I was being glib, of course, and here you went and actually answered the question.

The group/peer structure of multi-player games really is key to their success. Play with friends, play with strangers, beat the odds (the odds are in our favor, of course, but they are challenging enough to stroke the narrative urge). And, of course, show off the rewards in public spaces.

I don't buy via micro-transactions myself, I stick to the main ones: DLC and season membership, which offer challenges and give rewards in good measure. That's a big part of the urge to come back and keep playing.

It's fine.
Most of these discussions go back to people disagreeing what "worth" means - good on its own, or good for me (which is heavily affected by time, backlog, genre and already owned games). Most of the bundles offer really good value, but the question is who thinks that it's a good deal for them (including - trading, selling, gifting, GA making, hoarding, idling, playing)

The thing is, the games are significantly better when people started complaining. Someone can not like Dark Souls, but still has to admit this is great game. This is matter of objectiveness. I don't like many games, yet I can see how great are they.

Giving games like Dark Souls III with DLC or Hollow Knight made the Humble better than ever. Those are quality games that deserve the title of the greatest games of all time. And I repeat, because people foten don't understand. Subjectively You can dislike the game, but objectively there are things that You can't just deny they are extraordinary. Appreciating such things should be a must. That's because there are factors that makes great game not fitting in taste of somebody. Like the genre, or the topic. Somebody can maybe dislike vampires and it bores them. Or they don't like FPS games, so even with great story, mechanics etc it won't be satisfying. Still it's not that hard to appreciate things that doesn't fit Your preferences. And that's my point.

Objectively Humble gave far better games than ever. I actually can't think of game that was ever given by Humble (Monthly/Choice) that is better than that. And the score says itself. 97% positive reviews on Steam. And I bet the rest 3% are the same as they were in Ori and the Blind Forest: 1) Many of them are positive reviews just so people can see the review in a ocean of positiveness, 2) Sore losery, people who just for some reason don't like a game, not because of quality, but for example of "this is too hard" or "my cousin kicked me I hate this game" or I even dunno what else... 3) People just having bad taste in general 4) And the smallest: people's valuable criticism, but it's so rare today. People prefer hating over saying something constructively. For example I've seen reviews that "I bought Ori, but now I have to buy it twice and my coupon expired (because I had like a year or sth and I was lazy to do so) and didn't buy Definitive Edition when I had the time. This is sorelosery. Because really. Somebody just missed a year chance of getting off of Definitive Ori and was so salty that he can't buy it for cheaper now. I've just seen many reviews like that. Not to mention, people like review bombing.