RPG Maker VX / RPG Maker VX Ace / RPG Maker 2000 are now set to no values (0 CV)

If you made the giveaway before it got bundled (or heavily discounted) then it shouldn't be affected.

Yep, but if i take the same reasoning then you, so all games from Fanatical Neon Bundle must be set to free,
$1 for 11 items valued at $121 => +$18 CV

But these games are still only reduced cv ...

So this explains it. Why didn't SG reduce their CV shortly afterwards, and wait years to do it? Many people gifted RPG Maker VX at a regular price and now got 0 CV for it

Indeed, after cross-checking with the bundled games list, those bundles seem to have been taken as 0 CV date for the first tiers.

In addition to the RPG Maker stuff, that includes Game Character Hub Portfolio Edition and its DLCs, as well as the games Remnants of Isolation and Pale Echoes. Everything else is unaffected, beyond regular bundle listing.

There might be a tipping point where a game goes from Reduced to No Value if the ratio of CV earned to $ spent is too high.
Support will intentionally not disclose the specific threshold, if there is one, to prevent people from gaming the system.

(TL;DR readers can skip this longer section and go down to the next quoted section, below.)

The exact ranges have been clarifed, the uncertainty historically came in based on the fact that predicted quantity of purchases was a factor on the calculation. Ie, higher quantity promotions from visible sources will get listed at a lower discount than low quantity promotions, due to the increase in exploitability. (And, such calculations don't have an end point- games can be added to, or even removed from, lists as new information and guesses towards how exploited they actually were arise.)

There's a further uncertainty when it comes to current staff members, who each have their own (and not always constructive) considerations towards the matter of handling lists [compared to the previous era where there was only a single bundler with very clear and carefully considered calculations for lists]. Putting that consideration aside, however:

Reduced range begins at 85%, and is essentially assured at 95% off. This association is why bundled games are valued at 15% base CV. Again, if a ton of people buy multiple copies at 82%, there's no guarantee it won't get bundle-listed, due to the association of avoiding exploitation (80% has traditionally been a reasonably safe threshold, however, so long as one makes sure to confirm there's no lower regional prices during the sale that would inflate the effective US discount of the sale.). Similarly, 92-94% typically means it'll get bundle listed, but that's not always the case.

Which isn't to say that 95%+ is assured- if it's a promotion with fewer than 200 copies, it's not too likely to be a problem for exploitation. Similarly, if there are 2000 or fewer than 2000 copies and noone seems to have gotten more than one copy, or if there are strict entry restrictions that block exploitation on the promotion's end, then generally the necessary discount threshold is much higher than it would be otherwise.

( ie, 90-94% may still be safe in that circumstance, depending on how likely staff believes it is for the average SG user to be able to claim a copy through labor equivalent to financial investment, without being able to get more than a single copy. Or, put another way, if it's "complete this 50 minute survey for one copy, and you have to link your steam account for verification, to prevent multiple entries", then staff won't necessarily bundle list. )

Anything above 2000 copies (or from an open source like the Steam storefront), without any safeguards against abuse, was historically the area where GA creators would jump to assuming staff would be guaranteed to eventually bundle list the game(s) in question. Anything up to that point was up to staff determinations towards abuse, hence the ambiguity of needed percentages for bundle listing.

( A single individual getting a lucky break doesn't necessarily count as an exploitation, mind, as that's just a facet of how the world works. Comparatively, decreasing the appeal of giving away the game that one or two users have benefited from a busted promotion on is generally considered more detrimental to the site than letting two users have their lucky break. On the flip side, if a few dozen users, or hundreds of users, are inflating their CV by an entire level, then that's a major problem on multiple fronts, and that's what we'e very thoroughly running into for the bundle under current discussion. )

Moving on, Free listing range is simply the square of reduced range. 85%*85% ( 97.75%, though it's usually instead associated to 98%+ ) is the nominal entry point into being at risk of being free listed, while 95%*95% ( 99.75%, though it's usually instead associated to 99%+ ) is the point where free listing is essentially assured.

(Further, I recall that there've also been instances where games haven't quite reached 98%, but were free listed simply due to dropping to a low enough cent amount, perhaps due to a potential exploitation related to card farming at that price range essentially paying off the game's purchase price, potentially leading to coordinated group farming and cycling of a single initial purchase).

There might be a tipping point where a game goes from Reduced to No Value if the ratio of CV earned to $ spent is too high.

TL;DR / In short, any $1 tier of $98+ in value is pretty likely to get free-listed.

As you noted, this bundle has value far beyond that ($1 for $98) amount and- at 99.5% off- is a fair bit ahead of the 99% that's generally associated with guaranteed free listing, and further, is a fair bit closer to the 99.75% where free listing is functionally guaranteed [relative to the 98% discount where free listing first becomes a likely possibility] than 92-94% is to 95%, in the context of bundle-listing thresholds.

Which is to say, if this was a tier being considered for bundle listing, at similar ratios, then we'd all be absolutely certain of it getting put on that list and, thereby, it makes absolute sense that it's getting free-listed, given it matching to those same expectations at the exponential level associated with free listing.

Support will intentionally not disclose the specific threshold, if there is one, to prevent people from gaming the system.

TL;DR Staff doesn't state a strict, context-free listing cutoff because doing so would lead to exploitation, so they instead adjust the % relative to the exploitability of the specific promotion. That is to say, they don't [or at least, shouldn't] just select the threshold randomly, under the premise of throwing potential exploiters off and troll well-meaning gifters, but instead actually put careful thought into the specific game's circumstances and the impact on the SG community that a listing change would cause.

then people wonder why less and less giveaways are being made on this site - it's like they want it to die

For one user that complains there's 9999 that don't, and it's often just confusion about some inconsistencies in CV reduction or "why did it take them so long" type of complaints, not about the system itself. Getting rid of it would just lead to fewer GAs overall.

Which would lead to the result that you can't close out the majority of the autojoiners, the multiaccounters and the ones with 40% of the users that have infractions on sgtools. Which you can now close out with a level restriction of, minimum, level 2.
And that would mean you have then 40% of black sheeps that win + more negative experiences for the gifters + more work and no motivation from the raising own level bar.
That would lead to a lower amount of GAs.