Getting your money's worth

[99-percent-sure]

What's your benchmark for determining whether you've gotten your money's worth out of a video game? Does it depend on the title and on your expectations for the title? Can you reduce it to hours played versus money spent? And how closely is that related to saying whether a game is "objectively" worth the price or not?

I'm asking because the prevailing narrative seems to be that Civ VII was nowhere close to being worth the asking price, and yet, some of us are playing the game a lot. Is it possible we're getting our money's worth even if we feel like there are flaws or bugs in the game? What constitutes a game not being worth the asking price? Is it purely subjective, or are there some objective criteria that we should be thinking about in order to avoid being taken advantage of?

 

[Kwami]

I've played for almost 250 hours so far. That certainly feels like good value for my money.

I sure do hope that they fix the bugs, improve the interface, and spruce up the DLCs a bit (Britain's unique ship is still totally wrong), but it's hard to say that I didn't get my money's worth. Despite its flaws, the game is still a lot of fun.

 

[Siptah]

With over 100 hours of mostly great fun, I got my money’s worth of civ VII founder’s edition.

But these things are hard to assess. It‘s not just play time and price. There are short games for which I payed a lot when they released, but they formed treasured memories. The first three Monkey Islands for example. In retrospect, even if paying triple I would have gotten my money‘s worth. Then there are others with which I spent many hours but it never felt completely right, e.g., Cities Skylines for me, and in the end I‘m disappointed and don‘t feel satisfied with my purchase.

 

[99-percent-sure]

I've played for almost 250 hours so far. That certainly feels like good value for my money.

That's more where I'm coming from as well. Despite my complaints about bugs and the bug reporting system, and wishing there was an option where we could play straight through a la earlier Civ games, I feel like it would be beyond disingenuous for me to say I didn't get my money's worth because I've been able to slide into Civ VII and play it several hours almost every day, and I'm over 380 hours now and still going pretty strong. I think this comes out to about 23 cents an hour, since I paid $88 for the game (Deluxe Edition). By most quantitative metrics, that's really good value.

But I do understand Siptah's point too. The quality of the experience matters, and if you look back on playing the game and don't feel satisfied, it seems to reduce what you got out of it. Which suggests that it's not just about being entertained or engaged for X number of hours, it's about positive memories and feeling something you're looking for from the playing of the game. But that might not be the same thing for each of us.

 

[CliffCo]

Mine is just based on play time, the amount I play corresponds to how much I enjoy the game. I feel that any game I spend over 200hrs playing is worth the cost. I spent $120 on Civ7 and already have close to 250 hrs in it, and I’m sure I’ll end up purchasing future DLC like I did with Civ6. Not sure how much I spent on Civ6 over 4 yrs with all the DLC, but I have 4,000 hrs in it. I only buy AAA titles and there’s only been 2 games I’ve regretted purchasing and got a refund, one was Humankind, the other the latest assassins creed game.

 

[CliffCo]

With over 100 hours of mostly great fun, I got my money’s worth of civ VII founder’s edition.

But these things are hard to assess. It‘s not just play time and price. There are short games for which I payed a lot when they released, but they formed treasured memories. The first three Monkey Islands for example. In retrospect, even if paying triple I would have gotten my money‘s worth. Then there are others with which I spent many hours but it never felt completely right, e.g., Cities Skylines for me, and in the end I‘m disappointed and don‘t feel satisfied with my purchase.

I loved the Monkey Island series and still have fond memories of playing them on my Amiga years ago, i loved graphic adventure games back then and played most of them, some of my favorite games now are open world games like RDR2, Horizon series, Witcher 2, and some of the Assassins Creed games. I tried getting into Skylines but it wasn't really for me and i played it for less than a 100hrs.

 

[Kwami]

But I do understand Siptah's point too. The quality of the experience matters, and if you look back on playing the game and don't feel satisfied, it seems to reduce what you got out of it. Which suggests that it's not just about being entertained or engaged for X number of hours, it's about positive memories and feeling something you're looking for from the playing of the game. But that might not be the same thing for each of us.

I don't think that I'd spend 250 hours playing a game that I don't enjoy, though. If the game isn't entertaining and engaging, then I'm not likely to keep playing it.

 

[Siptah]

I don't think that I'd spend 250 hours playing a game that I don't enjoy, though. If the game isn't entertaining and engaging, then I'm not likely to keep playing it.

No, not 250h hours in my case with Skylines. But 50 in the end, which is still a lot for me. I tried it again and again with different patches, always hoping that I would enjoy it (I loved SimCity 2000 and still dig many city builders).

 

[Yzman]

What's your benchmark for determining whether you've gotten your money's worth out of a video game? Does it depend on the title and on your expectations for the title? Can you reduce it to hours played versus money spent? And how closely is that related to saying whether a game is "objectively" worth the price or not?

I'm asking because the prevailing narrative seems to be that Civ VII was nowhere close to being worth the asking price, and yet, some of us are playing the game a lot. Is it possible we're getting our money's worth even if we feel like there are flaws or bugs in the game? What constitutes a game not being worth the asking price? Is it purely subjective, or are there some objective criteria that we should be thinking about in order to avoid being taken advantage of?

