#1 Posted by psx2514 (15 posts) -

Generally speaking, not specific to anyone review publication or site. For example, if a $60 game is given an 8/10, could that same game's score be a 9/10 or even a 10/10 if it cost $20?

#2 Posted by bibamatt (1089 posts) -

I would say yeah. If you take your example (of an 8/10 becoming a 10/10) and look at something like Zelda (that got 4 stars here) - that would have easily got 5 stars if it were a WiiWare/XBLA/PSN download for $20. Or something like Enslaved. As a downloadable title... easily a 10/10, I'd say.

#3 Posted by MideonNViscera (2257 posts) -

I guess. I mean if I paid $4000 for Mario Kart 7 I would think it was an abysmal failure. At $40 it was totally amazing though. At $70 it would have been "eh, ok".

#4 Posted by Cameron (605 posts) -

I think the platform and delivery system are more important than price. For example, Shadow Complex is an amazing downloadable game, but it would have seemed less impressive if it had come out as a $20 disc (I know it was $15, but I can't remember a game ever being at retail for less than $20). It would have been neat, and probably would have gotten good reviews, but ultimately it would have been compared, probably unfavorably, to other disc based games. When that came out we had a very set conception of what a downloadable game could be, and that game blew that conception away.

That said, I think price should play some part in a review score. I was happy paying $20 for Test Drive Unlimited 2, but I would have been pissed if I had payed $60. A lower price gives me lower expectations, so if a game is even remotely good at $20, I am far more likely to come away with a positive impression of that game than a game of similar quality that cost me $60. I think the only price that is fair to take into consideration is launch price. If you wait long enough you can get almost any game for $10-$20, but I don't think that is something reviewers should take into account. Sorry if this is a bit rambling, I'm quite tired.

#5 Posted by Twisted_Scot (1180 posts) -

Value for money should ALWAYS be considered, after all isn't that really the point of reviews?

#6 Posted by Buscemi (1106 posts) -

I hate to be that guy, but isn't it supposed to be effect?

#7 Posted by Brians (1465 posts) -

A bad game is bad got 10 dollars or 60

#8 Edited by MysteriousBob (6272 posts) -

I guess it would. Think about XBLA games. What would people think of Rock of Ages if it came on a disk for £45?

#9 Posted by Atlas (2457 posts) -

It absolutely does, no question. It's been mentioned in several reviews (Banjo-Kazooie: N&B and Rayman Origins are both 5-star games that might have received lesser scores if not for their softer price tags), and you only need to look at reviews for downloadable games to see the difference.

The guys have talked about this on the podcast before; every game has a perfect price. Jeff probably would have given Brink a 4 or a 5 if it was a $15 downloadable game; even considering that game's faults, it blows Blacklight: Tango Down, Breach and Modern Combat out of the water. As a consumer, I have bought games that I would never have even considered paying full price for (eg. WET, Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood and BlazBlue), but bought at a significant discount because I thought the amount I paid was satisfactory for my expectations of the games quality. All these things are relative, there is no firm law.

#10 Posted by Starfishhunter9 (369 posts) -

@Atlas said:

It absolutely does, no question. It's been mentioned in several reviews (Banjo-Kazooie: N&B and Rayman Origins are both 5-star games that might have received lesser scores if not for their softer price tags), and you only need to look at reviews for downloadable games to see the difference.

The guys have talked about this on the podcast before; every game has a perfect price. Jeff probably would have given Brink a 4 or a 5 if it was a $15 downloadable game; even considering that game's faults, it blows Blacklight: Tango Down, Breach and Modern Combat out of the water. As a consumer, I have bought games that I would never have even considered paying full price for (eg. WET, Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood and BlazBlue), but bought at a significant discount because I thought the amount I paid was satisfactory for my expectations of the games quality. All these things are relative, there is no firm law.

I agree with him. So logically steam Xmas sales are all 5 star games!

#11 Edited by JoeyRavn (5005 posts) -

@Titus said:

I hate to be that guy, but isn't it supposed to be effect?

"Affect" is "to have a bearing or influence in something". Like, for example, "The flooding in Asia have affected the production of HDDs". That means that there were some floodings in Asia and that changed the situation of the production of HDDs. Or, if you want, "the price of a game may affect its review score".

"Effect", on the other hand, as a verb, means simply "to cause". "The moderators effected stricter rules in the forums". That means that the moderators enforced new laws in the forums.

So, yeah. Not only you're that guy, you're also wrong.

#12 Edited by Noct (306 posts) -

Yeah, as I think somebody else mentioned above, there is no debate on this... Reviewers almost always mention the price of a game if it's not a standard $60 release. That proves (at least to me), that the prices are indeed taken into account, and rightly so.

A game is not a game is not a game. If I play a free Flash Game or a cheap(er) DLC title, I definately expect a hell of a lot less polish then a $60 AAA title.

#13 Posted by Chaoot (23 posts) -

@JoeyRavn said:

@Titus said:

I hate to be that guy, but isn't it supposed to be effect?

"Affect" is "to have a bearing or influence in something". Like, for example, "The flooding in Asia have affected the production of HDDs". That means that there were some floodings in Asia and that changed the situation of the production of HDDs. Or, if you want, "the price of a game may affect its review score".

