The Unquenchable Thirst for New Games

Were I Burgess Meredith in the Twilight Zone, but instead of books I was left with the worlds’ complete canon of video games, I would die long before I finished finding good games to play. Throw a few thousand other people in the mix with whom I could play games like Team Fortress 2, World of Warcraft or Starcraft 2— preferably folks of equally scaling skill levels — and I may not even notice the mind bending apocalypse except during brief and infrequent “bio breaks.”

It seems the world doesn’t actually need any more video games. That’s not to say that I am asking for that, or cheering the grim end of humanity, but that there is so rich and diverse a wealth of material out there that from a purely rational perspective it’s hard to imagine why I’d ever pay for a new game again.

This occurred to me the other night as GWJ’s stalwart and hyper-talented crew steamrolled our likable and benign opponents from Telltale games in a friendly game of Team Fortress 2, a game I haven't fired up for the better part of a year. During a break in the action I asked, “why the hell did I stop playing this game, anyway?” And, though I will likely let TF2 drift back into its undeserved slumber on my hard drive in favor of titles more shiny and perky, the sentiment is valid.

In reality, I should never need to buy another new game again.

If I instituted a rigid moratorium on all game purchases for a year, I would still have more than enough to keep me busy from my Steam games list alone. Metro 2033, Just Cause 2, Dawn of War, BioShock 2, Borderlands and Titan Quest are among the cavalcade of games waiting to get that attention and love, which I so faithlessly promised through forked tongue would come once I had a little more time to devote. Add online time sinks like WoW and TF2 in the mix, and I can barely imagine how I’d have time in a whole year to give proper attention to just a percentage of the games on just one of the platforms I own.

And yet, I scheme ways to secret away time and money for a whole new year’s worth of entirely new products. Alan Wake, Starcraft 2, Crackdown 2, Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Civiliazation 5 are headliners on a not short list of games which I fully intend to own and caress in disturbing ways. The very idea of not buying another game this year, while logically sound, offends me as deeply as the idea of listening to Chaucer in its original Middle English as recited by Gilbert Gottfried.

So why? Why buy new games when there is no end to gameplaying ready to be accomplished on the cheap.

The answer, I think, reveals as much about why some of us play video games as it does anything meaningful about our consumerist irresponsibility. I buy new video games for the same reason that I put up with watching commercials during sporting events.

Allow me to explain.

Were such a thing possible, my pacifist wife would own numerous high-powered rifles so that she could track, shoot and kill commercials in the wild. I would have pictures of her perched high in some tree, face painted in forest camouflage and murder in her eyes as she stared down the sights at some hapless Verizon ad grazing in a pasture or a mother Bud Light commercial tending its cubs under the shade of a tree. She would have an entire wing of our house dedicated to mounting the carcasses of her slaughters, the Can You Hear Me Now guy's dead stare forever peering out from over a burning fireplace. So whenever I sit down to watch Local Professional Sport Team on the television, her first question is why I don't pause the DVR so I can let the time build up and skip through commercials.

And the reason I don’t is because then I’m not part of an event. I am merely finding out what has already happened. This is unacceptable. Also a little delusional, but let's not focus on that part.

I take pleasure not only in experiencing some media event, but taking part in the sense of cultural relevance that goes along with it. Even if I am completely disconnected from any actual community, just knowing that I am devouring Alan Wake at the same time as everyone else has tremendous value to me. Even if I am only watching the discussion from the sideline, the cognitive connection I can make with and against people holds unmeasurable value.

I think I am not alone. I think there are a lot of people out there who game not just because of the games, but because there is a sense of participation, of being involved in an event, that adds to the experience. It’s why people will wait in line outside of a strip mall Gamestop for Madden year after year. It’s why people will buy games before a single review has hit the street. It’s why despite having games enough at last for a lifetime, we can never get enough.

I simultaneously feel jealous and sorry of those don’t need to be part of the New Games Release Mania. Clearly they have a will power that I don’t understand or even want, but I am glad not to be counted among them.

Comments

1: Bonus props for the Twilight Zone callback. Perfect fit.

2: I totally agree with the allure of riding the wave of current, new hotness.

I try to budget my gaming dollar and many times this boils down to waiting for price drops before buying into most current market software. It makes my wallet smile and I feel proud of myself for practicing delayed gratification.

