Whenever I hear of a game I might like, or buy one on a whim I add it to a list. I do something similar with books and movies. The purpose of the lists aren't to put pressure on myself, but to remind myself of all the things I'm interested in and to avoid the feeling of "I have nothing to play/read/watch". If I'm not enjoying something, I just won't finish it and I check it off the list so I know I tried. For me, deciding what to do with my limited time can give me analysis paralysis. I don't see the list and backlog as a chore, but more of an easy menu of options that I've already considered.
I basically have a spreadsheet to tackle my backlog, I add 10 - 20 games to my list of games that I’ve bought (mostly on discount, some from bundles, and some from PS+, some emulated games, etc), then I’d just stream them.
If I don’t feel like the game is resonating with me, I’d just stop, assign Not Resonating tag and move on.
I do admit that when I see a big backlog, I tend to exhibit these behaviors:
Guilt in buying new games, which is not bad, now I only buy full priced game once or twice a year, and mostly buying discounted stuff
The need to power thru games that I don’t like, until I started using Not Resonating tag, which I give games that don’t click with me two tries, before giving up
I have hard time aiming the stomp, handling the motion control, and by the time I reached the underwater level, I’m exhausted.
It’s a good game, but sadly it’s not for me, at least not for long term session of playing. Maybe one day I will play the game in short bursts, but platformer is sadly not my genre.
I don’t really get the obsession with backlogs. Are you actually enjoying the games at that point? Are you playing this game because you want to play it, or because it’s on your backlog and you want to be able to check it off the list and move on to the next thing - presumably, since your backlog is so big it warrants a guide - as quickly as possible? Just pick out a game you want to play and play it. Why spoil your own fun?
My backlog consists of games I’ve bought because I want to play them. But because there’s always something on offer I end up buying more than I can get through. So this will be a way to stop myself spending money when I already have enough games to get me through to the end of this year. If I find I’m not enjoying one of them, I’ll mark it “dnf” and hide it from my library. So I’ve absolutely no plan to play a game if it turns out to not be any fun.
I think this is what the commenter above is getting at. You say you want to play the game, but “dnf” means “did not finish” which alludes closer to just checking it off a list.
My list is basically my library. I only buy games if I want to play them (I don’t bother redeeming free games if I don’t intend to play it). That said, just because I want to play a game doesn’t guarantee I end up enjoying it. The great perhaps is one such game. Thought it was for me, didn’t enjoy it, so won’t bother finishing it.
Some people just do it this way. This doesn‘t mean they don‘t have fun. I noticed this happens with books too; people buy books and then track how many they‘ve read, set goals etc. Some people think it‘s stupid, but for some it‘s fun.
Nor I. Honestly, I'd rather have a wealth of options I can play and never do rather than having a giant fuckin' chore list for something that is not supposed to be a chore.
I don't have to "get through my backlog" because it's not a backlog. It's an option set.
Obvious “this is what works for me and why I do it” disclaimer, but:
I have a growing collection of games which spans multiple consoles and physical/digital media alike, so I need a way to track what games I have and where, so as to not buy them multiple times (I don’t believe this to be a typical use case, but I could be wrong?).
Aside from that practical element, I have a few lists on HLTB where I track what I (might) want to play next, but realistically it’s pretty much always a case of checking out what I have and picking one based on my mood / gut feeling / whatever.
Lastly, it’s about actually finishing games - getting started with some form of tracking helped me tremendously get past the “pick up and drop after a few hours” mentality (?). I wouldn’t have gotten to experience some of the best games I’ve played in recent memories, were it not for my backlog, because I probably would have forgotten I had them / wouldn’t have stuck with them.
It’s really hard for me to estimate right now, as I haven’t fully fleshed everything out and I have no idea how solvable the puzzles are to people who don’t know the solution. I’m hoping it’ll be entertaining for a while - but with the 5$ cost im definitely not passing more than 10 hours 😅
“Thanks for helping me, now I’m going to commit genocide.” 😂 ‘You’re evil for helping me, this shit is morally complex. By the way did you download the official Reddit app?’
Jacob Geller is one of the best video-essayists on YouTube. The thoughtfulness with which he approaches games as pieces of art is rare, the sleek, striking way he presents his theses is rarer still. There are youtubers that I find more entertaining (HBomberguy, Folding Ideas) but no one that I find more engaging.
“Who’s Afraid of Modern Art: Vandalism, Video Games, and Fascism” in particular had a profound impact on me (also loved the one about Golems). Being able to watch the better version of his videos (without the butchering to avoid YouTube’s copyright strikes) is like 80% of the reason why I got a Nebula subscription.
This guys videos are like crack to me, but this one was kind of boring compared to his other stuff. I don’t know why though. Fear of the cold was so much better and it’s essentially the same kind of storytelling.
You will defiantly love his other videos then. They’re all very in depth and entertaining
Then if you haven’t yet check out supereyepatchwolf - who takes similar deep dives into media but does it on a more personal level with really good storytelling. Like, really good.
You’d probably like Gaming’s Harshest Architecture. That may be the video that got me into the channel, he’s so good at creating this feeling of significance. And then you look back at the actual topic and wonder how you got so invested.
(I think the champ of that feeling in general is Kevin Perjurer of Defunctland. I have no idea how I get so invested in videos about… anything he’s made a video about.)
I really wish more indies could take on the no-sales policy. It’d give me tons more peace of mind to buy a game when I actually want to play it, rather than always waiting and doing weird backlog hoarding when Valve decide it’s wallet-opening-time.
