Steam Is Eliminating Achievement Hunting Non-Games

I noticed my game library count go down by a few yesterday and today, so I was just trying to dig up some information…

I would be happy if my achievements count would go back to what they ought to be… I haven’t displayed achievement counts in my library for a while because of a few achievement-spammed games…

I think this is a good move, let me know what you think too!


I do not in any way think it’s a good thing for steam to remove anything what so ever from a user’s library, if steam has sold it to someone then it is their’s to keep. Remove it from the store and block more people from buying it though sounds entirely reasonable.

If they do remove something for whatever reason then they should notify the user exactly what was removed and why. Just finding your library missing a few titles for no apparent reason is a horrible thing to do.


I think they were removed from the total count, as they have done with other games/pulled titles in the past. I am not sitting at my computer at the moment, but I have an idea of which games they are. I will search around in my client tomorrow. I am pretty sure I will still have them in my library, just not counting towards my total number.


removed from game count, not “library” -they are still in your account
steam has only so far removed a couple of games from actual library/account (as far as i’m aware of back then, don’t even know if they actually still practice that, or just do let dead games stay in your library now…)
and i do believe steam gives you a msg about removed games, (at least you get on screen msg when you log in if game/key was revoked by retailer/“publisher” side)

the idea being if it’s removed from game count it dissuades game collectors and "library +1’er"s from bothering to get such games
same with the cheevo limit, simply to make interest in them fade a little
(tho ofc would be more easily accomplished if cards where just perma removed from such games instead of the dumbass 100$ limit, -since those will always be the biggest cause for such games)


Whilst I agree with many of the points you generally raise, and whilst it’s unpalatable to point this out, Steam is only ever effectively renting you your digital purchases. If at any point they want to free up space to store newer games or clear out any garbage from their massive storage capacity then they’re free to do so. I can’t remember the specific examples but there are numerous cases where digital games have been removed from store fronts (the example I can’t quite remember is a rubbish PS3 game) and are lost to all but those who have the download on their console or torrents.

If Valve want to get rid of games they’re free to do so however much we may dislike it, and however aggrieved we may feel. Although I do agree with the principle of alerting users via a simple automated email (typical Valve support doesn’t do this though!) it’s unsurprising that this hasn’t happened.


what surprises me is i only lost 2 games from my count, i thought i might have a few more fake games than that from indiegala or cheap bundles, but apparently not (or at least not that was deemed “fake games” by steam’s new update count) :man_shrugging:
-i’m not gonna bother to find out or even speculate “which” the 2 games are, would be far too much effort than those games’ consideration are worth :wink: :smile:


Not quite. This is a popular “buyer beware” sort of argument that gets tossed around a lot, might be true for some but I am really pretty certain EU laws specified that software licenses are in no way different to physical goods. This means that you do in fact own games and software you buy, you can resell them and they can’t be arbitrarily revoked.

However yes steam does not have the responsibility to forever supply you with said software just because you have a license for it, but they can’t prevent you from using it. They can chose to remove games from their servers at which point the responsibility for providing you access to the software you are licensed to use falls to the publisher or developer.

Exactly what level of responsibility can be expected in that matter we don’t know yet, it’s something that will likely have to be tested in court at some point to be properly decided.


It’s related to this post from the closed Steamwork group.

There’s been a lot of changes being made, people are losing game, DLC and achievement counts all over the place. One guy “lost” over 1k DLC…

The changes are still being made, we’re on about the third wave. You steam profile only updates your game count if you add a new license or your achievement count and showcase if you gain a new achievement.

You might have seen this on some store pages too - indicating an “untrusted” game.


yup, this is, at least as i remember it, (and at the very least in part), should be true
can’t rem if it was “eu” court or just a “in” eu, that decided first sale right still holds with digital product as physical goods, (i believe at the time there was even mentions about it thus also applying to stuff like Windows, which i thought was particular hilarious given its hardware “chains”) :smile:
but i also think there was “something”, or later, in regards to “revoking” a license, which in particular came up in regards to the talks of then selling steam accounts, since your licenses are tied to your steam account
-steam cant revoke those, but they can terminate your account if trying to exercise “your right” to selling “your games” - violating their service agreement of not selling your steam account… or something, i might be muddling that up, mixing “articles” vs forum posts :thinking: :man_shrugging: :dizzy_face:

