Managing a backlog of infinitely replayable games

[CaptainKoloth]

OK, this is yet another "managing the backlog" question! 

I play everything but this question is highly specific to groggy games. A lot of these have the admirable feature of being both highly replayable and jam-packed with content. I suspect there's not a person alive who's played and finished every scenario in a single Grigsby game, for instance. Then throw mods and user-made content into the mix.

This results in admittedly a wonderful problem to have, which is that you can probably play just one of these games exclusively for a year or two and still have content left to explore. However, as I get older and become a dad and such, well, as depressing a thought as it is, I calculate the number of games in my backlog, divide it by my remaining statistical life expectancy, and... yeah, I can't spend two years per game. 🤣

So I suppose my question reduces to this:

For those who enjoy games that
a) are highly replayable and have tons of content, so that you can't really "finish" or "beat" them
And
B) can realistically have fun with them indefinitely
But
C) do want to still explore the universe of other games out there

How do you handle this and decide when to stop/come back to a game? I ask because most threads on this topic on the interwebs tubes inherently assume that games are "finishable" or that you switch "when you stop having fun", but for the games we talk about here, it isn't a good model.

[JasonPratt]

Step 0: stop buying new games. 

I haven't been able to fully accomplish step 0 yet, so I'll defer to someone else for experience in the next steps.

[Gusington]

^Does not compute.

[Tamas]

Not much of an answer I guess, but you should just embrace the backlog. I at least have simply come to terms with the fact that I am a "taster" not a "completionist". I enjoy discovering new game systems and/or new historical topics through games. Once that sense of discovery is gone I can't help but move on to something new and shiny.

I am not sure it's a very positive trait, but it's who I am, at least in gaming. 

[Sir Slash]

I generally play a game until either I beat it consistently, it beats me consistently, or I can't win at all even when cheating. Then I move on. 

[Vox]

For me a campaign, if it's not too big (e.g. WITP )gives a nice beginning and end point.  When I start one I try to see it through to the end.  When playing combat sims I usually play the one life rule  so those campaigns are often quite short.  

[W8taminute]

For me, there are a handful of games that have the right formula that keep me coming back for more decades after their initial release. 

Today's games for all their glitz and glory have nothing when it comes to compelling and addicting game play.  The closest new game I have found to date that has the potential to be on my hard drive for decades to come is Hex of Steel.  It has many of those "Je nais ce quois" elements that I find so endearing. 

[Phantom]

I'm in the same boat, but as I'm nearing retirement I'm hoping this "problem" will stop me becoming bored.
Indeed, I may still run out of time 

[Sir Slash]

No worries Phantom. After retirement the games are more exciting, it's the people who get more boring.

[CaptainKoloth]

I'm not retired yet and the people are already boring.

[Windigo]

I'm not retired yet and the people are already boring.

that's just the first sign of 'it's time to go'

[Gusington]

What's the last sign?

[MC]

Yawn!!  Time for a nap.

[Windigo]

What's the last sign?

I'll let you know when I trip over it on my way out the door.

[Gusington]