The downside is that I miss out on the "event" of the game's launch and initial reception. Case and point: Demon's Souls.

This Q4 '09 PS3 RPG (letters!) wasn't really on my radar last year as I didn't own a PS3 at that point. The game recently had a price drop so I decided to satisfy my curiosity and purchase.

A week later I'm completely obsessed, losing sleep to play, and thinking about it all through my work day. Looking at the DS Catch All thread, it appears I'm not alone either. It a mammoth 1K+ thread of gushing and cursing the game's brutal brilliance.

The problem? The wave has passed and people have moved on to newer titles. So while I'm sitting here giddy with excitement over Demon's Souls, I've got no one to share my enthusiasm with over it. At least not in the sense of the Catch All thread that exploded during the game's launch window.

It makes me sad.

So in the end, was it worth saving a few bucks to miss out on the "event" of a game's release?

I'm not so sure. I do allow for a few or more Day One purchases a year (Red Dead Redemption for example), but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that while "price-drop" gaming is frugal, there is a loneliness associated with being late to the party with popular favorites.

On some level I total grok your point. However, with a constrained budget and significantly more constrained time allowance, I just can't get to new games. So I tend to be very selective and play through the few games I do purchase to completion, even though that may come months or even years after release.

Initially when I started down this slimmer collection concept, there was a minor amount of angst when new things came out that I couldn't discuss. But after a couple of years of sticking to these habits, I find most new releases aren't that attractive.

Good topic, especially now. This month looks to put an end to any progress I've made in terms of reducing the Pile.

It's worth noting that any title you intend to play multiplayer in, or want to be reasonably good at, pretty much requires you to get the game ASAP so you can figure things out along with everyone else. It totally sucks to come into multiplayer 6 months late, where you will be stomped by a community that has already established advantageous tactics and whose members have an insane amount of experience under their belts.

Witness Mr. Sean "Elysium" Sands, a charter member in the fraternity of Gamers with Jobs. A bearded large man whose passion is the digital medium but who is conspired against by a job and a Canadian co-founder and a world full of tongue-cluckers and the unrelenting hands of a clock. But in just a moment Mr. Sands will enter a world without jobs or Canadians or clocks or anything else. He'll have a world all to himself, without anyone...in the Goodjer Zone.

I have found that my buying habits have changed with this current generation of hardware. Previously I was like a lot of others, wanting to buy the current hot games so I could be a part of the community. Be it single or multiplayer.

Ever since Left 4 Dead 1 I have given up on completive multiplayer games. Cooperative multiplayer games give me a better gaming experience. With the popularity of co-op today these games are not hard to find. Borderlands has been a great time but is getting long in the tooth. Luckily Red Dead Redemption is coming in a couple of weeks which will get me to Crackdown 2. Then the game I'm looking forward to is Brink. The overall theme here is you got to play these types of games when they are hot, because when they fall from Major Nelson's Xbox Live listings it is going to get harder to find quality players to play with.

I have taught myself to wait for the single player games to go into the $20-30 price range before buying them because a quality single player game is still going to be a quality experience this year or next year. Also I don't have the time to play all of the games I want to play, so if I don't feel I cheated myself if I don't finish a game I spent $30 on, then if I spent $60 on it.

HedgeWizard wrote:

On some level I total grok your point. However, with a constrained budget and significantly more constrained time allowance, I just can't get to new games. So I tend to be very selective and play through the few games I do purchase to completion, even though that may come months or even years after release.

Initially when I started down this slimmer collection concept, there was a minor amount of angst when new things came out that I couldn't discuss. But after a couple of years of sticking to these habits, I find most new releases aren't that attractive.

Same thing. A couple of years ago I decided to purchase games when I want to play them, rather than when other people are playing them. That meant removing myself from the discussion, but to be honest, I realized that even if I buy a game on Day 1 I can't keep up with the conversation. If it's not multiplayer or Mario, I'm a year or two behind the curve.

Makes the hobby really cheap though.

Very good article. When I was younger I wasn't at all connected to the wider world of gaming, games were just something I played occasionally instead of read or watch TV. I could happily buy a 5 year old iteration of Command and Conquer and not know any better.

