Putting the PC cost argument to rest

[VanceIX]

sales2099 said:

VanceIX said:

sales2099 said:
The Steam bundles are actualyl counter productive. You think you "save" money because you get so much content but you actually spend a lot of money when it's all said and done. And its proven that most titles aren't even played, much less played to completion. Sometimes I think Steam sales main benefit to gamers is their joy of bragging about their haul rather then actually enjoying them.

Except getting 30 games that are worth maybe $600 for $100 is an amazing deal, regardless or whether you only play a fraction.

Edit: And judging from your profile pic, you probably love the idea of the Master Chief collection, which is a bundle itself. Humble Bundles are essentially the same thing, but even cheaper. Like right now you can get all the Bioshock games for $20.

But in reality you spent $100 for 30 games for which you will be lucky to play 3 ;P. And pricing of video games is extremely arbitrary, since they are among the most depreciating consumer goods on the planet.

Youll brag about it online, which very likely brings more joy, self-satisfaction, and overcomes any thoughts of buyers remorse.

Well, way to judge every single PC gamer with one sweep. 

Do you not "brag" about the next Halo, or the graphics of a game, or what not? PC gamers are no worse than console gamers, but everyone seems to put us down anyway, for absolutely no reason. 

And speak for yourself when you say I'll only play 10% of the games. Most people I know only buy bundles that they are interested in (and there are new ones every week), and they usually play 3-4 games from the bundle, which is closer to 50%.

If you buy the Masterchief collection, you'll probably play Halo 2 over all the other games for the most part, or at least most fans will. Does that mean that you overpayed just to get one game?