Here I will have to agree. Even if I think that the average mainstream game is dumbed down to oblivion compared to the average mainstream game back in the days, we're still better off today.

We have more complex and innovative games today than we can ever dream of playing to completion. Kerbal Space Program, DIRT (the new rally simulator), Crusader Kings II, Pillars of Eternity, TIS-100, Tyranny, SpaceChem, SHENZHEN I/O, Stellaris, Europa Universalis IV, Pathfinder, Dark Souls Trilogy and so on.

On the top of my head, there are more new complex games out there than I can ever dream to finish in the next 10 years. And most of them would blow any older games out of the water when it comes to sheer complexity. And to top it off, we still have access to all the good old stuff.

It's a lot like people who wish they were there in the '70s when 'real' music was the thing, and Led Zeppelin was huge. There are so many great bands out there that sound like Zeppelin or better and other awesome bands with improved sound, but people don't look for it because it's not mainstream anymore. Yet the thing they enjoy is still out there better than ever, and all the good old stuff is more easily accessible than ever.

Today, in most areas, there is more stuff out there that are bound to suit different audiences. My problem is that mainstream took a turn and I didn't, but I can still find tons of enjoyable stuff.

Don't have too many issues with the 360 controller, but I agree it being the only officially supported controller for most games nowadays is bullshit.

IMO, i don't think platform or hardware has a bearing on the content and mechanics of modern games; I think game software is marketed, and always has been, to the demographic who mostly plays games. In today's demographic, who has time to play all these games? Well. . . kids. Gas, food, rent/mortgage, utilities have doubled since the late 80s and 90s, but wages/salery increase has definitely not been proportional to inflation. Parents/grandparents, the GOG gamers, are working multiple jobs/gigs/side-jobs to raise NEW gamers.

The first job I ever had (I'm 47) was back in 1992; it was for a landscaping company. . . 8 bucks/hr (Kentucky); unemployment was around %1-2. . . why, Mickey D's was hiring part-time for $9.50-10.00/hr; I think minimum wage at that time was $5.75 (Kentucky). My folks were doing pretty well, and could afford to have only one job; I was doing all-right, and also could afford to work a single job. . . and I had time to play Quest for Glory, Ultima Underworld, Star Trek 25th Anniversary, Dune. . . etc. And my mom was playing some of these too (Laura Bow, Dagger of Amon Ra).

Okay, so, I just looked up some job postings in Lexington, Ky., and here's a listing for a Starbuck's "barista": $9.20 - 9.25/hr. . . note the nickel variation in wage. . . I guess $9.25 if you have LOTS of experience, and no job-gaps lol. Actually, that's too pathetic and tragic for a lol.

My tl;dr point is, and I apologise in advance, the demographic for whom games were made were 20s-well, hell-60s (my grandfather loved Bowling and Video Golf on the 2600 VCS. . . he was actually the first person on both sides of the family to have a game-console, and consequently, the first gamer I ever knew); and software cost the same then and it does today, actually sometimes it cost more. An Atari 5200 (yes, I actually had one of those, well, it was my mom's) cartridge in the mid-80s was between $30.00-$50.00. And yes, many people could actually afford these.

Children, bah. They were NOT allowed around the PC (which were much, much more expensive back then). We actaully would quarantine and erect a Dr. Beverly Crusher forcefield around the PC area. . . it was off-limits, VERBOTEN. And besides, most of the PC games back then exceeded the attention span of most kids back then. . . most.

So, what's most of that 80s-90s demographic playing now? Time-wasters on iOS or Android. . . Angry Birds, Lara Croft GO, The Room, or some other $1.99 Fiddly-Diddly. Our lives are cheap, our time is cheap. I'm not insinuating these are "bad" titles; they're just mediocre respective of what we would actually enjoy playing, if we had more time. And then there are some would just dawdle what litte free time they have with Facebook (zzz Words with Friends zzz). . . for whatever reason.

I, myself, am fortunate, recently, to play Morrowind, Witcher 2 & 3, Anachronox, Quest for Glory V, etc.. . . games that you can't just play "10-"30 a day. My neighbours, on the other hand, both work two jobs, and I think that is a typical life-style for former Old Gamers.

Even with just one job, it can be challenging to find the time for any sort of in-depth gaming. And when you have a little time, you might not have the energy. Even if you have a little time, you might not wanna start playing a big game because soon you won't find that time again and you get stuck in the game and returning to an old save three months later isn't very fun.

It's sad how little time there is in a day after sleep, work, and the obligatory stuff like breakfast & coffee, showering, shaving, commute back and forth (if you have one), afternoon snack or dinner or supper, groceries, cleaning & washing up, taking out the trash, yada yada. That generally leaves just a few hours per day with "nothing to do," and everything you want or need to do from shopping (non-groceries, things that take some planning and reading reviews etc.) to gaming to socializing to exercise to taking care of the property or car, non-gaming hobbies .... you get it. All that competes for those few hours and the little energy you have left to focus.

You are right, most of us probably have around 1-4 hours a day to play video games on weekdays. Still, during the two-three hours I've got each day, I'd like to play something that engages me deeply. If that means having to read through a bible of rules just so I can get to play the game with its many intricate systems, so be it. Better that than playing a modern AAA game which mostly plays itself and leaves my brain on standby and puts me to sleep.

Would building an ecosystem similar to PSN and XBLN and integrating to to your game count, specifically its downsides?

If so, say hello to every GOG user's favorite "gaming client."

As previously expressed, the save systems that don't respect your real life time.

I don't care about the cries about save-scumming, life happens, especially as you get older, and replaying a large segment because I had no choice but to put everything down and leave is usually enough for me to quit something.

The Trails series did an excellent job of not committing that. Even though at their heart they are console games, they allow saving anywhere at almost any time except for a cutscene. If they can do it, I don't see why others can't.

For me, the glory days were going to LAN parties, but that came to an end when the game Counter Strike was released. Its just the way that game worked that when you die, you have to stand around twiddling your fingers waiting for the game to finish and restart. My time was more valuable to me than that, so i stopped going to LAN parties, and that was that.

After that i got into the single player strategy games, and Alpha Centauri was the king when it was released and has remained so to this day. It amazes me that after 20 years no one has been able to make a better game than Alpha Centauri. I can only surmise that game companies do not think that type of game is something people are all that interested in anymore, and sure, they could be right about that, and this is the reason it remains number 1 to this day