"Effect", on the other hand, as a verb, means simply "to cause". "The moderators effected stricter rules in the forums". That means that the moderators enforced new laws in the forums.

So, yeah. Not only you're that guy, you're also wrong.

Nah, Titus is correct. "It affects the review" means it has an effect on the review score. By the way Joey, your examples have "affect" as a verb, but in the title it is used as a noun ("has an affect on", not "affect the scores"). Also: "The flooding in Asia has affected the production of HDDs." or "The floodings in Asia have affected the production of HDDs."

Guess we're all those guys, I couldn't let a philology student get away with this ;)

On topic: I kinda agree with Cameron. It should be part of the consideration, although I believe it to be more important than delivery system or platform. In fact I believe expectations of downloadable games (obviously excluding full retail downloadable games) are just generally lower exactly because of their lower price.

#14 Posted by CptChiken (1987 posts) -
@Chaoot said:

@JoeyRavn said:

@Titus said:

I hate to be that guy, but isn't it supposed to be effect?

"Affect" is "to have a bearing or influence in something". Like, for example, "The flooding in Asia have affected the production of HDDs". That means that there were some floodings in Asia and that changed the situation of the production of HDDs. Or, if you want, "the price of a game may affect its review score".

"Effect", on the other hand, as a verb, means simply "to cause". "The moderators effected stricter rules in the forums". That means that the moderators enforced new laws in the forums.

So, yeah. Not only you're that guy, you're also wrong.

Nah, Titus is correct. "It affects the review" means it has an effect on the review score. By the way Joey, your examples have "affect" as a verb, but in the title it is used as a noun ("has an affect on", not "affect the scores"). Also: "The flooding in Asia has affected the production of HDDs." or "The floodings in Asia have affected the production of HDDs."

Guess we're all those guys, I couldn't let a philology student get away with this ;)

On topic: I kinda agree with Cameron. It should be part of the consideration, although I believe it to be more important than delivery system or platform. In fact I believe expectations of downloadable games (obviously excluding full retail downloadable games) are just generally lower exactly because of their lower price.

Wow, grammar nazis have gone INSANE!!!! 
 
On topic I would say that yes it should do because if two games of equal quality come out, one priced $40 the other $60, then the one that is better value for money should get a higher score. In this case the $40 woul get a 8/10 and the $60 a 7/10. 
 
Value for money is EXTREMELY important.
#15 Edited by Buscemi (1106 posts) -

@JoeyRavn: Basically it affects the game but has an effect on the game. Duder. I see that that "kind of like an English major" has really helped a lot.

#16 Posted by OtakuGamer (1278 posts) -

In a way yes, because if a game has a bad score then people won’t buy it and the price depends on how well it’s selling. Of course, it’s not always that way but usually it is.

#17 Posted by phish09 (1110 posts) -

Not really. A good game is a good game regardless of price. Plus, keep in mind, most reputable journalists don't have to pay anything for their copies of these games, so to them games are free and can't be judged based on their price.

#18 Posted by mystakin (100 posts) -

I imagine price does have an effect on scores, but I've always been a firm believer that it should not. Different people have different opinions of what $60 or $40 is worth. A College student doesn't have as much money to spend as someone with a nice, steady job, for example. I may love the NBA 2k series but I would never spend more than $30-$40 on it. At the same time, I know there's tons of people who eat it up and buy it near launch day at full price. I don't think either of us are getting a better experience; we're just setting different standards of entry. Ultimately, I think it's up to the individual person, not the reviewer, to decide if a game is worth their money or not. The reviewer can tell you the quality of the product, how much he or she enjoyed it, but they can't evaluate if it's "worth" a purchase. They can only say whether or not it's worth it for them as individuals, and I don't believe that's all that valuable to readers.

#19 Posted by kingzetta (4307 posts) -

100% yes

#20 Posted by jozzy (2042 posts) -

A lower price doesn't excuse a game that is not fun, but it does excuse less depth in gameplay, lower production values and/or less content.

#21 Posted by Cloudenvy (5891 posts) -

Of course it does.

#22 Posted by Akeldama (4255 posts) -

If a review is a qualitative assessment of a possible purchasing decision, I very much think the price should be factored into that qualitative assessment.

#23 Posted by BigSocrates (418 posts) -

To a degree. A truly crappy game will be a crappy game even if it's free (See Yaris) but a mediocre game can be a good buy for under $20, and a great game like Shadow Complex or Braid that's a wonderful but small contained experience is probably a stretch at $60. On the other hand you can often figure this out from the review content if not the score.

#24 Posted by HeadNodShy (72 posts) -

Personally I don't think it should. Not the review score anyway.

Also I'm not a reviewer so I'm not going to pretend to know about or speculate on how they do their fucking job.

#25 Posted by MikkaQ (10331 posts) -

A think a bad game is bad if it's free or if it's 70$.

But a good game can be a better value proposition at a lower price, and reviews are purchasing advice in most cases, so I'd say it does matter.

#26 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

i don't think so. i assume that the game is going to be $60. if the game was cheap than someone is going to say get it because it is only $20 and such.