We've undergone two close and reopen vote cycles with this question:
Originally, it was asking what would happen if Steam were to shut down, and was closed for being about unreleased (I think; history doesn't show anything but off-topic). It was then reworded to be specifically about whether or not Valve has said anything about this particular scenario, and re-opened. It went through another close cycle for developer intent, but was just as quickly reopened.
What's going on here? Our stance on whether or not a developer has said anything falls has historically fallen into the same area as developer intent; the question is just wording around it, and we see it as the exact same thing. What Valve has said they will do, and what Valve will actually do equate to the same question. We're just playing magic word syndrome again. Grace's answer here also gets at the reasoning from a different angle:
Which is, at heart, what I think is the target destination for this kind of information. News sites are where people dedicate themselves to tracking down every bit of developing data about the world of gaming, about new releases and especially about big events like E3. It's a completely different domain of dedication than what we do here, and for that reason I think it's important that we don't mix ourselves up as a news site. We are not intended to be a singular destination for all things gaming-related - different kinds of material require different space to host them. We can barely even store special data relevant to any individual game, being pretty limited to whatever we put in a tag wiki.
This information resides outside of our domain. Granted, the information isn't new by any stretch at all, but that's still the domain where this information resides; it's not about games, specifically, but a side area related to games.
Another post here, also from Grace:
The important thing is that July isn't right now, and it's not our job to be a news site to keep people up to date on things, which is the only thing that having the question around can serve right now.
Where she links back to the above answer.
Why has this question been reopened? Based on our stated policies, it shouldn't be. At the end of the day, focusing on what a developer will do isn't really our core strength at all.
That said, we seem to be rather inconsistent on this basis. Here's a few more questions that would fall into the same area, but whether they are opened or closed seems to be based on when people see them:
- Did the designers of Monkey Island 2 ever explain the ending?
- Was Super Mario Bros. 3 all just a performance?
So, I guess this is less about this specific question, and more about a plea for consistency. Is there something about these questions that makes them salvageable?