I sympathize with many of these issues. I have two young kids and a very busy job, so have very little gaming time. I'm generally lucky if I can get through 4-5 games per year at the moment. Given my very scarce free time, I have definitely been veering away from very long 60+ hour RPGs in recent years and tending more towards shorter 15-20 hour games that I might actually have some chance of finishing.

I think the key is to prioritize, play what you feel like in the moment, and don't put yourself under any pressure to 'get through X number of games'. But then, I find the issue there is that I tend to start a lot of games and never finish them. So, what I have been doing lately is that I have 5-6 different genre categories and I allow myself to have one game active in each category at a time. That way, if I start playing an RPG and get bored of it, I can switch to a strategy instead. Then, after a few weeks, if I feel like playing an RPG again, I'll come back to the same RPG I was playing before. That way, I have a good amount of options and variety, but I also manage to finish the odd game occasionally :-)

Objectively yes. But let's not pretend we don't know what he means.

When I saw Final Fight and ActRaiser on the Super Famicom I remember thinking to myself that I could not imagine how games could look much better than that. The same happened with Tekken and Final Fantasy 7 on the PSX.

When they were new, they were more impressive than almost anything I see today even though objectively they are not. So sometimes you do kind of have to be there on release to appreciate the spectacle of something new.

I appreciate the fact that I have a backlog. Years ago I was looking everywhere for games to play. Then I discovered GOG and steam and my gaming world exploded. My games tend to be shorter as they are mostly point and click games so I don't have any that I spend weeks playing. I just look at my list and choose whatever I feel like playing that day.

The bugs are a first counter to your counter, but another one is that playing a game near its release may well mean playing it on much lower settings, more choppily and so on because your hardware isn't up to play it at its best, while many years down the road it may be trivial. And playing an old game in more modern times may also mean taking advantage of things like macros and mice with many buttons, which may mitigate interface or even gameplay problems that would have been bigger issues with the basic devices of its time.

Yes, I see the point regarding visual impact and you are right. However, that particular boat sailed on those 90s games long ago. Graphical technology has been evolving far more slowly over the past 10 years than it was during the 90s. So, for games that are being released today (e.g. BG3), I doubt there would be very much lost in the way of visual impact, if someone waited 5 years (even 10) to play it, rather than playing it right now.

So, I can't see much urgency there, with regards to today's releases.

In another 10-20 years, will those 90s classics be regarded as even more dated, or even 'unplayable'? Maybe, in some cases. Although, I'd argue the Super NES was close to the pinnacle of 2D pixel art - imo, games like Super Metroid and Link to the Past still look great (compared to today's 2D indie games). I think the reason some of the 90s 3D games have aged less well is because they were right at the forefront of very early 3D graphics.

So ... maybe prioritize those mid-late 90s 3D classics and put off playing the newer releases? ;-)

Problem gets bigger every day.
Instead of focusing on new games or games I haven't finished yet, I playi old stuff again that I finished ages ago.

Currently it's an exception, I'm playing the Horizon Forbidden West expansion. But apart from that it's the usual stuff.

Perhaps then I can rephrase by saying "There is a point after which playing a game gives less enjoyment than it could have earlier".

My problem with my backlog is that a lot of my favorite games are open-ended or high-replay games like builders or 4x games that take tons of time. It interferes with enjoying narrative games when I want to.

But so long as one's enjoying oneself!

Make a list of some choices you're OK with. Roll randomly. If you're not happy with it, clearly remove it from the list of choices and roll again. If you make it through the list, spend some time with other hobbies or something to increase your baseline contentedness.

EDIT: https://wheelofnames.com/

Here in France, it is illegal to circumvent DRM schemes. So buying a Steam game then crack it has the same legal value than downloading a pirate copy in the first place.

Anyway, Steam games can not be downloaded without complying to a DRM in the first place.

The relevant XKCD: Steal This Comic.

And that's true of a company that no longer exists? Because that's the scenario.

You should double-check the post I was answering to, that was not about defunct companies at all ;)

But yes, here even if the company is dead you are still not allowed to work around the DRM they might have used.

You are correct, I was confused about what you were responding to. I don't know French Law, but it sounds a bit nonsensical in the case when the company is no longer in existence.

But there are DRM free games on Steam. Falcom games published by XSEED for example. The developer has said there is no DRM.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/436670/discussions/0/1471967615841048759/

What the devs probably mean here is that they added no extra DRM layer. But the Steam version of the game can not be DRM-free, because it relies on a DRMed distribution method: you can not download/install a Steam game without using some mandatory software provided by Valve.

This is what I mean when I say that there can be no such thing as a DRM-free Steam game (that works for other companies with mandatory clients too).

As a practical matter, no one cares so long as you can back it up & don't need steam to play it.