anyways, while publishers, and valve probably don’t have the “right” to actually “revoke” your game’s license by some ToS or eula, say in like the EU,
it would stand to some slight reasons that there is/might be another “arbitrary” clause that could either circumvent it or be enforceable, since it does go on (a fair bit with some games/companies more than others) ? :thinking:
-either that or they just dgaf to where the “revoking” part hasn’t been tried or been to court “enough” to make the lines perfectly clear top where they “have” to adhere to them :man_shrugging:
Heard stuff like sony having no trouble just revoking a license sometimes,
or for instance rockstar -gta V/other online games; with the excuse of “ban”, “you used cheats online” say bye bye sp game too

don’t know, i think the “rule”/guidelines might exist that “technically” we do own our digital licenses and products, and thus allowed to do with them/“use” unhindered :thinking:
but in practice it might not matter “as much”/the concept haven’t been challenged or put to the test thoroughly enough to actually makes “us” safe (at least i don’t “feel safe” to where i think my steam games are) :man_shrugging:


Again whilst in principle I’d agree with you by purchasing from Steam you’re agreeing to their subscriber agreement which states -

The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services.

Which means that ultimately you’re beholden to whatever whims Valve has.


I don’t know about the specific laws and in a way you’re probably right. However say they would start removing things you’ve bought, would you be willing to buy from them again? That’s kind of the safety net I look at with stores like Steam.


Can you clarify what you mean? Not quite sure I understand what you’re getting at here.


Would you be willing to buy more games from Steam after the fact if they had started removing games you’ve purchased from your library(not just the storefront).

I’m just saying that they would be hurting their own business and most companies would not be willing to do that.
So even if they legally could remove games from your library they probably wouldn’t.

I might just be rambling at this point, not too sober… sorry.


I completely agree with you. But it demonstrates why people are often reluctant to buy digitally when it comes to Nintendo, because historically their account management systems have been so backwards in comparison to everyone elses.

I don’t think that we have any worries at all when it comes to Steam or it’s longevity, but they do have the ability to do pretty much whatever they want, even if they’re unlikely to.

Also, I’ve just noticed this, which I’m assuming has been around for a while?


that’s the new update that’s being touched on in this thread/op

before the “learning” aspect was merely part of the sales algorithm/trading cards, with this recent update it also restrict achievements and the profile displays mentioned (counts etc)
before the only penalty was no trading cards until selling 100$ worth of games, -now it’s “+ that”/the above mentioned/pic


That’s what I assumed but given I almost never hover over the read more question marks it could have been around for a while.


it was, (i think, pretty sure, making me doubt :thinking:), tho it read differently, all new games had a “learning curve”, but now the difference is the “box” just then is “expanded”, thus the note mentions the achievements and all that fluff, (and placed differently maybe)
think it just said trading cards (and maybe reviews) before


Question time:

(for y’all smartypants out there since I’m a potato)

  1. How will this change affect one’s average completion rate? It is a known fact that even if you revoke a license from a game through Steam Support, Steam still remebers how many achievements you had in it and factors whatever completion rate you have in that game into your global avg. comp. rate. – yes, even if you don’t own it anymore; the same thing is true about Family Sharing. The linked article states:
    “Until games reach that [trust] point, they’ll be limited to a maximum of 100 achievements. Those achievements won’t count toward your total achievement count and can’t be displayed in Steam profile achievement showcases.” Does that mean that, for the first time ever, getting achievements in a game won’t mean actually having them affect your completion rate (even if just temporarily so)?

  2. What about games that already have an overbearing amount of achievements? Let’s use as an example the game Zup! X, released in 17 May with a current total of 2880 achievements. Will Valve make any changes towards these titles as well or do the rules only apply from here on out? Because from what I understand some of you already saw changes in numbers in your very profiles. If Valve can do that, why not display a warning at store pages for these ‘offending’ games as well? Why only tweak user’s profiles?

A few thoughts that crossed my mind:

This seems like a very muddled and ‘gray area’ kind of situation because so far completion rates, achievements and licenses seem very tied together in whatever algorithm Valve uses. Poking one means prodding another, and it always seemed unreasonable to me that I’d have the achievements of a game I don’t own (be it because of Family Sharing, Free Weekends, or whatever) factored into my achievements.

