Poll of the Day > Oh look, for once a poll where the previous results aren't all the same

(+) Yeah! (+)

Granted, the 2004 poll is hard to draw too many conclusions from since the data is split at different points, but we can at least see that the percentage who completed 30% or less is far lower. And a higher percentage in 2004 completed 76% or more than the 2017 percentage who've completed only 61% or more. I imagine the rise of digital games is the main reason for the discrepancy.

I blame game developers and publishers for making too many games and having sales, we need less sales and video games so we have don't have as many options to frilly frally between this game and that game.
---

i wouldn't expect a pollto reflect the same as one 13 years ago

a lot of people have come and gone since then, a lot of opinions have changed
---

I regularly complete my games. I just happen to buy more at much higher rate.
---

darcandkharg31 posted...

I blame game developers and publishers for making too many games and having sales, we need less sales and video games so we have don't have as many options to frilly frally between this game and that game.

I know you're being sarcastic, but at what point does it become a waste of money? I'd rather spend $60 on one game than on 12 random games on sale for $5, generally speaking. At least when I buy a full-price game, I know I plan to play it. If I'm buying the 12 games because of a sale there's little chance I'll play all 12. I don't think I'd need to play all 12; there is a certain amount of sunk cost that still makes that a better deal, but whatever that number is for me, I currently am not hitting it with my sale purchases.

I complete almost all games I play, but as a collector I've acquired thousands of games. Also hundreds of digital games on sale. The poll doesn't differentiate between games played and finished, and games owned and finished.

Rockies posted...

darcandkharg31 posted...

I blame game developers and publishers for making too many games and having sales, we need less sales and video games so we have don't have as many options to frilly frally between this game and that game.

I know you're being sarcastic, but at what point does it become a waste of money? I'd rather spend $60 on one game than on 12 random games on sale for $5, generally speaking. At least when I buy a full-price game, I know I plan to play it. If I'm buying the 12 games because of a sale there's little chance I'll play all 12. I don't think I'd need to play all 12; there is a certain amount of sunk cost that still makes that a better deal, but whatever that number is for me, I currently am not hitting it with my sale purchases.

In my case, it's usually a matter of getting 2-3 games I know I want and will play as part of a bundle (particularly a Humble one). It saves money over buying them individually, but it's not a matter of buying the whole bundle just because it's a good deal and without actively wanting any of the games.
---

Yeah, I guess bundles are another thing. But I was thinking more along the lines of 12 individually purchased games. Like if I play three of those, even three games for $60 is a pretty decent deal (depending on the original value of the games). But if the nine unplayed ones are scattered across several years of purchases, am I really better off?

I don't know if what I just said makes any sense. I understand it but it's hard for me to put my point into words

Rockies posted...

Granted, the 2004 poll is hard to draw too many conclusions from since the data is split at different points, but we can at least see that the percentage who completed 30% or less is far lower. And a higher percentage in 2004 completed 76% or more than the 2017 percentage who've completed only 61% or more. I imagine the rise of digital games is the main reason for the discrepancy.

Steam is a big factor in this, with their frequent sales driving people to buying a lot of games. And there's also game bundles, as you stated in another post.
---