You can not legally remove any type of trademark from a title name if it is part of the title.

Originally posted by pckirk:

You can not legally remove any type of trademark from a title name if it is part of the title.

Does the law say anything about doing it locally?

Valve went as far with the ability to sort by custom names. Don't expect an official way to change the title in your library.

Originally posted by peppermint hollows:

Originally posted by pckirk:

You can not legally remove any type of trademark from a title name if it is part of the title.

Does the law say anything about doing it locally?

it does not

i would be guilty of renaming so many games, movies, and music if it did

it would be awesome if they could do it

as many times as it has been asked, though

it is either back burner, valve time

or just more work then it is worth

Originally posted by pckirk:

You can not legally remove any type of trademark from a title name if it is part of the title.

Then I must be in a lot of trouble for renaming games in my start menu.

People just say whatever here, lol. What a fun board.

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

People just say whatever here, lol. What a fun board.

More specifically they just say whatever for the purpose of disagreeing with or dismissing suggestions as quickly as possible. I wonder if there's a dedicated scoreboard somewhere keeping track of how many times you were the first one to defeat a suggestion, it's the only explanation I can give for the consistent frequency of this kind of behavior.

Originally posted by Sex Alarm:

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

People just say whatever here, lol. What a fun board.

More specifically they just say whatever for the purpose of disagreeing with or dismissing suggestions as quickly as possible. I wonder if there's a dedicated scoreboard somewhere keeping track of how many times you were the first one to defeat a suggestion, it's the only explanation I can give for the consistent frequency of this kind of behavior.

this has to be one of the weirder reasons given

i mean, renaming our own text files for the purpose of sorting them is illegal?

i am just at a loss to why anyone would believe this

Originally posted by Sex Alarm:

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

People just say whatever here, lol. What a fun board.

More specifically they just say whatever for the purpose of disagreeing with or dismissing suggestions as quickly as possible. I wonder if there's a dedicated scoreboard somewhere keeping track of how many times you were the first one to defeat a suggestion, it's the only explanation I can give for the consistent frequency of this kind of behavior.

This is an issue on the Steam Forums that needs to be highlighted more and see more pushback on. These sort of individuals contribute nothing to the claim of the post, they just try to structure their responses to effectively come down to “you’re dumb, I’ll show you why I’m smarter” while engaging the weakest aspect of form of the ask, rather than constructive dialogue on the claim and possible solutions. Narrow minded approaches for seemingly pointless dunks.

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

Then I must be in a lot of trouble for renaming games in my start menu.

People just say whatever here, lol. What a fun board.

Who names those 3rd party games? The developer, publisher of those 3rd party games.

Valve has not interfered with their right to do so. Instead Valve has a custom name box so you can sort the games in the order you want, which does not rename the games.

People can now put their Final Fantasy in the order they want.

As for Windows it is an OS where renaming is the norm.

Originally posted by Sex Alarm:

More specifically they just say whatever for the purpose of disagreeing with or dismissing suggestions as quickly as possible.>

It is a user discussion forum for suggestions and ideas and not an affirmation forum for them.

Discussion: Differing opinions on a topic.

Originally posted by Fatality:

This is an issue on the Steam Forums that needs to be highlighted more and see more pushback on. These sort of individuals contribute nothing to the claim of the post, they just try to structure their responses to effectively come down to “you’re dumb, I’ll show you why I’m smarter” while engaging the weakest aspect of form of the ask, rather than constructive dialogue on the claim and possible solutions. Narrow minded approaches for seemingly pointless dunks.

Are you excluding your own post history for any particular reason from doing what you claim others do?

On your crypto thread people rightly pointed about Valve abandoned Crypto due to 50% of transactions being fraudulent and that came from Gabe Newell.

Originally posted by cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

Valve went as far with the ability to sort by custom names. Don't expect an official way to change the title in your library.

:nkCool:

What kind of sickness or disorder is it, that makes you put this stupid sticker - ":nkCool:" everywhere?

