What’s the problem when you own 700 games on Steam, received 500 free games from Epic, subscribe to three different services providing instant access to hundreds more, and still complain that gaming is shit?
You don’t have a problem. You have embarrassment of riches that previous gaming generations would have considered impossible fantasy. The “backlog” of unplayed games represents luxury problem where too much choice creates decision paralysis rather than scarcity forcing compromise. The complaints about industry practices occur within context of unprecedented abundance where spending £15 provides month-long access to more games than you could reasonably play. This doesn’t invalidate legitimate criticism of predatory monetisation or corporate consolidation. However, it does require acknowledging that gaming problems are problems of excess occurring within landscape of abundance rather than scarcity limiting access to entertainment.
The Abundance That Feels Normal
Owning hundreds of unplayed games normalised so gradually that its absurdity gets overlooked. Steam sales condition purchasing behaviour where buying game at 75% discount feels mandatory even when you won’t play it immediately. The mental accounting treats each purchase as isolated good deal rather than contribution to library of unplayed games that grows faster than you can complete them. The accumulation happens passively through years of sales, bundles, and free promotions until library size becomes abstraction rather than collection of specific games you chose to purchase.
Epic Games’ weekly free game programme also contributes to abundance by adding 50+ games annually without spending anything. The free games aren’t always quality titles but the volume means several worthwhile games appear amongst promotional fodder. The zero-cost accumulation makes Epic library grow without conscious purchasing decisions, creating situations where you own games you didn’t choose and might never have purchased. The passive accumulation differs fundamentally from previous eras where every game represented deliberate financial commitment.
The subscription services also provide access to hundreds of games through single monthly payment. EA Plus, Game Pass, PlayStation Plus all offer libraries exceeding what most players will reasonably engage with during subscription period. The access models transform gaming from purchasing discrete products to having unlimited buffet where choice becomes burden rather than benefit. The psychological shift from “which game should I buy” to “which of hundreds should I play” represents fundamental change in how gaming consumption works.
What Previous Generations Had
Twenty years ago, gaming meant saving for specific titles and hoping they were good because returns were difficult and next purchase required waiting until saving enough money. The scarcity created situations where you played whatever you owned thoroughly because alternatives required financial investment you couldn’t make frequently. The limited options meant fully engaging with purchases rather than sampling games briefly before moving to next title in endless queue.
The PlayStation 2 era provided no free games, no sales beyond occasional retailer clearances, and no subscription services providing instant access to back catalogues. You purchased games at full price and played them because they represented significant investment. The games you owned were games you deliberately chose after consideration rather than accumulating passively through sales and promotions. The intentionality created different relationship with purchases where each game mattered rather than becoming item in endless backlog.
The inability to refund or preview games also meant purchases carried risk that current guarantees eliminate. You researched games through magazine reviews, rented them to evaluate quality, or took chances based on box art and back-of-box descriptions. The risk made purchasing significant event rather than casual transaction during sales. The stakes created investment in purchases that abundance has eliminated by making individual games disposable rather than valuable.
The Choice Paralysis
Excessive choice creates paralysis where deciding what to play becomes more difficult than actually playing. The backlog of 700 games means evaluating hundreds of options before committing to specific title. The evaluation process is exhausting enough that many gaming sessions end before starting because choosing felt overwhelming. The abundance that should provide freedom instead creates burden where too many options prevent enjoying any of them.
The fear of missing out also affects choice because starting long game means potentially missing limited-time events, sales, or new releases whilst committed to current title. The constant influx of new content creates pressure to stay current rather than engaging deeply with existing library. The result is sampling pattern where games get played briefly before abandoning for next shiny thing rather than completing experiences you already own.
The sunk cost of unplayed purchases also creates guilt around library management. The 700 unplayed games represent money spent on entertainment you haven’t consumed. The guilt about waste encourages purchasing fewer new games whilst simultaneously making existing backlog feel like obligation rather than entertainment option. The psychological burden transforms hobby into source of stress rather than relaxation.
The First World Framing
Complaining about too many games whilst owning hundreds is definitional first world problem. The complaint assumes baseline of abundance where access to entertainment is trivial rather than precious. Previous generations would have considered current gaming landscape impossible luxury where purchasing power provides access to entertainment exceeding what you can possibly consume. The shift from scarcity to abundance happened gradually enough that its revolutionary nature gets overlooked through familiarity.
The framing doesn’t invalidate all gaming criticism. Predatory monetisation exploiting vulnerable populations is legitimate problem regardless of overall abundance. Corporate consolidation eliminating independent studios harms industry creativity regardless of how many games exist. The first world problem framing applies specifically to complaints about backlog size, choice paralysis, and feeling overwhelmed by options. These are luxury problems occurring within abundance rather than genuine hardships requiring solutions.
