Got to be worth a go for a fiver? Page 2

  • Page

    of 2 First / Last

    Next
  • Phattso Moderator 9 Dec 2012 02:06:19 13,921 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    For me it's actually nice to have a reasonable load of un-played games sitting on a pile or in my Steam list. Because some weekend I'm going to have some unexpected free time, and it's amazing to be able to peruse from a few different titles and then dive into one. I'm in a part of the world with really shitty Internet connection, too, so I can't really do the 'on demand' purchases I might have back in Europe.

    No way that makes sense at 30 a pop. But I frequently stock up on interesting titles that I _might_ like to play, in the knowledge that at some point time will come available. Plus it's retail therapy; sometimes browsing the Steam catalogue in the sales is more fun than playing games, in a weird way. Takes me back to childhood, staring at all the games on the shelves but knowing I only had 1.99 in my pocket for some Mastertronic monstrosity. Only this time my modern equivalent can get me something amazing.

    There has to be a limit, mind you. Certainly on the console side of things I'm a bit less frivolous, but on Steam (and iOS to an extent) I do stock up.
  • Phattso Moderator 9 Dec 2012 02:07:39 13,921 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    As a general aside, my greatest achievement of the last few gaming years has been the change from "I must have every decent game on launch day" to "oh, I'll get around to it when I get around to it" which has saved me a small fortune and a lot of buyer's remorse. :)
  • Deleted user 9 December 2012 09:04:46
    RobTheBuilder wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    Also, people that take into consideration 'value for money' when buying games are destroying gaming.
    If that wasn't Mocking then that is a remarkably stupid thing to say.

    I'd love to spend 30 quid on every game I like the look of, but I can't. So I have to judge how best to spend the money I can afford to. Remember that if I like a game I buy cheaply I'm more likely to pay full price for the sequel.
    You've misunderstood me (which is fair enough as I wasn't clear). I'm talking people who look at a game and decide if they want it by how many hours they will get from it. The game being value for money because it is padded to fuck. It is a stupid thing to do and is responsible for ruining a lot of good games and stagnating the industry at times. People who buy games with that criteria shouldn't be playing games.
  • Lexx87 9 Dec 2012 09:17:41 20,863 posts
    Seen 4 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Doesn't happen often mowgli mate you know it, but I do agree with you here. Quality over quantity any day of the week.

    Speak the truth hussy!

  • dancingrob 9 Dec 2012 11:49:32 1,191 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    you'd be surprised Lexx. Have a look through the comments threads on decent games like Vanquish / Dishonored and there'll be a significant minority of fuckwits saying 'Only 6 hours, what a waste!' and other such rubbish, seemingly loving overpadded crap more than a tightly written well paced game.

    For my point of view, I rarely buy stuff on release, as I know games are usually 15 after 6 months - 1 year, and I've no real 'need' to play stuff the minute it comes out. As such, I can then pick and choose the decent stuff, as I'm prepared to wait.

    In general terms, as a working 30 something, I'm in a position where the limit on my gaming is time, rather than cash in any case.
  • Page

    of 2 First / Last

    Next
Log in or register to reply