I haven't gotten all the way down to 2 yet, but at the rate I'm going, I could see it. I've settled into mostly grinding the same few forever games while the mainstream industry moves further and further away from my tastes.
I definitely buy more than 2 games per year, but the types of games I buy and the maximum price I’m willing to pay has changed. Almost everything I buy now is from indie devs, and I’m very selective of the larger studio games I’ll buy (right now, for example, I’m cranking through Alan Wake 2 after replaying the first one).
I buy maybe over a dozen games a year, but sometimes spend less than the price of two fill priced titles. Benefit of patient gaming, and leads to not needing the latest and greatest hardware as a result saving me more money.
So when people complain about optimization of recent triple a titles I have not yet encountered those issues due to being behind.
Yes, I’m also surprised it’s so low, if only because during sales you can get like 3-5 older indie games for $15. Those games are often shorter and have more controlled scope as well, meaning more folks would actually have time to play them.
On the other hand, it means folks are only buying games they’ll actually play, which is good.
It’s rare that I find a game that I want to buy anymore, so I’m probably often in that percentage. I’m still regularly playing games I’ve owned for over ten years now, and usually don’t see a lot of reason to keep buying more. I did buy two this year, one on launch and one on a sale. I also picked up a few DLCs for two of my long-time favorites.
I have a console. The games I bought (on sale or no) in reverse order are:
expedition 33 (31?)
It Takes Two
Baldur’s Gate
CP2077 (discount)
No man’s Sky (discount)
Days Gone (discount)
Diablo IV
Jedi: Outcast
Horizon: Forbidden West
And it came with the latest(?) god of war, but I’ve never played it.
So if you’re talking about AAA brand new games, my average is under 2 per year. But I have so many hours logged between BG, DG, and NMS it’s ridiculous.
To be fair, Ubisoft isn’t in a good position right now, to be able to experiment or do whatever they want. So the cancellation is understandable, if they expect it to be controversial and flop because of that. In the end, its the fault of the people who had political issues with prior games. I wish people would stop, so that companies can experiment and be more creative.
Which does not change how logical a decision from a company is. To me, the decision to cancel the game makes sense. I wish they would not, but I understand why. And my understanding is not affected by my feelings about how much I like or dislike the company.
They have gone the safest path for over a decade now, making reskins of the same three games over and over to the point where Assassin’s Creed and FarCry which used to be real innovations in their fields are now just boring copies of copies. They haven’t taken a single risk since AC2.
They got negative feedback to including Yasuke - a real historical figure who did exist in the era the game depicts - and now they’d rather preemptively cancel their own game than tell a story about freedom and rebellion from an unusual perspective.
The only games I can think of where you fight back against racists as a Black person are Mafia 3 and Assassin’s Creed Freedom Cry. Maybe Dustborn too, if you count alternative history fascism. It’s wild that there isn’t more after so many years of video games. It makes the news of the cancelation incredibly sad.
If you don’t really have time to play and you buy as you play, that’s quite understandable. I also noticed this from my Steam friendlist: The people who play less and have fewer games, don’t care if there is a sale or not. They buy games if they want and start playing right away.
videogameschronicle.com
Najstarsze