Getting your money's worth

[Kwami]

I'm unconvinced by the cost/time metric. The more you play the game, the smaller the potential difference in cost per hour from original purchase price gets - 30p per hour versus 40p per hour ain't much. Seems like you could always get your money's worth so long as you play enough.

I think it's more useful to compare purchase cost versus game quality. Instead of asking myself 'did I get my money's worth?', maybe 'did the game warrant that cost?' Atm, my answer to that is no. Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed the game and sunk a lot of hours into it - but if I could've chosen how much I wanted to pay for it, I definitely would've paid less. There's other games that are higher quality for a lower price.

But why have you sunk so many hours into a game that you don't think is very good?

 

[evonannoredars]

But why have you sunk so many hours into a game that you don't think is very good?

I don't think it is very good, but I still think it is good. Plus, I still enjoy playing it, which isn't the same as what quality I consider it to be.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I bought civ VI with all DLCs and I only enjoyed probably a few hours with the Heroes expansion that i would say it was worth.
It was too easy, no AI. In the End it was a waste of (a lot of) money.
I'm not making the same mistake until I do not see some actual good AI only gameplay with spectator mod for C7.
This time around my wallet is buckled up jack straight.

 

[reddishrecue]

Even though I paid the total sum and got this game early, I was here when it came out early and I was able to play it online until its capabilities. We were on discord and everything. Now I haven't been online to check or to know. Maybe I'm online in the wrong times to tell. I feel like I got my money's worth. Carthage DLC was so fun to use.

 

[disjointaccount]

I tend to lean on cost/time when looking at smaller, more story-driven indie games I play - if I paid £10 for a game, I'd expect ~10 hours of (fun) gameplay out of it. With bigger games that have a greater emphasis on replayability, at least for how I play games, I'm not sure cost/time works so well. I have something like 1,600 in BTD6. I adore that game, but it's not worth £1,600. (also, I agree with the points made above that cost/time completely falls apart when you take gaming out of a vacuum, because entertainment generally is so costly now. Even if you only get two hours out of Civ 7, £120 for 2 hours of entertainment is cheaper than a lot of other options).

I lean towards the idea JNR13 mentioned further up in the thread: when I'm in the mood to play a game, what game do I feel like picking up, and do I have fun with that game. Civ 7 is yet to stop being my go-to right now, and I'm having just as much fun with it 300 hours in as I did at launch. So yes, I'd say I got my money's worth.

 

[sonicmyst]

Hours played. I currently have 698 hrs for Civ VII so I think I got my money's worth

 

[KayAU]

I don't think I could make up some kind of consistent standard for myself, let alone anything resembling an objective metric. With the exception of price to hours played, just about everything is subjective, but even there, there is the question about how many of those hours were enjoyable, and to what extent. For 4X games in particular, I can often find myself pushing through a lot of tedium.

To get back to the specific context of Civ 7's pricing, I considered it to be too expensive, which is a major part of why I haven't bought it yet. This is not based on my expected playtime. I have over 3.5k hours in Civ 5, 2.5 in Civ 6...while I may end up liking Civ 7 less, it still seems plausible that I would play it for a significant number of hours, thus leaving me with a low hourly cost. Instead, I based my assessment on what I consider to be the normal cost of similar products. I compared it to what I paid for Civ 6 when it was released, accounting for inflation. I compared it to Ara: History Untold. I compared it to other AAA titles. I decided that I didn't want to buy Civ 7 at this price.

That is just me though. If you're someone who bought it, played it and feel that you got your money's worth, then you did.

 

[CivKirk64]

With games, if I bounce off something never to come back, that's the only time I feel I'm not getting money's worth, that or the more rare "I spent full price finished it and wasn't impressed, wish I waited for a sale" (The last Borderlands fits this bill)

To boil it down solely to time spent doesn't work for me as my available free time isn't static. Some things are outstanding 6-12 hours, others take 80-150 to really sink into them. Then there are those, like civ that I just always come back to in fits and starts and log 500+ over the years.
What I'm trying to say is, If I fund any enjoyment at all than it was worth it, I tend not to think about how much I paid unless I didn't enjoy myself.
Also I'm Mr. Game pass now, so I'm not buying that many games these days. I bought Civ for way too much, I bought Alan Wake 2 a year late at a discount and loved it. I'm absolutely more careful about what I spend my money on these days.