Then I discovered the gaming media. It began with magazines that made me hyped for new releases, then I moved on to internet forums. This one being the worst offender regarding the building of hype.

Most recently I had the pleasure of being part of the new game conversation around Dragon Age, and it was awesome. Then I decided to hold off on Mass Effect 2 and it was torture.

Earlier I was lead to Guitar Hero and the Xbox 360, I bought GTA 4 although I knew I was going to hate it.

Right now I've decided to hold off on Starcraft 2, my most keenly anticipated game ever because it is being released at a very high price, so I will wait for it to drop. I know I will go mad, but it will be a stern test of my resolve, thankfully I'm not interested in multiplayer.

Games are not just a thing to play anymore, they are something to talk about, and to really be able to talk about it you need to be current.

I suffer from this same disorder, but expanded to include Board Games. Support group meets the last friday of the month at my house.

Perhaps New Game Syndrome should considered for DSM 5.0.

Any game is going to be exponentially more fun when you're sharing the experience with someone else, including single player. Release date is going to be your best shot at finding others to share the experiences with. It makes alot of sense.

I've been a wait-and-see gamer for a while now, but I do miss the IM and forum discussions I'd have on launch day about new games.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Games are not just a thing to play anymore, they are something to talk about, and to really be able to talk about it you need to be current.

Well said.

The Internets have put a new face on the way most of us consume entertainment media. It's not just the stand alone product anymore, it's sharing the experience with others...even if it's single player or solitary ventures (books, etc.).

It's made the whole deal incredibly multifaceted. I enjoy the added depth, but it does demand an element of immediacy.

jonnypolite wrote:

I suffer from this same disorder, but expanded to include Board Games. Support group meets the last friday of the month at my house.

Perhaps New Game Syndrome should considered for DSM 5.0.

Oh yes - although I've trimmed away my electronic gaming buying addition, that does NOT hold true for board games. At all. Which is funny, because with my limited time, I actually have LESS time to play face-to-face games than I would playing solo in an electronic game. Go figure!

Hey everyone, Seriously Behind The Curve gamer here.

I also have too much to play, but it's because I wait. I don't get to participate in cutting edge discussions (Dragon Age? Ha! I just got NWN2 the other day but I still play the first NWN quite a bit.) but I appreciate that you guys have those discussions so I can reap the benefits of them later when I get around to it. I like knowing which games aren't worth playing at all, I like having the patches and mods all ready to go when I am, and I like not having to spend a bundle on hardware. Heck, with services like Good Old Games and places like Steam having sales every time I turn around, it's easier than ever to be a couple of years behind. Don't get me started on "Gold Editions."

Do I miss not being able to participate in the discussion of The Current Big Thing? Sure I do. It's hard to avoid spoilers for I have no intention of playing for months, if not years and I miss out on that wave of initial enthusiasm. Multiplayer has never really held a lof of attraction for me, so that's no biggie. Frankly, it's still not enough to start shelling out $50-60 a pop for buggy, unfinished games.

Aaron D. wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Games are not just a thing to play anymore, they are something to talk about, and to really be able to talk about it you need to be current.

Well said.

The Internets have put a new face on the way most of us consume entertainment media. It's not just the stand alone product anymore, it's sharing the experience with others...even if it's single player or solitary ventures (books, etc.).

It's made the whole deal incredibly multifaceted. I enjoy the added depth, but it does demand an element of immediacy.

Oh come on, the internet has hardly transformed our media consumption into a shared experience. Human culture is and has always been a shared experience. Media (and games media) are shared cultural experiences. And no piece of our culture stands on it's own, the entire edifice of our culture is an ongoing dialogue between our creative works, artists and audiences. Seeking out and sharing culture is what humans do. People were travelling to Rome to see the art and archictecture 500 years ago, forming book clubs 100 years ago and standing around the watercooler to discuss the soaps 50 years ago. The internet didn't make gaming into something that could also be talked about; there has never been a point in my life when gaming wasn't a social experience.

"Having" to play the new games is no more surprising than "having" to read new books or watch new films or hear new music, it's just about taking part in your contemporary culture. What is weird in gaming is the shunning of the old. People will happily read 100 year old books or watch 50 year old films; the discussion is still very much open for that kind of media but few if any will take a second look at 5 year old games.