I don't see how it hasn't been worth the cost to me...even if I never played again from right now I have 323 hours logged. So maybe $3/hr for entertainment?

Good value to me. But in actuality I will play a lot more. There are many games I pay $60 for and get 30 hours out of tops.

 

[99-percent-sure]

right now I have 323 hours logged. So maybe $3/hr for entertainment?

Jeez, I hope not. 323 hours at $3 per hour would mean you paid almost $1000 for the game! If you bought the Founders Edition for $125 or so, that's more like 35-40 cents an hour.

I think the most I've played a game that I'm iffy on is around 60 hours (Graveyard Keeper, a game I got for $10 which is sort of enjoyable and has good music, but far too scripted to ultimately keep being fun, so I wound up quitting and haven't gone back to it). If I surpass 100 hours on a game, I must be having a good time or I wouldn't keep going. And if I'm approaching 400 hours? Obviously I've gotten my money's worth, even if it's not perfect.

 

[Yzman]

Jeez, I hope not. 323 hours at $3 per hour would mean you paid almost $1000 for the game! If you bought the Founders Edition for $125 or so, that's more like 35-40 cents an hour.

I think the most I've played a game that I'm iffy on is around 60 hours (Graveyard Keeper, a game I got for $10 which is sort of enjoyable, but far too scripted to actually seem like fun, so I wound up quitting and haven't gone back to it). If I surpass 100 hours on a game, I must be having a good time or I wouldn't keep going. And if I'm approaching 400 hours? Obviously I've gotten my money's worth, even if it's not perfect.

Sorry ignore my terrible math there...I am working at the same time and focused on something else. It seemed wrong to me but I didn't bother going back to correct yet.

I enjoyed Graveyard Keeper. I was gifted it and it last me I think 30 hours or something like that, would have to check.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

My Value Criteria is almost always based on how much interesting/enjoyable time I can spend on something compared to what I paid for it (either in money or Effort).

In that respect, as infuriating as many of the mistakes in it are, Civ VII at $120 for (so far) 400 hours of playing time has been a Good Value for me. . .

 

[madeirabhoy]

Mine is just based on play time, the amount I play corresponds to how much I enjoy the game. I feel that any game I spend over 200hrs playing is worth the cost. I spent $120 on Civ7 and already have close to 250 hrs in it, and I’m sure I’ll end up purchasing future DLC like I did with Civ6. Not sure how much I spent on Civ6 over 4 yrs with all the DLC, but I have 4,000 hrs in it. I only buy AAA titles and there’s only been 2 games I’ve regretted purchasing and got a refund, one was Humankind, the other the latest assassins creed game.

I can only play AAA games which I manage to be really grabbed by. the only game I can think of that I finished without thinking it was great was Alans Wake, which I loved the story but the game hadn't aged well.

All CIv games, like Football Manager, will always get honest worth. im actually enjoying the latest assassins creed shadows, but when I finish it the first time then I wont open it again whereas ill be playing Civ Vii years from now. Even when I was going off playing Civ Vi on my Mac, I was playing it on my iPad on flights.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I absolutely use the Cost/Hour metric.

 

[Civinator]

Sorry, but I find this thread somewhat silly. I played zero hours and found it the money worth would also be a fitting answer.

 

[CliffCo]

I can only play AAA games which I manage to be really grabbed by. the only game I can think of that I finished without thinking it was great was Alans Wake, which I loved the story but the game hadn't aged well.

All CIv games, like Football Manager, will always get honest worth. im actually enjoying the latest assassins creed shadows, but when I finish it the first time then I wont open it again whereas ill be playing Civ Vii years from now. Even when I was going off playing Civ Vi on my Mac, I was playing it on my iPad on flights.

The last football manager I purchased was 2020, I had been considering purchasing 2025 but then it got cancelled, I may purchase 2026 depending on what changes they make and the reviews, although I’m not great at the game, probably partially due to the fact that I always prefer managing lower league clubs in the southern division it was still fun. I purchased shadows but got a refund, I prefer the large open world AC games like Odyssey and Valhalla, plus I felt like the female assassin wasn’t strong enough and should of been given a bow.

 

[99-percent-sure]

Sorry, but I find this thread somewhat silly.

Thanks for making sure I know that.

 

[Yzman]

Sorry, but I find this thread somewhat silly. I played zero hours and found it the money worth would also be a fitting answer.

I find your post somewhat silly as I am not sure what you are trying to say.

That you didn't buy the game? That you bought it but never played and still found it worth the money?

 

[JNR13]

Cost/Time is a ridiculously good ratio for gaming in general, really, so cost stops being a factor for me. Whether it's worth spending my gaming time with Civ VII instead of another game is the more relevant question for me. And I guess it is because I'm still playing it most of the time I play a game right now.

 

[Zaarin]

There are short games for which I payed a lot when they released, but they formed treasured memories. The first three Monkey Islands for example.

But Guybrush said to never spend more than $20 on a video game! (Yes, the first three Monkey Island games are treasures.)