Getting your money's worth

[CliffCo]

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

They were the only 3 I played in the series, I moved on to various PC games after those. They were amazing back in their day though.

 

[Siptah]

They were the only 3 I played in the series, I moved on to various PC games after those. They were amazing back in their day though.

4 is clunky as hell, and less good, but aside from controls and graphics not utter trash.

5 (called „Tales“) is good fun as well, but no peak experience.

6 (forgot the name, a recent game by the original creator) is fun, but maybe mostly for nostalgia. It seemed very easy to me though.

 

[Civinator]

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?

Your questions are showing, that my post was good enough to give you at least a hint about the problem I have with this thread. The title of the thread "Getting your money's worth" even includes the big group of civers who are not convinced to buy Civ 7 yet, but have to post here with "yes" (or not to post at all), as even in the worst case they got their money´s worth: No money for no fun with the game by playing it no minutes.

Therefore this thread in my eyes is suited to create a solid front of "yes-sayers" to the current Civ 7, pretending a situation of Civ 7 that is not fitting with the reality when looking at the rapidly decreasing number of Civ 7 players in the (in my eyes much more relevant) thread about player numbers of Civ 7.

I could also have used the words "very clever" instead of "silly" for this thread - if you are liking this more - as the thread pretends a situation of Civ 7 by including all civers who have not bought Civ 7 yet as "yes-sayers", that is in contradiction to the real situation of Civ 7 in numbers. Please also take into account, that with all the posts of civers in this thread, who posted, that they have played hundreds of hours with Civ 7, the situation of Civ 7 in general is not improving. It only shows the players whose playing hours impeded that the declining situation of Civ 7 in numbers was not getting even more worse, as their playing hours of course are part of the rapidly decreasing general playing hours in the Civ 7 statistics.

And now I want to answer your personal question:

Yes, I was getting my money´s worth by the current Civ 7. Until now I invested no money in Civ 7 because I am not convinced in it and received the worth for it.

 

[Siptah]

So, maybe a mod should change the thread's title to "Civ VII players: Getting your money's worth?" to avoid that some people have to elaborate conspiracy theories or absurd theses.

I wonder whether @Civinator also got their time's worth of civ 7?

 

[bigjim1]

I love the replay ability of the Civ games, so they won the time/money equation for me, but the gamng moments I treasure are the memorable moments, which Civ is rather short on. Ultimately, it's story driven games where player decisions change the outcome that really press my buttons. Witcher 3 is still my all time number one, with Cyberpunk a close second.

But I want different things on different days, so there has beeen a version of Civilization on almost every PC I've owned, and there probably always will be.

 

[99-percent-sure]

The title of the thread "Getting your money's worth" even includes the big group of civers who are not convinced to buy Civ 7 yet, but have to post here with "yes" (or not to post at all), as even in the worst case they got their money´s worth: No money for no fun with the game by playing it no minutes.

Come on now. Anyone is invited to post about how they decide whether they've gotten their money's worth for a video game, and people have posted about plenty of other games, which is pretty much necessary to meaningfully respond to that question. I think my original post explains what I'm asking accurately. The primary question asks how people decide whether a game has been worth the money. It invites them to talk about Civ VII, of course, because this is a forum for Civ VII discussions, but it's hardly trying to organize support for it. I was expecting at least a couple people to say they'd bought the game, not played it much, and not found it worth the money, and then talk about games they did find to be worth the money, and why they felt that way.

If you haven't bought Civ 7, wanting to jump into the conversation and regurgitate talking points about what a failure it is says more about you having an agenda. There are other threads where the "utter dumpster fire" discussion is alive and well. You could easily respond to my original question by saying something like, "I bought Civ 5 and its DLC for $80 total and spent 2000 hours playing it, and that was clearly worth the money. If I play a game two hours for every dollar I spend on it, that's worth the money to me. I doubt I'd want to play Civ 7 anywhere near the amount of time needed to reach that benchmark, because it looks broken to me." Or you could talk about subjective enjoyment of a game as the benchmark, or whether you think about it when you're not playing it, or whether you post about it on forums like this and seek out mods, etc.

Why does every meta-type thread have to invite commentary about how Civ 7 is a raging disaster and should basically be deleted from everyone's system?

 

[99-percent-sure]

So, maybe a mod should change the thread's title to "Civ VII players: Getting your money's worth?" to avoid that some people have to elaborate conspiracy theories or absurd theses.

Except that's actually not the only thing I'm asking. I'm interested in whether those of us playing Civ VII feel like we've gotten our money's worth for this relatively expensive, frequently criticized game, but I also want to know how people decide whether or not they've gotten their money's worth for a game in general. Even if they don't have Civ VII, they must have a way of deciding whether a game has been worth their investment or not, with examples to boot. I don't want to grade Civ VII on an easier, or harder, curve than other games. I'm trying to decide how I should think about this, since my relationship to the game (and I've never had this happen before with a video game) is now being influenced by how much other people hate it. It's almost politicized to be playing it, the way it's almost politicized to watch the recent Star Wars sequels, because a lot of people feel betrayed by what the game turned out to be.

