Annoyed by this comment. ..

[Larsenex]

So the game is out and from what I see the 'majority' of folks indeed like the game. Great! So I see some folks are upset and the game does not meet their expectations, hmm ok.

One thing that grinds my gears is the statement, "This game is not worth $60.00 (USD)" ..huh? really?

If you go to the movies in the United states and take a date on a Friday night you will easily spend 50 bux. But lets expand that a bit...

Most civ fanatics have played Civ V for (hundreds) of hours! If you get HALF that amount of hours in Civ VI you got your money back three fold.

I guess and (happy to accept) that one persons idea of 'value' is different then mine. I am not wealthy but I know value when I see it and this game is easily worth the asking price and then some.

I will <easiliy> sink 100s if not 1000s of hours into this new Civ!

 

[Siptah]

And you'll pay more when all that DLC/expansions come. But the $/h will still be ridiculously low.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I spent about $120 on Civ V, all said, and I put 2500 hours into it. So I paid less than a nickel per hour of entertainment.

 

[L.Pepperbottom]

Civ is one of the few games where you get your money's worth so I have no complaints. The people that are complaining will most likely still get a good 500 hours out of it. The vanilla version is always kinda rough anyways.

 

[Mort_Q]

I use the movie-test for games as well; If I get more than $10/hour I figure I'm ahead.

Of course, some people would just torrent movies, and wonder why the studios are making the ones they want anymore.

 

[Hannibal J]

Movies are a great example. But even compared to most cable bills, Civ comes out way ahead in value.

 

[Larsenex]

I suppose its a poor complaint on my part. One mans version of Value is different from the next. Still if we went on how much time you played a game vrs the cost you paid for it against another form of entertainment it 'seems' like this game and other 4x games would come out ahead.

 

[Kwami]

I'm not convinced that $/hour is the only way to measure the worth of entertainment products. A trip to Australia would probably cost me more $/hour than playing Civ VI, but does that mean that Civ VI is therefore better? Of course not! It's only objectively better in one metric, which is $/hour.

More useful, I think, is to compare this game vs. other games that offer a similar experience. If Civ VI offers a better experience than other games at the same price, or a similar experience as other games at a lower price, then great! If not, then there's room for improvement.

 

[racha]

I don't understand why it would bother you that someone else perceives the value (which is always subjective) of something as being lower than you. It's a bit like getting upset because they don't like anchovies on their pizza.

Personally, I'm hoping to beat the 3,000 hours I have in Civ 5, so the cost is more than worth it.

 

[Stilgar08]

I suppose its a poor complaint on my part. One mans version of Value is different from the next. Still if we went on how much time you played a game vrs the cost you paid for it against another form of entertainment it 'seems' like this game and other 4x games would come out ahead.

No I think you're on the right track here. It's just an unfair / unthought / angry statement worth nothing. And doesn't help either... ^^ I read the comparisons to CiV and Civ IV and to me it is just far better. Still a lot of stuff to improve (but they will). Maybe it's the internet: Complaining and whining is always easy. I just report my bugs and so far must say I'm very happy with how this turns out to be (albeit my high expectations in the first place...

 

[Ashbery76]

Good strategy games are a steal really.You pay and get 100's of hours.

 

[Lord Shadow]

I'm stricter in that I expect one hour of entertainment for every dollar I spend on videogames, and even then, Civs have never failed to greatly exceed the ratio.

 

[redwings1340]

Games are a pretty economic form of entertainment, considering how much you get out of them, all things considered.

However, only you can decide if its worth 60 dollars for you. It's worth it for me. It may not be worthwhile to someone else. I won't judge their opinion on its worth to them.

 

[greygamer]

A new Civ game always seems to bring out the worst in some folks

 

[Acken]

Wondering what other think of something you enjoy is the biggest waste of time you can ever delve into.

 

[UWHabs]

I look at it as more of a "marginal $/hr more than my other entertainment options". So, if I want to play "civ" tonight, is paying 60$ worth it for the "upgrade" from civ 4 or civ 5? So while obviously my $/hr rate is high on Beyond Earth, I "only" put in 50 hours into the game, so it's probably not "worth it" if you basically think that instead of that, I would have just been playing 5 instead.

If I "only" put in 50 hours to civ 6, then I would argue it's not worth it. But I figure that I'll easily put in a ton of hours over the next few years, including the inevitable expansions that will require the base game anyways, it's pretty much a no-brainer.

Of course, if you're someone where money is tough to come by, then it's perfectly fine to say the game may not be worth 60$. If you have to skip a meal to buy it, then don't. Maybe you skip it entirely, or if you still feel it has some value, wait a few months and grab it on sale.

 

[AriochIV]

If you don't like a game and stop playing it after 4 or 5 hours, then I agree that it's not worth $60. Or, at least, it wasn't worth $60 to you.

 

[Toulouse]

A new Civ game always seems to bring out the worst in some folks

Agreed. Don't know why the OP would be compelled to start a thread about something so minor. Kwami's got the right analysis above. Games are a value proposition compared to other games. That's it.

 

[zeroRPGmaker]

One thing that grinds my gears is the statement, "This game is not worth $60.00 (USD)" ..huh? really?

Like others have said, not everyone equates hours of time to money spent as a good ratio to judge value. In my example, the determination of value is based purely on comparison to previous version or similar games I own.

When you look at what Civ VI offers and what if fails to offer, and compare it to Civ IV (not even V), you can clearly see that what VI offers over IV is better in some areas (civics, combat mechanics) but lacks in others (diplomacy, tech, combat AI).

The value of Civ IV is $20 at retail price (no deals involved)
The value of Civ V is $30 at retail price (no deals involved)

Now after careful comparison of features and experience, I cannot in good conscience fork $60 for a game that doesn't double in value (feature wise) in comparison to V or triple in value (feature wise) in comparison to IV. Honestly, I see IV + mods giving me the same similar if not better experience as Civ VI. Under my comparison, I would value Civ VI at maybe $40. I would personally buy it at maybe $20, but $60 is way to much. I can just save my money and have a great time playing IV.

Spoiler Playing Civ IV right now :

Also, knowing that there is a butt load of DLC coming plus expansion packs, actually devalues the product for me. Why spend $60 now, when I can get the whole 100% game at the same or cheaper price in the future.

Make sense?

I don't feel this impulse to buy things just because they are "new". I still enjoy older games, and I still play Civ III and IV regularly. A newer Civ game really has to impress me, and to be honest, I was really close with this one, but after all the hype settled down, it seems like Civ VI has a little more work before it can surpass IV or V.

Spoiler Console Example :

I bought a PS3 right after the PS4 came out. At this point I got a brand new PS3 plus like 20 games and the motion controller for the price of a new PS4. Am I behind the times... yeah, but I still got my value. In my mind, it made more sense to wait until the PS3 was able to surpass my use of the PS2 and its massive library at the right price point.

 

[greygamer]

Like others have said, not everyone equates hours of time to money spent as a good ratio to judge value. In my example, the determination of value is based purely on comparison to previous version or similar games I own.

Of course different people will attribute value on what matters to them. What matters is how the creator of a product determines it. Some are happy to spend $60 on it, others will buy it when it reaches a lower price point. In my case it was <£40 ($49) but then I really like Civ V (and didn't like Civ IV). To each their own.

If I wasn't playing Civ VI then most likely I would still be playing Civ V