Civ VII was pretty risky, but I loved most of what I saw leading up to it, and can stomach the growing pains so there was no remorse after the first few matches. I've taken my time away from it and I've come back and am still loving it and thinking about how it will grow and get better. Money well spent on my end.

 

[Kwami]

I compared it to what I paid for Civ 6 when it was released, accounting for inflation.

Civ VI was released in 2016 at the price of $59.99. According to this inflation calculator (https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/), that's $80.18 today. Civ VII sells for $69.99.

Just another data point.

 

[CivKirk64]

Civ VI was released in 2016 at the price of $59.99. According to this inflation calculator (https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/), that's $80.18 today. Civ VII sells for $69.99.

Just another data point.

I'm curious, and asking someone else to do the work.
for VI (6) Was there not a "Buy this version and get the first Year* content packs for free" out Similar to the founders edition for VII (7)? Part 2, how much was that compared to VII
I swear I don't remember buying anything extra for a while there until maybe just before the first expansion.

 

[Kwami]

I'm curious, and asking someone else to do the work.
for VI (6) Was there not a "Buy this version and get the first Year* content packs for free" out Similar to the founders edition for VII (7)? Part 2, how much was that compared to VII
I swear I don't remember buying anything extra for a while there until maybe just before the first expansion.

There was a Deluxe Edition that included the first four DLC packs and a 25th anniversary "soundtrack", which was a collection of songs from previous games. Due to problems with currency conversions and some players paying too much for the Deluxe Edition vs. buying the DLC packs separately, Firaxis added two more DLCs to the set for free.

All of those DLCs were released within one year of the original game and all of them were released before the first expansion pack. An individual civilization sold for $4.99 ($6.67 today after inflation) and a double pack sold for $8.99 ($12.02 today after inflation). The packs were:

Poland
Vikings Scenario (no new civs)
Australia
Persia & Macedon
Nubia
Khmer & Indonesia

I can't find the Deluxe Edition on Steam since they're selling better versions now, but some other sites have it listed for $79.99. After inflation, that's $106.92 today.

 

[Leucarum]

I've got my money's worth from the base game easily...

For the first DLC I'm less convinced. I only really enjoy Carthage and Ada... Nepal is ok... But it suffers from being a modern age civ. So I do feel like I paid for 3 civs and a leader which I don't really use. I suspect I will be very picky about future DLCs...

 

[KayAU]

Civ VI was released in 2016 at the price of $59.99. According to this inflation calculator (https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/), that's $80.18 today. Civ VII sells for $69.99.

Just another data point.

In Norway, where I live, it was 600 NOK for Civ 6, 829 NOK for Civ 7. If it were a similar increase to what you got in the US, to 700 NOK, I would not be complaining as much. However, while the price increase for the base game did indeed beat general inflation, the real price hike was for the DLC and higher editions.

For Civ VI, I pre-ordered the Digital Deluxe edition, which was the top edition offered. It cost 749 NOK, and included future DLC. The Digital Deluxe edition for Civ 7 costs 1199 NOK. Whether it contains significantly more content than the DD for Civ 6, you tell me, but at least it isn't obvious to me that it does. This was not the top edition of Civ 7 though, that would have been the Founder's Edition, which I can't find the price for at the moment, but I believe it was something between 1600 NOK and 1700 NOK. That's a lot. That's easily the highest asking price I have seen for any edition of a game I've considered buying. And again, it is not clear to me that what you got extra in the edition could justify the added cost. I certainly don't consider not holding the game hostage for an additional 5 days as added value.

As for the other points of comparison: For other AAA games, I simply tried to find one as expensive as Civ 7, and I couldn't. The closest I got was Avowed at 799 NOK. I didn't put that much effort into this, so perhaps there was some other expensive game I missed, but in any case, it was clear that Civ 7 was given the most premium of price points.

Finally, Ara: History Untold. I get that this is very much a challenger, and so it is natural that it would be priced somewhat lower. Some would argue that Civ 7 was a higher tier game and beyond comparison with a puny title such as this, but there's not much I can do about that. I myself would consider it a comparable game. Ara's pricing model seemed a lot fairer to me, with the base game at 600 NOK, and the very top edition at 719 NOK. That gave you some extra leaders, skins, an artbook and a soundtrack. If you didn't care about the art book and soundtrack, you could get the Deluxe edition with just the skins and leaders for 630 NOK, for the full game experience. There was no other DLC at launch, but instead a year of free content updates. Again...you may not think much of Ara, and that's fair enough. I do though, and it was one of the points of comparison for me when considering the asking price for Civ 7.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

. Ara's pricing model seemed a lot fairer to me, with the base game at 600 NOK, and the very top edition at 719 NOK. That gave you some extra leaders, skins, an artbook and a soundtrack. If you didn't care about the art book and soundtrack, you could get the Deluxe edition with just the skins and leaders for 630 NOK, for the full game experience. There was no other DLC at launch, but instead a year of free content updates. Again...you may not think much of Ara, and that's fair enough. I do though, and it was one of the points of comparison for me when considering the asking price for Civ 7.