The acknowledgement of privilege also creates perspective enabling better criticism. Recognising that you have it easy allows separating real problems from complaints about abundance. The predatory monetisation targeting children through loot boxes is real problem worth criticism. Feeling stressed about 700 unplayed games is silly complaint about having too much rather than too little. The distinction enables focusing criticism on practices that actually harm people rather than on abundance creating decision paralysis.
What This Abundance Enables
The massive libraries also enable experimentation and discovery impossible when every purchase required financial commitment. You can try genres, mechanics, or styles you’d never purchase at full price because you acquired them through sales or free promotions. The low-stakes experimentation discovers games you’d never have experienced otherwise, broadening gaming experiences beyond safe choices you’d make with limited budget.
The abundance also means genre preferences can shift without requiring new purchases. A player primarily interested in shooters who develops interest in strategy games probably already owns strategy titles acquired through bundles or sales. The existing library accommodates interest changes without requiring building new collection from scratch. The flexibility enables exploring gaming broadly rather than committing to specific genres through purchasing decisions.
The backlog also functions as insurance against gaming droughts where new releases don’t appeal. Rather than facing periods with nothing to play, you can explore backlog until new releases become interesting. The buffering effect of large libraries smooths gaming experience by ensuring options always exist regardless of current release schedules. The security of knowing you always have something to play eliminates anxiety about whether upcoming releases will appeal.
The Subscription Question
Maintaining multiple subscriptions whilst owning 700 unplayed games demonstrates the abundance absurdity. The subscriptions provide access to hundreds more games beyond owned library. The justification for subscriptions is accessing specific titles or trying games before purchasing. However, the reality is that subscription libraries overlap with owned games whilst adding options that contribute to choice paralysis rather than solving it.
The subscriptions also represent ongoing costs that accumulate to substantial sums annually. Three £15 monthly subscriptions cost £540 annually whilst providing access to games you might not play because existing library already overwhelms available gaming time. The financial commitment to subscriptions conflicts with complaints about gaming costs when subscriptions are discretionary rather than necessary. The spending pattern reveals that abundance isn’t satisfying because adding more options through subscriptions doesn’t reduce backlog or increase satisfaction.
The subscription accumulation also demonstrates that problem isn’t lack of access but rather inability to commit to existing options. Adding subscription libraries to 700-game Steam library doesn’t solve choice paralysis. It worsens it by adding hundreds more options requiring evaluation. The pattern suggests that gaming satisfaction isn’t function of library size but rather relationship with gaming where abundance prevents engagement rather than enabling it.
What Gets Lost
The abundance also eliminates certain gaming experiences that scarcity enabled. The deep engagement with single title because it was only option you owned created mastery and appreciation impossible when dozens of alternatives beckon. The commitment to completing games despite frustration or difficulty came partly from lacking alternatives. Current abundance enables abandoning challenging games immediately rather than persisting through difficulty that might lead to satisfaction.
The intentionality of purchases also created different relationship with games where each title represented conscious choice rather than passive accumulation. The games you saved for and deliberately purchased mattered more than games acquired thoughtlessly during sales. The emotional investment in purchases affected engagement because games represented significant resource allocation rather than trivial addition to endless collection.
The social aspects also changed because scarcity meant friend groups often owned same limited selection of games. The shared experiences created common reference points and discussions. Current abundance fragments gaming experiences because everyone owns different games from their massive libraries. The fragmentation reduces shared cultural moments that scarcity paradoxically enabled through limiting options.
The Perspective Check
Step back and recognise the absurdity. You’re complaining about gaming whilst owning more games than you could reasonably complete in lifetime. The complaint isn’t about access. It’s about abundance creating decision paralysis and guilt about waste. The problems are real but they’re luxury problems occurring within unprecedented access to entertainment. Previous generations would trade their problems for yours without hesitation because having too much to play beats having too little.
The perspective doesn’t mean accepting all industry practices without criticism. The predatory monetisation, corporate consolidation, and exploitative early access deserve criticism regardless of overall abundance. However, the perspective does mean acknowledging that complaints about backlog size and choice paralysis are silly problems reflecting privilege rather than hardship. The acknowledgement enables better criticism by separating real issues from first world complaints about having it too good.
Are 700 unplayed Steam games and complaints about choice paralysis legitimate problems deserving sympathy, or embarrassing demonstrations of first world privilege that require acknowledging we’ve got it easy?
