this post was submitted on 27 May 2025
79 points (91.6% liked)
PC Gaming
11949 readers
1600 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If that's what you're buying in a single month, I'd hate to know how much you're buying in a year.
The sad truth is that you're spending this money but you're never going to have the time to enjoy more than the upper crust of what all these games have to offer. You might dive deep on a handful of them, but you're just lighting the rest of that money on fire and likely condemning a lot of good games to the digital equivalent of rotting on a shelf.
Unless this is some roundabout way of supporting dev teams this screams unfettered consumerism to me.
I'm not trying to offend you I promise. This is just very odd to me. I don't even think I've played 200 games in my life and I've spent a fuckload of time immersed in games of all kinds for ~30 years.
I don't get this, though. Less than 200 games in your life? How? Are you a baby? Do you play games for thousands of hours on a regular basis?
I own thousands of games and my most played games are in the thousands of hours, but if I boot up a game and play an hour of or two it I'm more than happy with that purchase, especially at a discount price. I spent twenty bucks last time I went to the movies and I didn't even enjoy any part of what I watched.
Huh? Is calling them a baby supposed to be an insult? 200 games in 30 years would be a lot of games. It’s not like one buy a new game everyday. 6-10 games a year would already be a lot. Most find the handful they like and continually play them.
I’ve never seen the phrase “touch grass” be more appropriate ;)
There are at least 200 games at my local arcade. Few people beat them—and no one bats an eye at this fact.
I don’t see why PC games should be any different.
Is my intent to beat each game or is it just to have fun?
That's a pretty big arcade. There were maybe a couple dozen in my go-to, if that.
I wonder if that's where the generational thing comes from. I definitely sunk a lot of money in machines where I never got that far. Of the assortment I had access to in arcades I saw the end of story mode in maybe a handful. I was quite proud of 1cc-ing Double Dragon once. Otherwise it was considered to be a waste of money to dump money in continues. You'd play the first two stages of Metal Slug a million times and never see past them and everybody thought that was just how gaming was supposed to work.
No, no, not an insult. Like, literally are they a very young person and so 200 games is all they had the time to get around to. Like the OP I have thousands of games because it's been decades of building them up. Even just on Steam I've had what, twenty years? Just my Humble Bundle subscription has probably spat out more than 200 games, just because it's been on for long enough.
If you're young you have less disposable income and less time, so you don't have time to build up a library and you have more time to spend with each thing you get.
I mean, I still had what? 30/50 Mega Drive games by the end of that generation, and those were, inflation adjusted, maybe what, 200 bucks each?
For the record, I touched grass yesterday and that movie sucked.