I had the same thought when I bought Humankind. it was 49eur, and forever free updates. With just a couple extra civs pack DLC. They continue to this day to update the base game and never bought a single DLC. Old World at 39Eur probably delivered more than HK in terms of gameplay and mechanics. Both games had weekend giveaway for the Vanilla, which is a good tactics to enlarge the fanbase. It worked for me with Old World.
I expected so much more from C7 in terms of graphics, gameplay mechanics, that that higher price would have made sense if they checked all the boxes.
They missed quite a few.

EL2 has lighting, dynamic fog of war environment, striking buildings and setting them on fire...
the Gap is growing by the day...

 

[KayAU]

EL2 has lighting, dynamic fog of war environment, striking buildings and setting them on fire...
the Gap is growing by the day...

I couldn't quite get into Endless Legend, but what I have seen from EL 2 is very promising. In particular, they seem to have made tactical combat much more direct and satisfying.

It's going to be a good autumn for fantasy 4X, I think. There's a remaster of coming out which I am also very excited about.

 

[CliffCo]

I couldn't quite get into Endless Legend, but what I have seen from EL 2 is very promising. In particular, they seem to have made tactical combat much more direct and satisfying.

It's going to be a good autumn for fantasy 4X, I think. There's a remaster of coming out which I am also very excited about.

I’ll check it out once it gets released, but I’m also liking the look on Anno117.

 

[Leucarum]

The tactical combat system in amplitude games turns me completely cold. Lots of good ideas in endless legend 2 but I'm a solid no on anything by amplitude for as long as they stick to combat minigames.

 

[Kwami]

I had the same thought when I bought Humankind. it was 49eur, and forever free updates. With just a couple extra civs pack DLC. They continue to this day to update the base game and never bought a single DLC.

But Humankind has had lots of DLCs. And Firaxis also updates the base game for free. I don't see the difference, really.

It'll be interesting to see how much they keep working on Humankind now that they've separated from Sega.

The tactical combat system in amplitude games turns me completely cold. Lots of good ideas in endless legend 2 but I'm a solid no on anything by amplitude for as long as they stick to combat minigames.

And if you think Civilization AI is bad, then just wait until you try Amplitude's AI! The AI in Endless Legend couldn't even complete quests. It couldn't play large parts of the game. There's a big community expansion that makes the AI somewhat competent, though.

 

[Zaarin]

The tactical combat system in amplitude games turns me completely cold. Lots of good ideas in endless legend 2 but I'm a solid no on anything by amplitude for as long as they stick to combat minigames.

One of the many big turnoffs in HK was that autoresolve is strongly biased against the player, frequently losing battles that otherwise look like the player should win (at least on the patch cycle I last played). This appears to have been fixed in EL2, from what I've seen. (I bounced off EL and HK, but ES2 is to this day one of my favorite 4X games. EL2 looks more like ES2 than EL from what I've seen so far, though I'm still impatiently waiting for ES3 in a few years.)

 

[KayAU]

The tactical combat system in amplitude games turns me completely cold. Lots of good ideas in endless legend 2 but I'm a solid no on anything by amplitude for as long as they stick to combat minigames.

I see where you are coming from. I tend to like tactical combat, but not the way it was done in EL1. Humankind did it better, but it was still not quite up to the level where I would have wanted it. Fallen Enchantress: Legendary Heroes though, is fantasy themed civ-like which has a really good tactical combat system in my opinion:

Spoiler :

A tactical combat system can elevate a 4X significantly when done well. Another example I like to bring up, of a much simpler combat system from a much older game, is this one:

Spoiler :

This is Conquest of the New World, by Interplay. It's similar to Colonization, and a pretty darn good game, which did many things differently. The combat system let you group a limited number of units together under a leader, and battles took place on a 3x4 grid. There were bonuses for flanking and combined arms, and leaders had stats adding to complexity.

I have my fingers crossed that the tactical combat system in EL 2 will be one of the good ones.