Also, answering "I haven't spent any money on Civ VII, so it's been worth the money" wouldn't be a good-faith answer to my question. That'd be more of a "sour grapes" heckle that tries to steer the conversation toward the same conversation we're seeing in other threads.

 

[Civinator]

Except that's actually not the only thing I'm asking. I also want to know how people decide whether or not they've gotten their money's worth for a game in general.

It is a problem in the CFC forums structure, that there is no special forum for threads about the games of the civ series in general and such questions in general (as they are existing per example in other civforums). So, if you ask something in the Civ 7 forums at CFC there is automatically a connection to Civ 7 for your question (and your words "except that´s actually not the only thing that I´m asking" shows, that your question also had a direct reference about Civ 7 and was not only that general question).

The posts in this thread in my eyes are drawing a beautiful, perfect world of Civ 7, that is, may be, fitting with the sight of most posters in this thread, but is in conflict with the situation of the player numbers of this game in reality.

 

[99-percent-sure]

Please also take into account, that with all the posts of civers in this thread, who posted, that they have played hundreds of hours with Civ 7, the situation of Civ 7 in general is not improving. It only shows the players whose playing hours impeded that the declining situation of Civ 7 in numbers was not getting even more worse, as their playing hours of course are part of the rapidly decreasing general playing hours in the Civ 7 statistics.

The posts in this thread in my eyes are drawing a beautiful, perfect world of Civ 7, that is, may be, fitting with the sight of most posters in this thread, but is in conflict with the situation of the player numbers of this game in reality.

Well, I was asking for feedback from people who have been playing Civ VII on whether they feel like it's been worth the money for them, even though I also asked about people's general criteria for "getting their money's worth." Of course the thread is going to have lots of feedback from people who are playing the game and enjoying it, because most people don't keep playing a game they dislike. But there was a lot of room for people to say the game wasn't worth the money in their eyes because of the bugs, or that they stopped playing it after 40 or 50 hours, etc. too. It's a very individualized assessment that on some level we make for any entertainment product we purchase, but there's also an issue with the higher-than-normal price for this game, and whether we're paying too much for it even if we're playing it. Where's the line for people? I want to hear Civ VII players' thoughts about that.

Honestly, based on the first post I quoted above, it sounds to me like you are frustrated with people who are playing Civ VII frequently because we're "impeding" what should be a statistical freefall into oblivion in terms of playing hours for Civ VII. Many critics clearly desire to bring about a complete failure of Civ VII, which will cause Take Two to abandon the game ASAP and (theoretically) move onto something more like Civ V. Those of us who bought the game and are now spending (wasting?) time enjoying it are "part of the problem," as one might say. We need to take marching orders from everyone who hates Civ VII and wants Civ V back, regardless of our own preferences, because we're getting in the way of progress now.

What a ridiculous situation. You can't even enjoy something as simple as a game anymore without complications.

 

[protocol7]

You can and should definitely enjoy the game, you don’t have to take orders from people with different opinions than you.

 

[Taefin]

I paused at about 280 hours when work got busy. $/hr sounds right but doesn’t feel right. If instead of spending $120 on VII I had gotten another old world expansion, I probably would have played 2-4 more games of that before bouncing to a different game/hobby. Those games probably would have been more memorable and satisfying.

For me, VII was worth it because I needed to know what it was like first hand, or I’d be left with a burning curiosity. VII will switch to feeling absolutely worth it if a future expansion or update makes the second half of each game feel complete.

 

[Civinator]

Honestly, based on the first post I quoted above, it sounds to me like you are frustrated with people who are playing Civ VII frequently because we're "impeding" what should be a statistical freefall into oblivion in terms of playing hours for Civ VII.

To clearify this: I am absolutely not frustrated about civers who are playing Civ VII frequently, I only posted, that without those civers the number of people who are still playing Civ 7 would be even worse. This is something very different from that you are writing now.

I don´t hate Civ 7. I am dreary that now there are such massive changes in the concepts, that for me it is no longer possible "to build something that I can believe in". In my eyes threads like this one, suggerating that all is very o.k. with the current version of Civ 7, are suited to accelerate the "statistical freefall" you have mentioned, because when all is very o.k., there is no need to change anything in the concepts of Civ 7, what will bring Civ 7 no additional players that are needed to stop and hopefully increase the number of Civ 7 players again. In my eyes for stopping that "statistical freefall" some changes in the concepts of Civ 7 are urgently needed - and they could be done.

As it seems you are trying now to twist my sentences in its opposite, I think I stop posting in this thread. In my eyes some changes are needed in the concepts of Civ 7 to raise drastically the number of players of Civ 7 and threads like this one, suggerating that all is very o.k in the beautiful, perfect world of Civ 7 are not helpful to reach this goal.

 

[Zaarin]

6 (forgot the name, a recent game by the original creator) is fun, but maybe mostly for nostalgia. It seemed very easy to me though.