On the other hand, changing that would also stir up some questions like: but what about trading cards drops?

So I mean, Valve is several days outdated in the ways they handle many things, and then they walk into town one afternoon and go like “aight, folks, buckle up: new chat system, new friend’s list, no more achievements for you Kevin, Greenlight, you’re drunk pal, go home, none o’ ya’ll can play cards indoors no more until at least a few folk have bought ya a couple o’ beers, and speaking o’ which where my VAC ban boys at?”


I’m moving to GOG guys, seriously.

Also I’m highly aware of the fact I know jackass about programming, the legal laws that bind us to Valve’s Terms of Service, how to run an online store and how to open a beer bottle with my bare hands and/or teeth, but even drowning in ignorance I still think whatever’s going on in the heads of the underpaid people at Valve’s headquarters it is bloody infuriating how often they can’t draw together common good ideas to make Steam stop failing at getting simple, basic things, done right such as: ‘I just wanna play my games and don’t have to deal with all this crap in the meantime and why is the interface so bad and where is my chat history and why do I own less games today than I owned yesterday and why don’t I have card drops and why do I have a TF2 inventory if I just played it for 10 minutes and WHAT IS THIS MYSTERY BOX I NEVER ASKED FOR LET ME GO.’

Rant over. I’ll retire to study now.


Well we can only really guess but.
1.The whole idea of removing games with too many achievements seems to be in order to stop games from messing too much with the user statistics. So games that are removed should have their influence on your average completion removed as well.
1.5 Family sharing. I have a game I played on family sharing for a bit. The achievements I earned from that game are not available to me now. I can’t showcase them and I can’t see myself having any achievements in it any more. Same for free weekend games. So I can’t imagine they’d count.

2.Since they’ve already removed some games I think it’s safe to say the rules apply retroactively. They will likely be combing through their catalogue of games over the next several months and try to figure out what they consider a problem and what isn’t.

3.Trading card drops, has already been treated like this. Now achievements are catching up.

I think… maybe?


unsure, haven’t bothered to look it up too much, :thinking:
mine appears unchanged, tho i’m guessing since i also only had “2” fake games this roundup, they might very well also not have had cheevos (since i often try to not get achievements if i’m only idling :wink:)
-assumption: It could count towards you avg completion rate, without counting in your total achievements. Tho i would venture a guess that would be too much of a hassle for valve and also slightly defeat the purpose, thus likely not count at all

^this is usually the deal when Valve makes changes, they rarely “go back” [see “/effort”]
-i’d imagine the only “retroactive” games affected by this change, are games that still hadn’t met the threshold. Since previously when they made changes, “fake” games that was “on steam” had their privileges still, (hence why a ton of games “the day before” steam direct/fee/purchase rule, still had their trading cards the day “after”)
zup tho should be in the clear, you can see (because despite release date) it also had trading cards added before the current update. That couldn’t have happened unless it met the 100$ cut off
so i’ll imagine games that “has” achievements spam +trading cards, will get to keep it if it has sold the X amount Valve requires (they might ofc also have raised the 100$ limit), and games that only had cheevo spam, but not unlocked card, will be falling in the "you don’t count"category atm (until they then sell X amount i bet)

because valve don’t want to take a stance on “offending” games;
that would be labeling, mild curation, neither of which valve has an interest in (which was made clear in their latest “statement”), and would be tantamount to negative marketing which likely wouldn’t go ever well either (technically valve is still interested in selling the sht games too, since they do make them a little money, so why “publicly” negatively represent their product for reduced sales impact “directly” in such fashion)
-remember this is valve’s wuss “stance” on fake games, without actually having to weed them out/lose too much money, sorta them having their cake and eating it too, -and rubbing it in our faces

naa don’t worry about it :wink:

no question there, the “rules” haven’t changed on those, and they have been simple/clear for a while
card drops are never enabled for new games, games must sell X amount/worth (100$ before i believe) then cards become enabled, and they drop the usual way ofc, 2hour wait period then 1 card per Xminutes (depending on dev setting, usually around 20-30min±) -it’s been like this for a while

“opinions and speculations are my own, i’m in no way affiliated with valve nor am i deep in the loop like a dev with access to extra/certain things. Valve is not responsible for rampant off-course gnome thinkings” :face_with_raised_eyebrow: :smile:

not holding that sentiment against you :blush: