[brandall10]

The article glosses over what I'd have to believe is the biggest reason - some games, in particular older AAA games, are discounted so aggressively that it seems silly to not purchase. Like 5-15% of the original retail price.

[loloquwowndueo]

It’s never silly to not buy something you’re not going to use. Particularly once you realize there will be an identical sale or discount in 6 months.

[mattmanser]

Think of it a different way, you like city builder games, but you don't want to play one right now. You can buy 3 different city builder games for $10 during a sale. And when you do fancy a city builder, pick the one that most appeals in the moment.

By purchasing a bunch of different game cheaply, yoh have the choice of what kind of story/mechanic to play when you do want to play a new game.

You're speculating on your future desires, and you might as well get a selection when it's cheap.

A game pass subscription sort of scratches the same itch, but you don't own the games. So can't replay a few years later if you aren't presently subscribed.

It's not about being stupid with your money, it's actually a cheap way to give yourself choice in the future.

[smt88]

It absolutely makes sense to buy things you may (emphasis on may) never use, especially if it never "expires". Insurance is a great example.

People are buying these games knowing they're adding to their backlog and likely won't get through the whole thing, but the price is so low that the chance they'll want to play the game someday is enough.

I'm one of these (apparently rather typical) consumers and will buy almost any modern-class AAA game if it's $5.

[loloquwowndueo]

Tell me you don’t really know how insurance works without telling me :)

You’re not “buying it and then not using it”.

[smt88]

> Tell me you don’t really know how insurance works without telling me :)

This will be interesting news to the insurance company I co-founded :) :) :)

> You’re not “buying it and then not using it”.

This boils down to semantics, but most consumers feel like they're "using" their insurance plan only when they file a claim.

Unused games in my Steam library are basically insurance against being bored.

[loloquwowndueo]

Oh so then you’re just walking around pretending you don’t know how insurance works ;)

[brandall10]

My argument is the value quotient is so insane that the primary friction to purchase is likely more down to the UX of the storefront to complete the purchase, rather than the purchase price itself.

So in that vein, it doesn't matter if there will be another identical sale. The psychological things "in the way" to complete a purchase are virtually non-existent if you had even a minor passing interest in the title the first time you see it at that fire sale price.

[soulofmischief]

I like supporting the arts. Sometimes I like the idea of a game and want the studio to keep the lights on, even if it takes me years to get around to playing it. It's about signalling what kind of games I want to see in the world.

[toast0]

Sometimes games get pulled from the marketplace. In which case you can't buy it later.

That's not super common on steam though.

[ww520]

Yes. I’ve loaded game buying whenever Epic has a free promotion.

[stogot]

5-15% is not aggressive. 50% is aggressive and that’s when i bought games on steam that i never played

[madaxe_again]

Of, not off. So 85-95% discount.