I just wonder why movies get away with licenses for both music and depicting cars etc. for eternity. Seems like they just added weird unnecessary rules for video games. I also imagine a situation where Stephen King has to renew with Plymouth every few years. Seems ridiculous for any other art form why is it so easily accepted for this one?
There are only 1,038 delisted games out of 100,000+ games on Steam, so there are willing licensors. Some may offer perpetual licenses, but want a royalty. It might be easier to delist a game than to manage the ongoing paperwork.
Most games don't have that sort of licensed content to start with, so comparing to the total population of games isn't meaningful.
Offering a perpetual license would limit the licensor's options (e.g. they could never offer someone else an exclusive license, nor could they adjust the rates if the brand becomes more popular, nor could they terminate if the developer/publisher becomes toxic), so I guess while it's theoretically possible I just don't see why they'd want to offer such a license.
It is meaningful if the claim that perpetual licenses don't exist. They do. The terminology is often mocked, but comes in handy in case like this: "in perpetuity, throughout the universe".