Excellent article. You summed up what many gamers are.

It's not just about doing things at the same time as everyone, it's about being a part of the community. It gives you something to share, something to talk about, something to know about. If building computers was more your interest, you would be quite alone if you wanted to talk to your friends about the latest 486 you built with *gasp* 1 GB of hard drive space!

There is a small minority of people that not only want to do the same things as everyone else, but want to do it first. How many WoW articles are about the first guild to finish a new instance, the first person to acquire a new legendary item, the first person to get a new pet. It's the driving force of so many people, but 2nd place is that you were at least doing it with everyone else.

I'd like to throw out a somewhat tangential question related to this topic. In recent months sales at digital distribution portals and services have steadily increased in quantity and frequency. I was wondering how many of you keep up with them in order to save and play now and how many are disciplined enough to skip them just like the new releases discussed in this post.

DanB wrote:
Aaron D. wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Games are not just a thing to play anymore, they are something to talk about, and to really be able to talk about it you need to be current.

Well said.

The Internets have put a new face on the way most of us consume entertainment media. It's not just the stand alone product anymore, it's sharing the experience with others...even if it's single player or solitary ventures (books, etc.).

It's made the whole deal incredibly multifaceted. I enjoy the added depth, but it does demand an element of immediacy.

Oh come on, the internet has hardly transformed our media consumption into a shared experience. Human culture is and has always been a shared experience. Media (and games media) are shared cultural experiences. And no piece of our culture stands on it's own, the entire edifice of our culture is an ongoing dialogue between our creative works, artists and audiences. Seeking out and sharing culture is what humans do. People were travelling to Rome to see the art and archictecture 500 years ago, forming book clubs 100 years ago and standing around the watercooler to discuss the soaps 50 years ago. The internet didn't make gaming into something that could also be talked about; there has never been a point in my life when gaming wasn't a social experience.

"Having" to play the new games is no more surprising than "having" to read new books or watch new films or hear new music, it's just about taking part in your contemporary culture. What is weird in gaming is the shunning of the old. People will happily read 100 year old books or watch 50 year old films; the discussion is still very much open for that kind of media but few if any will take a second look at 5 year old games.

No one is saying that the internet created discussion, but for a lot of people it has made the wider discussion a lot more accessible, we don't need to travel by cart to Rome to talk about Bioshock so more people do it.

And for me, gaming was never a social thing, anymore than reading was.

IMAGE(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cutting_edge.png)

DanB wrote:
Aaron D. wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Games are not just a thing to play anymore, they are something to talk about, and to really be able to talk about it you need to be current.

Well said.

The Internets have put a new face on the way most of us consume entertainment media. It's not just the stand alone product anymore, it's sharing the experience with others...even if it's single player or solitary ventures (books, etc.).

It's made the whole deal incredibly multifaceted. I enjoy the added depth, but it does demand an element of immediacy.

Oh come on, the internet has hardly transformed our media consumption into a shared experience. Human culture is and has always been a shared experience. Media (and games media) are shared cultural experiences. And no piece of our culture stands on it's own, the entire edifice of our culture is an ongoing dialogue between our creative works, artists and audiences. Seeking out and sharing culture is what humans do. People were travelling to Rome to see the art and archictecture 500 years ago, forming book clubs 100 years ago and standing around the watercooler to discuss the soaps 50 years ago. The internet didn't make gaming into something that could also be talked about; there has never been a point in my life when gaming wasn't a social experience.

"Having" to play the new games is no more surprising than "having" to read new books or watch new films or hear new music, it's just about taking part in your contemporary culture. What is weird in gaming is the shunning of the old. People will happily read 100 year old books or watch 50 year old films; the discussion is still very much open for that kind of media but few if any will take a second look at 5 year old games.

No, you come on - in this web 3.0 world, where we can follow our favorite gaming journalists and podcasters, as well as other forum community members, on Twitter and Facebook - there is most definitely an on going conversation about what games people are playing and when. I often play games, just to be part of the conversation. Take Bioshock. I did not really enjoy the game that much, but I played through the game to be part of the gaming conversation - to be able to have a frame of reference when people are talking about it (also for the easy 1100/1100 achievement points, thank you very much).