But as the video shows, the policy was a risk for Wube even back in the day – it’s an even bigger risk now that everyone and their dog expects to wait for the sale, and especially if you happen to have a game that’s not quite as incredibly popular as Factorio.
It’s not exactly the same thing, but itch.io allow developers to have a “reverse sale”, where the price goes up for a given period. It was mostly a joke feature, perhaps intended to provoke a little thought about sales culture.
This game gets universal praise and I’d love to play it but as a PC gamer I refuse to as I wouldn’t want to support a dev who not only never does sales but raises the price because of “inflation”
Does the value you get of the game change depending on which time of the year you buy it?
Actually, the only change is up, as the game was improving and expanding pretty much constantly from the first early release to version 1.1. And it value is going up, when you buy in early access you’re only getting the current (unfinished but playable) state and a “promise” that it will get better in the future. When you buy the finished product you’re already certainly getting that better state, so it makes sense that it’s more expensive.
A game going up in price is fair from early access to release. This is a typical concept and an expected one for the reason you stated, the company makes a promise that it will be fully released.
To me the issue is the inflation price increase that most recently happened. Typically when a digital good releases in a finished state, it tends to stay at a max price. 30 USD is what Factorio decided on. Then it’s up to 35. Sure its had updates since the full release but why should I have to pay more then the full release price because I waited?
Typically sales are the reward for those who wait. Factorio seems to be the opposite, those who wait pay more. Inflation is real I understand, but this is also a digital good that has infinite supply. I as a consumer want to buy a game, and I can’t tell what the content changed from this 1.0 to the 1.1 since I haven’t played it. It probably is justifiable for the 5 bucks increase, but the consumer doesn’t know that. I just know this game I want, was 30 bucks and now it’s 35 and still hasn’t been on sale.
The reward for getting a full release game before a sale is to play it early. You aren’t losing the value of your purchase because I got it for 30% off. You got to play it early, and I waited for a price that I felt willing to pay. (The you is referring to people in general, not you specifically)
To me the issue is the inflation price increase that most recently happened. Typically when a digital good releases in a finished state, it tends to stay at a max price. 30 USD is what Factorio decided on. Then it’s up to 35. Sure its had updates since the full release but why should I have to pay more then the full release price because I waited?
Because when you buy it now for $35 right now, you get more for your money than what I got years ago for $25. Even ignoring the additional content and polishing, you’re also getting the benefit of all the testing and bug reporting by early adopters, as well as the bug fixing by the developers.
Typically sales are the reward for those who wait.
This is just the wrong mindset. Why would the developer, publisher, valve, or anyone else want to reward you for not buying their product?
(yes, I know software pricing is a clusterfuck. But the common theme is that the seller wants to extract as much value from every customer as possible, so ideally they would set the price individually for each customer based on the highest amount that customer is willing to pay. Sales after a while are a mechanism for this.)
Because when you buy it now for $35 right now, you get more for your money than what I got years ago for $25. Even ignoring the additional content and polishing, you’re also getting the benefit of all the testing and bug reporting by early adopters, as well as the bug fixing by the developers.
Is that not the opposite? Sure I get less buggy version, but you also have how many years to play compared to me. And you are getting the same game I am when I buy it. You eventually get that content, which one could say is added value to the 25 bucks vs the 35 I spend. You got 10 bucks of content from free essentially.
This is just the wrong mindset. Why would the developer, publisher, valve, or anyone else want to reward you for not buying their product?
It’s not the publisher rewarding me. The reward comes from me waiting and getting a cheaper game then those who bought it earlier. As you state
so ideally they would set the price individually for each customer based on the highest amount that customer is willing to pay. Sales after a while are a mechanism for this.
If a game isn’t worth X amount of dollars to me then I will wait till the game is Y amount of dollars. If the game never does then I never buy it, meaning the publishers lose, not me.
Is that not the opposite? Sure I get less buggy version, but you also have how many years to play compared to me. And you are getting the same game I am when I buy it. You eventually get that content, which one could say is added value to the 25 bucks vs the 35 I spend. You got 10 bucks of content from free essentially.
No, you’re forgetting the fact that when I bought it, I didn’t know what I’ll be getting in the future. I lucked out with Factorio, but it could happen that the devs just stopped working on it, I didn’t know at the time.
It’s not the publisher rewarding me. The reward comes from me waiting and getting a cheaper game then those who bought it earlier. As you state
Who do you think sets the price, if not the publisher?
the publishers lose, not me.
And yet, it’s not the publishers complaining about it online.
No, you’re forgetting the fact that when I bought it, I didn’t know what I’ll be getting in the future. I lucked out with Factorio, but it could happen that the devs just stopped working on it, I didn’t know at the time.
That’s the risk you paid for. My criticism is price increase after full launch. If early access game goes up in price when it fully releases that is a different thing.
Who do you think sets the price, if not the publisher?
The publisher sets the price. They put a game on sale to make more money. I buy the game on sale. I get the game as the reward. The publisher gets money they wouldn’t have otherwise.
And yet, it’s not the publishers complaining about it online.
I’m a random person who has no reputation to defend. I could just as easily start over online and nothing would hurt me. The publisher has a reputation to keep. They need to keep making money. Other then that, complaining is the way to for the consumer to get thoughts out about practices. I don’t like a game going up in price due to “inflation” and a game never going on sale therefor I will communicate that.
youtu.be
Najnowsze