DirtyHarry50, on 01 August 2017 - 06:46 PM, said:
I understood what you said, including the apocalypse title, to be about impending loss of access. You did say you were considering prioritizing games that may become inaccessible. That was what I was initially responding to although I admittedly wandered into related territory when I wrote about costs, money wasted, etc. all of which was based on my own personal experience and not meant to be critical of you or anybody else. I do feel that all of that was relevant though. You had mentioned an indie game for example that I would find difficult to believe you want to play again and again for years to come when you have yet to ever play it, until confronted with the possibility of not being able to. Suddenly, Incredipede appears on the radar for that reason and my whole point was that reason probably doesn't hold up too well against other games you've preferred to play instead ever since buying it. Otherwise, like I said, you wouldn't care about it becoming obsolete. You would have played it a long time ago. Clearly it was less important than other games. I maintain it still is considering the evidence I see. So why play it now? Is it subjectively better than everything else you have access to right now, so much so that you really want to drop everything and play this game today? How did that come to be? That was my point.
I said I wouldn't *solely* play a game based on its impending doom. My backlog has become so large that I have so many games that I still have the same amount of interest in playing that I haven't gotten around to yet. The fact that I bought them years ago is beside the point. Part of the problem is that I tend to prioritize one-sitting games or really long RPGs, so the rest (even if I have the same level of interest in them) tends to languish.
I'm changing my buying habits, which helps. Now, I only buy games that I know I want to play right away for whatever reason, or they're in a Humble. I'm buying a lot less.