online gaming platform with millions of members, sparking debate about the role large companies should play in distributing disturbing content.

Key points: Rape Day was removed from Steam on Thursday after the platform was criticised for supporting the game

Rape Day was removed from Steam on Thursday after the platform was criticised for supporting the game Steam's operators say its role is not to determine what content is and is not acceptable

Steam's operators say its role is not to determine what content is and is not acceptable A gaming commentator says the company has a social responsibility as a large platform and online store

Called Rape Day, the game is described as a visual novel set in a zombie apocalypse, with the player taking the form of a serial rapist.

The choose-your-own-adventure-style game encourages the player to attack female characters.

The game is yet to be released, but was featured on Steam, a platform for playing, discussing and buying games.

Steam, powered by gaming and hardware developer Valve, allows developers (including one-person operations) to find an audience for their games and market their products.

On Friday afternoon, it had more than 10.5 million members online.

Loading...

Criticism of the game flared up earlier this week, with an online petition appealing for its removal attracting nearly 8,000 signatures.

Brendan Sinclair, the North American editor of GamesIndustry.biz, wrote a piece condemning Valve for profiting from rape fantasy.

By Thursday, the game had been removed.

The developer, which was referred to in earlier reports as Desk Plant but on Friday appeared on Steam under the name Desk Lamp, plans on releasing the game independently, something Sinclair said would be "fine by me".

But that would be sold on a small-scale, independent basis, not with the support of a broad-reaching company.

Sinclair said large players in the gaming industry should not normalise or legitimise games like Rape Day by selling them.

"If companies like Valve are willing to make their money by selling rape fantasies, I want them to know that is a clear reflection of their values," he said.

"They don't get to say 'free speech' and pretend they aren't supporting this garbage with a massive platform."

'Very difficult' content matter

Johnson said the game was removed from Steam as it posed "unknown costs and risks". ( Desk Lamp )

Valve executive Erik Johnson wrote a post explaining the removal of Rape Day, saying the company had to make "a judgement call" about the risks each game posed for the organisation, its partners and customers.

"After significant fact-finding and discussion, we think Rape Day poses unknown costs and risks and therefore won't be on Steam," Mr Johnson said.

"We respect developers' desire to express themselves, and the purpose of Steam is to help developers find an audience, but this developer has chosen content matter and a way of representing it that makes it very difficult for us to help them do that."

Violence and horror in games

In a post quoted by tech culture website Polygon, Desk Lamp pointed out that violent themes were rampant in the gaming industry.

"You can't reasonabl[y] consider banning rape in fiction without banning murder and torture," they said.

"Most people can separate fiction from reality pretty well, and those that can't shouldn't be playing video games."

Steam users are able to filter out content they do not wish to see. ( Steampowered.com )

Cecilia Cosenza, who started the petition to remove Rape Day from Steam, disagrees.

"I believe that Rape Day was far too explicit and vivid in their purpose in their game … it is one of those things that is created for only the purpose of harm," she said.

"Valve responding to not let Rape Day go is a good step, and I hope that they rethink how to put their policy into play without lines being crossed."

Loading

The ABC asked Sinclair where he thought the line should be drawn between acceptable and unacceptable content.

"I'm not asking for a concrete line of what's acceptable and what isn't — that will be enforced by some authority," he said.

"People have tried that plenty of times in plenty of media, and it's pretty much guaranteed to harm creators and curb valuable speech that should be not just permitted but encouraged and fostered.

"I would prefer an open acknowledgement that everyone is going to draw the line on what's acceptable or not differently, that we all choose who we do business with, and that those choices really do reflect our own values.

"It's funny to me that people worry about a slippery slope to state-sanctioned censorship because one store would decide not to sell a repugnant game.

"I'm more worried about a slippery slope to a society that pretends making and selling interactive rape fantasies is a purely neutral act that says absolutely nothing about the people who do it."

Who should decide what's not OK in gaming?

The Australian Government can refuse classification for games, which makes it illegal to sell, advertise and publicly exhibit that game in Australia.

According to the National Classification Code, decisions about ratings should take into account community concerns about "depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence".

But given many games are sold as downloads from digital platforms rather than on physical discs or game chips in bricks-and-mortar stores, it can be difficult for authorities to police Australians accessing restricted content if they are using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) or web proxies to do so.

VPNs allow users to privately connect to a remote computer across the internet to get around location-specific content restrictions.

Loading

While Valve's Mr Johnson did not return the ABC's requests for comment, he wrote in an earlier blog post about the company's stance on selecting content.

He said it was the company's policy to allow everything into the Steam Store "except for things that we decide are illegal, or straight-up trolling".

Mr Johnson said Valve was working on ways to help users filter out content they do not want to see.

"If you're a player, we shouldn't be choosing for you what content you can or can't buy," he wrote.

"If you're a developer, we shouldn't be choosing what content you're allowed to create.

"Those choices should be yours to make."

Sinclair said the company framed this stance "as a protection of free speech rather than an abdication of social responsibility".

"It would prefer to be seen as a public utility everyone must use rather than a private company that makes choices about who to go into business with," he said.

"And given the market share it has held on the PC space for the last decade, that comparison is uncomfortably close to reality."