That was the point of my question, to be honest. I don't understand. Cheating in a single player game to experience it I get. Unlimited ammo, all unlocks, that kind of thing - it lets the game be played differently. But against other players it seems completely pointless from my perspective.
so how do you know you're going to enjoy the games you're buying if they sit in your library past the refund window?
Knowing that about any given media before consuming it is an impossible ask, so that's a bit of a deadend to start with. I make my purchasing decisions based on a combination of developer reputation (e.g. FTL was great and Into the Breach was awesome too), reviews (not from any major game sites, I'm talking about friends and similar), and experience with the genre.
Also, as I've said elsewhere, I'm spending less than the cost of a pint of beer. Any given game doesn't have to deliver all that much to justify its cost.
Even if I don't enjoy it, perhaps my wife will, or eventually my daughter.
Do you not worry they may end up being unplayable bloat "polluting" your library?
I don't really understand the concept of what you're asking. I understand the words but the emotional meaning is completely lost on me. There's a load of assumptions underpinning it, from what I can see. Is someone else supposed to be looking at my library and drawing conclusions about my character based on it? If so, I couldn't possibly care less. Or is it a convenience thing, like finding a game would be hard? There's text search and there's not an insurmountable quantity regardless.
Or something else? I don't get what you're asking, sorry.
Or do you have a super broad taste and you enjoy everything?
I don't know how broad the average taste is, I'm afraid I have no point of comparison. I've played most genres over the last 30+ years and there's only a few I find tedious (sports games, medieval fantasy-themed stuff, simulation-focussed stuff). What is a normal breadth of taste?
I really enjoy looking at my library and going: "Damn, I could launch any of these games right now and have a great time!" which wouldn't be true if I have a bunch of shit I don't enjoy playing and can't refund.
Whilst I have some stuff that I wouldn't enjoy, most of what I have was bought because it had some appeal to me. I don't buy many games, I've just been buying them for decades so it adds up.
I prefer having a large selection so there's always potentially new fun things hiding in my collection. Knowing everything about it removes some of the mystique, essentially.
It's also worth noting that I don't know what I'll enjoy anymore. When I was a child I really enjoyed management games, for example, so on the one hand they have nostalgic appeal, but on the other I have enough to manage in my life now so find them exhausting. There's also an element of enjoying things that others don't - I spent a lot of time playing Godus and listening to audiobooks. People do not like that game!
You can perhaps start to see why I don't like the concept of a "backlog" - my perspective isn't built that way!
I really don't think it's a particularly hot take. The very term "backlog" normally refers to obligations. Plenty of people suffer from productivity guilt and applying that kind of framework to something that by its very nature is designed to be unproductive feels like a dreadful idea to me.
The "point of the product" isn't to provide theoretical novel entertainment value by sitting, unplayed, on my digital shelves. Bold take here, but I'd suggest the point of a video game is to be played.
I see it as its job is to provide an option for entertainment. To use another flawed analogy, whilst ideally I'd like to wear everything in my wardrobe at least once I don't feel bad that my jeans see much more use than my tuxedo. I don't avoid buying a pair of shorts because I already have plenty of shirts. My goal is to have a good selection of options available in the hope that I'll never find myself short of something suitable.
I grew up playing games in the '90s. I remember running out of new things to play. It was miserable!
So I make a point of having a large library so there's always things hiding in there that I might enjoy. The last thing I want is to have played everything in my collection. The very notion of a "backlog" is strange to me. It's a library or a collection, not an obligation. Trying to min/max it doesn't feel particularly healthy framing to me.
I know they exist (the sales by topics) but my emphasis was on "most".
And just like weight and fashion changes for shirts, I may change my schedule and interests not to fit games I bought years ago.
Where one draws the line on min/maxing is deeply personal. I'm happy to take a risk that my tastes will remain close enough to justify the purchase, evidently you feel otherwise. Neither of us are wrong (other than you, obviously - we're arguing on the internet so I need to be needlessly confrontational, it's the law or some old charter or something).
I was mostly replying because I don't think your way is wrong but I don't think mine is either. I have at least a thousand games in my collection. Unless something really enticing is released that calls to me (rare) then I always have fresh experiences waiting in my library. It's probably cost a few thousand pounds over nearly twenty years and I feel that's a reasonable trade-off to have that facility.
It's not the result of frivolous spending or poor impulse control. It's a deliberate choice to min/max in a different direction. I too use IsThereAnyDeal and slowly hoover up titles that I've got my eye on. I rarely immediately play things I pick up!