There is an immediacy to playing games that isn't there with books/movies (at least on this forum:)).

Hobbes2099 wrote:

IMAGE(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cutting_edge.png)

That is so perfectly awesome.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

No one is saying that the internet created discussion, but for a lot of people it has made the wider discussion a lot more accessible, we don't need to travel by cart to Rome to talk about Bioshock so more people do it.

And for me, gaming was never a social thing, anymore than reading was.

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that there weren't shared mass cultural touchstone moments before the internet (Star Wars mania in the late-70's comes to mind), only that the internet portal makes finding like-minded hobbyists far easier than ever before.

On a semi-related note, I remember how difficult it was being a music consumer in the early/mid-90's. Unless a music act was BIG, it was difficult to get any info on my favorite bands.

I remember cold-calling local record stores to see if My Life With The Thrill Kill Kult had any release date info for their upcoming albums. Half the people on the other end of the line thought it was a prank call.

Fast forward to today and you have examples like the new Devo album coming out mid-June. I'm on the official website email list and have been invited to sample and rank 16 new tracks to help them pick the final 12 for retail release. I've chatted with members of the band online. I've gotten selected pre-release full song listenings. I've talked with tons of other Devo fans and shared excitement for the upcoming release.

It's pretty incredible stuff when you think about the access to artists we follow that is now possible in the digital age.

Very perceptive; I agree and empathize. I have waited in line at midnight for games (and music albums, I'm that old) then gone straight home to bed to play them in the morning; the sense of community and participation is worth going out for.

One of the great things about Gamers With Jobs is that you can usually resurrect a thread months later and have a bunch of folks chime in about how awesome that game was, and how they're still happy to talk about it. (The enforcement of "catch-all" threads for a game helps immensely to maintain continuity.)

Aaron D. wrote:

I remember cold-calling local record stores to see if My Life With The Thrill Kill Kult had any release date info for their upcoming albums. Half the people on the other end of the line thought it was a prank call.

I remember doing that for Sisters of Mercy singles! Finding someone who'd heard of them, much less stocked the single, was awesome.

I can perfectly sympathize with you Sean. I used to be that guy. I used to be the guy who stood first in line for NaziShooter 2: Exploding Shurikens and couldn't wait to get to work to talk about it the next day. But like so many other gamers work, family and responsibility *shudder* has cut those moments down. I still indulge in the occasional 1st day purchases, but with the price and time tag on them I pick my battles carefully. Once or twice a year I indulge in "New Games Release Mania" (Elder Scrolls, Fallout, id software titles come to mind).

And you know what... if you are careful around the web, waiting a few short months to get the latest Nazi Shooter for a tenth of the price, you can still have a great time. Especially if you are mostly a single player gamer. But the one thing that I am severely missing out on is the mmo train. Usually when I run up to the platform, game box in hand, there's only a couple of lonely souls sweeping out the dust of the station. The train has left and is already level 60 when I arrive.

I can totally relate to this article Elysium. I buy more games than I can even crack open, let alone finish. I dont consciously think about it, but I have reflected from time to time that a part of that impulse to purchase is driven by wanting to participate in the 'new release' period and exchange of info/experiences. As anyone here can attest, there is definitely a community / social aspect to that hobby that has brought us all together in the first place

Honestly though, I oscillate between the guilt of the purchase and the joy of the moment. By the time I get to many of the games with a seriousness to complete them, I could've likely picked it up cheaper. I am trying to manage this, and I'll go through drier spells where I do focus on my backlog for a title or two, but inevitably the war on my wallet never changes.

Staats wrote:

A couple of years ago I decided to purchase games when I want to play them, rather than when other people are playing them. That meant removing myself from the discussion, but to be honest, I realized that even if I buy a game on Day 1 I can't keep up with the conversation. If it's not multiplayer or Mario, I'm a year or two behind the curve.

Makes the hobby really cheap though.

I'm with the hobocidal maniac, although my restraint was due more primarily to budgetary concerns. $200 and a Steam sale last Christmas gave me more games than I could possibly play in a single year...or two.

