Deleted

Yes, that's the difference between if there was a massive giveaway for it right now vs. it actually going ftp on steam. People who made giveaways years ago would get to keep the CV. I was mainly wondering bc I looked back on previous giveaways and when the last time it was given away and saw that the price on the giveaway page was 30P so I thought maybe it wasn't in effect yet or something. Ig it just doesn't show on the giveaway page if the giveaway is older than the price change.

Steam itself only associates the most discounted price on a store page with a store page's associated listing. This is why when Daedelic bundles discount to a cheaper point than base games, the price (in Steam searches, etc, as well as Community API calls) for that store page [and thereby any assocaited CV on SG] displays an incorrect value.

By way of that, free weekends, nevermind permanently free/free-to-play games, will all return a result of 0 CV. Subs have their own store listings, so any subs listed underneath the page-associated license are actually completely stable, since calls for them are instead made to their own sub page (which, unlike the main store page, is not shared with any other subs).

Thus, to summarize things, the only possible way a game can go free-to-play and still retain a CV value is if it has the paid license still up on a separate page. While that's certainly possible for games introducing a free demo-styled license, it'd be rather unlikely for any game that is setting its entire base game to be free.

( Also, note that in situations where the nature of the content itself also changes [eg, old paid keys now create "Founder status" accounts], staff may choose to manually edit in the last known CV, so that the keys can still be gifted freely. This would however be very unlikely to occur if keys for the new free version area also made available for some reason, due to the potential issues involved. Meanwhile, if the nature of the content does not change, then there's no grounds for adjusting the value of past keys [again, there's too many problems involved, and then there's the question of whether the keys should be reevaluated or not anyway, as "what you paid" isn't the criteria SG utilizes to value CV to begin with]. )