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

Originally posted by Fatality:

This is an issue on the Steam Forums that needs to be highlighted more and see more pushback on. These sort of individuals contribute nothing to the claim of the post, they just try to structure their responses to effectively come down to “you’re dumb, I’ll show you why I’m smarter” while engaging the weakest aspect of form of the ask, rather than constructive dialogue on the claim and possible solutions. Narrow minded approaches for seemingly pointless dunks.

Are you excluding your own post history for any particular reason from doing what you claim others do?

On your crypto thread people rightly pointed about Valve abandoned Crypto due to 50% of transactions being fraudulent and that came from Gabe Newell.

Ironically, this is exactly the pattern I was calling out. You did not engage the current model that was proposed. You reached for a single, old talking point, treated it as a trump card, and skipped the rest; without realizing I already had explained why BTC trial failed. That is how discussions become circular. No matter how clearly I lay out the mechanics or clarify your question, you kept repeating the same line and never interact with the substance of the response and walked away thinking your claim was “right” when it factually is not. And even still, here you are.

For clarity, here is the substance again in compact form, since it keeps getting misrepresented, even in another thread:

What I actually proposed

• Keep cards and PayPal. Add an optional DeFi parallel rail so a single chokepoint cannot shut off everything.
  
• Use stablecoins on fast, low fee networks, with regulated gateways handling KYC, AML, risk scoring, and support.
  
• Mirror consumer protections Steam already offers. Refunds can return to the original wallet, a custodial balance, or Steam Wallet credit. Escrow windows and attested receipts can anchor disputes.

Why your tired 50 percent line does not apply

• That figure comes from Steam’s 2016 to 2017 trial that required direct Bitcoin at checkout, with slow confirmations and volatility. It was a very different setup from modern payment rails.
  
• Stablecoin rails settle in dollars, quickly, and can be paired with the same fraud controls you expect on cards. The risk model is different because the rail is different.

If you think the model fails, name the failure mode. I will engage each point, as I did in the thread. Reposting the 2017 stat without interacting with the design is not a rebuttal, it is how the thread gets stuck on repeat. Hilariously ironic, thank you for highlighting the issue yet again.

Full architecture and rationale are here if you want to engage the mechanics in one place, or simply see me debate the regular cynics that spawn camp the forums to not even read the post before reflexively disagreeing:
Future Proof Steam: Add Censorship-Resistant Payment Methods
If you want to critique, address that model. Repeating 2017 BTC trial outcomes while ignoring the current architecture is not an argument, especially when my post outlined and explain why it didn’t work. Working through the design would have educated you on your misconceptions and assumptions. You learn nothing from being reflexively disagreeable. Happy to continue in the linked thread. I’ll expect to see you there, Nx, since you feel the need to talk about it more with me.

Honestly, Fatality, you shouldn't even bother responding to those off topic attacks. I don't see what the thread/post referenced has anything to do with the thread we're posting in right now. That's another common tactic around here that quite frankly should be a bannable offense. Just bringing up unrelated post history for zero reason as a way to take cheap shots at someone and try to discredit them.

Originally posted by Sex Alarm:

Honestly, Fatality, you shouldn't even bother responding to those off topic attacks. I don't see what the thread/post referenced has anything to do with the thread we're posting in right now. That's another common tactic around here that quite frankly should be a bannable offense. Just bringing up unrelated post history for zero reason as a way to take cheap shots at someone and try to discredit them.

I hear you, and I try to keep things on the topic at hand, but when someone drags in unrelated history to score points or smear, I think it helps if we name the behavior and air the grievance once and then get back to the subject.

With bad faith actors who seek some status or reputation from cheap dunks, I will address bad faith briefly in public, hoping such behavior leaves the conversation. It sets a clear tone without feeding an endless derail, and provides the off-ramp to where to take rebuttals. But, it is a derail nonetheless. If a comment has substance, I will engage it point by point. If it is just a cheap shot, I will mark it as such and bring the discussion back to the actual suggestion. But you bring your own fair points.