People here have mentioned how the gaming world would have to stop for a year to let them catch up, so I did some maths to see how many years it would take me to catch up. Here's what I came up with. I used 3.3 years total time for steam logging hours, and this is my stats for steam games played. First I need total time needed to finish playing through my catalog: (Total.Hours/Precentage.Played)-Total.Hours Next how many hours per year I play (according to steam): Total.Hours/3.3years Finally take: Total.Time.Needed/Hours.Per.Year Gives me years needed for 100% played at the rate I play my games now, which comes out to 16 years If only I didn't take the time to explain this I would have had a jump start on it.
It'd take me months to play even one game. If real life didn't get in the way, I'd play more.But real life is important.
83.2% never played? Look like my steam library Accursed xmas/summer sales. It would probably be a good year for me to catch up probably but the problem is I keep dipping back into even older things just to keep the completion going (yes, full on completionist here). There isn't actually all that many modern-ish games I consider to have fully completed and that is a factor, how some people see a game as complete isn't as complete as others.
Not sure how that works. According to the website I have 224 games. According to my Steam profile I have 380. That's a big difference! EDIT: 224 is definitely correct, no idea how Steam is saying 380! So by that logic, I have 61.6% unplayed.
Lol Well at least, doesn't this say something about the price of games these days? It seems like a lot of people have more games than they can even play, which suggests to me that there must be some pretty good deals on games nowdays! All these steam sales and whatnot, they are a great thing. Personally my biggest problem is that I lose the motivation to actually play my games. I take medication and I think that has an affect on my concentration or something. But once I finally get absorbed by a game it's a great thing. I now try to force myself to complete a game before I move on. I did that with Arkham City and I'm glad I did because I loved it, and now I'm playing some other games and I'm forcing myself to not buy any more until I'm done with these.
Perhaps I'm just strange, but are there so few around here who play multiplayer games? I could never calculate the time to complete all my games because the number of multiplayer games in my list would mess up the system, at least using this relatively simple way of estimating. Killing Floor, TF2, Dota 2, CS:S... just those games add several hundred hours of playtime and are never really completed. And then other games with both single and multiplayer track total play time, even if only a small fraction is from singleplayer. If you were to add an additional metric tracking how often games are purchased it'd actually be quite possible that I'll never finish all of my games because they're purchased faster than they're played.
Yeah, my most played game is TF2 easily, and obviously completing that isn't really possible, unless you consider getting all achievements as completing or something. But saying that, I'm not someone who even completes single player games, through a mixture of not being able to, and not always playing the campaign (any strategy game for example)
I understand people being busy SO STOP BUYING GAMES if you don't have time to play them. I buy a game finish it and then buy another one, people have too much money not enough time and very little sense.
Me neither. Even after a third attempt to play Crysis through, I haven't passed the half way mark yet. The only game I've completed is Borderlands (not the DLCs), but I did that at a time when I was unwell/housebound and was able to play for several hours every day.
To be fair, there's more to it than just buying every game that goes on sale. With Steam in particular there are a great number of game packs, when they're on sale with ridiculous discounts people often find themselves buying a pack of 10 games simply because the pack is cheaper than buying the two games they're interested in separately. And then there's games that just might not be that great, a fair number of my games aren't completed because I don't want to complete them, they just aren't that fun. And a small additional factor: gifted games which weren't actually bought but were accepted on the premise of "maybe I'll play it eventually". Out of my entire Steam list the only games which I bought to actually play and haven't played yet are Arkham Asylum and the STALKER games. There are others I'd like to play, but they were nifty extras covered by the above. The rest are all covered by the explanations mentioned earlier, attempted but uncompleted being a big one for me.
For most people it has nothing to do with having too much money. In fact it's almost the opposite, if they see a game they think they'd like to play at 90% off or whatever, they'll probably buy it there and then even if they won't be playing it for a bit since it's very unlikely it will ever be cheaper.
That's because Crysis is generally rather turd after the Koreans are out of it The only games I can comfortably call 100% complete are Final Fantasy 8 and 10. Literally everything that can be done is done. That took 110 hours for 8 and 150 hours for 10. Ok so Viva Pinata is 100% but only because I was forced into it by the missus)
The problem with that is that Steam has only been tracking gametime for about 3 years, a few of my games are listed as having not been played at all when I have in fact completed them. Also the like of CS:S has a LOT more hours on it than those recorded by Steam. Probably still not too far beyond 36% played anyway I suppose...
That's probably a good thing in a way... it's showing about 50 hours for CS:S. A fair estimate puts that as roughly 1/10th of my real playtime.