As far as missing out on the discussion goes, I still enjoy lurking and seeing what other people's reactions are. Sometimes this saves you the $60, as you discover what was much-hyped and lauded upon launch turns out to have too many rough edges (or a rotten core) to be worthwhile. I've also discovered that often times there is a second "wave" of gamers just discovering things at the same time as me, and we can have our own little discussion group: smaller and less energetic, perhaps, but sometimes the intimacy is an acceptable (or even desirable) trade-off.

Elysium wrote:

Were I Burgess Meredith in the Twilight Zone, but instead of books I was left with the worlds’ complete canon of video games, I would die long before I finished finding good games to play.

You would also have to play them on a 13" standard-def TV that has serious color-bleeding issues. Rod Serling wouldn't allow it any other way.

Great piece. For me, a lot of the appeal of the hobby is the constant newness. New design, new art, new stories, new technology - all parceled out on a regular and consistent schedule.

But, for a rather frugal Gamer with a Job/Family, the need for the new hotness is in constant tension with the desire to hold out for the price drop.

I've discovered, unfortunately, that coming into a game three or six months after the rest of the community is just, somehow, not as satisfying.

Here's the thing: First, it's as if you are plucking these thoughts from my feverish brain lately. You might want to be careful fishing around in there. Second, I know exactly what you mean, but the ironic thing is that I generally hate multiplayer games as I am an avid solo gamer. So why should I care if I am part of the "event"? I blame Twitter and sites like GWJ. I think I would spend much less money if they didn't exist...

Brilliant! Like Norseman, I feel like you took this straight out of my own mind.

What you bring up is the reason that I hate packed release schedules in October/November. There are so many games I want to be part of the discussion of, but I can't play them all without suffering from some serious gaming ADD.

Which is why I'm now playing through Assassin's Creed 2 and seriously regretting not being part of the discussion at the time of release of what I consider a masterpiece of a game. The fact that I only paid 30 dollars for it is small solace.

Same reason I'm going to see Iron Man 2 this weekend.

But I have tempered myself as I got "older" and had less time and all that. I used to get games and DVDs on Tues and head out to the theater on Fri/Sat all the time. The shared experience was all that mattered. Now budget and time make this a much rarer event.

Now I wait for $5-10 DVD sales, half-price or less video game deals, and I go to the movies on Tues night when it's "bargain night" $5 prices. There are few exceptions to the rules now, mostly involving 1-3 movies or games that are the highlight of the year to me, and/or a really good sale. For instance:

Bioshock 2 4-pack from Steam. $34 is a price that new games usually don't hit for 3 or more months after release. So it's worth it. Got a similar deal on Mass Effect 2, $45 at Amazon, with a $10 gift card.

Mario Galaxy 2 pre-order from Amazon with $20 gift card. Again, new games, 3 months... but even more, Nintendo 1st party games are on a much longer timeline it seems. Witness all the DS games still regular priced at $35 instead of eventually dropping to $20 classic status.

That's it for the spring/summer. My other recent game purchases are all delayed. Like I just got Borderlands when Steam had the 4-pack for $19. Luckily there were enough other new people here that I still got to have some co-op fun.

Iron Man 2. The only movie I will pay full price for this summer. I will see Shrek on the first Tuesday available, but still on Tuesday, not the weekend. And then the next big movie I give a crap about is Harry Potter in Nov. Nothing else will be a full price viewing this year.

Community like this helps a lot with the shared experience. I recently picked up X3:Terran Conflict, which is nearly 18 months old at this point, although it did just get patched last week. Yet the thread here is highly active, a few of the older players are reinstalling, and I'm still having a great experience as if I had played it over a year ago. So yay GWJ.

I definitely see the appeal in being part of an event, but in all honesty I go for the new games because I want that next great "high." I crave that feeling you get when you put in a game and realize that it is going to own you for the foreseeable future and become one of those select titles that you look back on with fanboy lust for the rest of your life and say it was, "the best game ever!" It happens to me every year or two and it keeps me buying new games, because I can never really predict which game it will be and I don't want to miss out on that one particular game that will make me fall in love with it. If I had a sure fire way to make that distinction, I would be a richer man, but I don't, so the pile inevitably grows. I see myself sort of as a junky in search of that next great high and there is just enough really good dope out there to keep me buying, even when most of the product that hits the street doesn't really do much for me.