Return to Monkey Island is easier, but I'd argue it's anti-nostalgia. It was a pleasant surprise to find it more about accepting that things change than self-indulgently nostalgic. It doesn't peak as high as the first three, but I found it quite enjoyable all the same. Nothing tops Curse of Monkey Island, though.

Returning to Civ7, I like it a lot but have not yet gotten my money's worth out of it. I haven't had a lot of time for video games in the past few months, and KCD2 has monopolized more of what time I've had than Civ7--and even that I haven't played in over a month. It's been a busy work season. I do look forward to giving Civ7 more time in the future, though.

 

[Yzman]

Your questions are showing, that my post was good enough to give you at least a hint about the problem I have with this thread. The title of the thread "Getting your money's worth" even includes the big group of civers who are not convinced to buy Civ 7 yet, but have to post here with "yes" (or not to post at all), as even in the worst case they got their money´s worth: No money for no fun with the game by playing it no minutes.

Therefore this thread in my eyes is suited to create a solid front of "yes-sayers" to the current Civ 7, pretending a situation of Civ 7 that is not fitting with the reality when looking at the rapidly decreasing number of Civ 7 players in the (in my eyes much more relevant) thread about player numbers of Civ 7.

I could also have used the words "very clever" instead of "silly" for this thread - if you are liking this more - as the thread pretends a situation of Civ 7 by including all civers who have not bought Civ 7 yet as "yes-sayers", that is in contradiction to the real situation of Civ 7 in numbers. Please also take into account, that with all the posts of civers in this thread, who posted, that they have played hundreds of hours with Civ 7, the situation of Civ 7 in general is not improving. It only shows the players whose playing hours impeded that the declining situation of Civ 7 in numbers was not getting even more worse, as their playing hours of course are part of the rapidly decreasing general playing hours in the Civ 7 statistics.

And now I want to answer your personal question:

Yes, I was getting my money´s worth by the current Civ 7. Until now I invested no money in Civ 7 because I am not convinced in it and received the worth for it.

The point of the thread is clearly for those that have bought it, if you feel you are getting your monies worth.
People who have not bought it should say as much in the topic or not respond to it. In your case, if we are arguing semantics as you are, you can not answer the question as you have paid no money abd played zero hours so therefore using any metric your value would be undefined.

 

[Neo1729]

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?

went out the other night and spent close to 300 euro on dinner drinks and an uber home. i spent 70 euro on civ 7 and have had 124 hours of entertainment compared to the four or so the other night and that ended with a hangover. is it value for money. Of course it is.

 

[CliffCo]

went out the other night and spent close to 300 euro on dinner drinks and an uber home. i spent 70 euro on civ 7 and have had 124 hours of entertainment compared to the four or so the other night and that ended with a hangover. is it value for money. Of course it is.

So very true, wish I could like your reply more than once. Any game is a cheap form of entertainment these days as long as you have at least some enjoyment from them regardless of how much time you spend playing them, but many people don’t see it that way, if they don’t absolutely love a game many of them consider it money wasted. If you go out for the evening no matter what you do there’s no guarantee your going to have a great time.

 

[vorlon_mi]

For each of the previous Civ games I've played (Civ2/3/4/5, BERT, Civ6), I waited to buy them on sale. The 10 USD I spent on Civ2 (in a discount bin at a big box retailer) was definitely the most fun I've ever had for only $10. Each title, and its expansion(s), resulted in hundreds of hours of fun. Each of those smaller purchases were unquestionably worth the money, for the fun that resulted.

Civ7 Deluxe is my first time paying full price for a Civ title; it's also my first time being part of the early days and growing pains.
100 USD for Deluxe is 10x what I paid for Civ2. Is it worth the money?

Two-part answer:

1. Yes, I'm glad that I spent extra $$ to be part of these early days. I've been able to share my experiences, help others understand, and seen the effects of patches and fixes. I've been having fun, playing as often as I can, 275 hours to date.
2. I'm planning to play Civ7 for the next 5 years or more. I'm still playing Civ3 occasionally, having played for more than 10 years (including CD copies). I have more than 2000 hours in BERT over the last 5 years. Spending 100 USD for 5+ years of fun is a huge return on my investment.

 

[MutilationWave]

As much as I rant about the game, I have certainly got my money's worth for founder's edition. I've had fun playing, I've had fun being a civ early adopter for the first time in my life, and I've had fun being part of this forum.

For comparison, I once had an old friend over the the first time in a long time. We used to play Soul Calibur. We were talking about it and I was like wait why aren't we playing right now? So I spent $60 on Soul Calibur 6 and we played for a couple hours. I consider that time with my old friend a good value for my money even though it cost $30 an hour. We had a blast.

So it's clear to me I've got my money's worth from civ 7.

 

[fantsu]

Games with high fun factor are worth to me no matter how long they are to play through.
Games like Civ are not like that, these demand longevity and somekind of catch to pull me back in to make them feel worth.
I cannot make decision between used money and spend hours. Those just dont correlate at all (to me personally)

 

[evonannoredars]

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.