-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Should price factor into a game's review/score?
- Thread starter blacklotus
- Start date
Yeah, in some cases. A good 5h game for 60€ or 70€ might be considered a poor investment by some people out there so I see no issue in pointing that out, even if the price changes down the line. I don't think it should impact the score, but there's no harm in expressing one's concerns with regards to that.
It definitely can and should do in some cases.
That street fighter 2 port on switch, for example, had a lot of mentions of how it wasn't worth the price, probably fair given that practically the same game had launched on psn/xbox360 for a fraction of the price (it was something like$15 on psn, $40 on switch at the respective launches), years earlier.
That street fighter 2 port on switch, for example, had a lot of mentions of how it wasn't worth the price, probably fair given that practically the same game had launched on psn/xbox360 for a fraction of the price (it was something like$15 on psn, $40 on switch at the respective launches), years earlier.
No, time is the more important element. Not many games are gonna change my enjoyment on a $30 difference.
Nah, a review should judge the quality of a game. Leave the value judgement to the customer.
Tell me if the game's good, i'll be the judge of whether it'll be worth my money.
Price is too susceptible to change. Like, just because a game dropped in price, doesn't make it "better".
Tell me if the game's good, i'll be the judge of whether it'll be worth my money.
Price is too susceptible to change. Like, just because a game dropped in price, doesn't make it "better".
This is another Gamepass thread really and I mean it has to doesn't it? If the conclusion of the review is if you should play it or not then surely having it on a service like Gamepass versus having to pay $60 makes a huge difference to the recommendation.
The problem is for games like Horizon 4 where it's clearly worth $60 but you can still get it on GP for basically nothing, by that logic it should be a 10/10.
The problem is for games like Horizon 4 where it's clearly worth $60 but you can still get it on GP for basically nothing, by that logic it should be a 10/10.
OP
OP
Yes but, with a price point should come content expectations or even production values, which kinda should influence the how we score the game, don't you think?
It's a gray area for sure. I mean, if something comes out that's great but is only 2 hours long, it's going to get a shit score unless it's $20 or less or has an INSANE amount of replayability. But as others mentioned, it changes so quickly nowadays, it's hard to really make it a factor when reviewing a game.
Yes -- if a company is charging $60 for a title then I expect a AAA or high tier-AA game. Anything else and I will feel like I didn't get my money's worth.
But that's a value proposition which is far more subjective than a determination of quality, which can be a somewhat objective metric.
To someone who doesn't really have any limitations with regards to how much they spend on gaming (because i buy like 1-2 games a month and make a decent living) i feel like it'd muddy review scores and be somewhat patronizing. Tell me if it's worth my time and don't worry about my bank account, thanks.
Sure, add a value score. But the review should judge the quality of the product itself.
On the flip side, something like Dead Premonition launch at $20 on 360. I sure wouldn't have reviewed that game as a $60 title.
no.
if a game is full price and doesn't offer enough to justify that price then yeah mention it but i wouldn't lower the score because of it.
if a game is full price and doesn't offer enough to justify that price then yeah mention it but i wouldn't lower the score because of it.
As time goes by, and the game drops in price, it also gets patched and can itself change as well (hopefully). I believe most reviews are aimed at gamers looking to buy at launch, and then user reviews will help you decide months down the road when the state of the game (and the price) has shifted.
And what if they patch out major issues a reviewer had? Things change, that's a fact. A review reflects the state of the game on the day the review is released, and price should factor in if it's an issue, of course.
If a game is SP with no reason to replay, then yes. $60 is a good amount of money to drop on something that you will finish and never touch again. If the game is online focused or has replayability built into the core gameplay loop, then judging it on price seems a little pointless.
It should in extreme cases
if a game is low priced compared to what it gives,it should up the score
If its expensive for what it offers,it should get a lower one
if a game is low priced compared to what it gives,it should up the score
If its expensive for what it offers,it should get a lower one
It depends if you see reviews as being about a product, or being about art.
Personally no, I don't think it should factor into things - it's worth mentioning for sure, but the game should stand alone from a variable factor which will change over time and is independent from the game itself
Personally no, I don't think it should factor into things - it's worth mentioning for sure, but the game should stand alone from a variable factor which will change over time and is independent from the game itself
Yes, because what the game's expectations, objectives, etc. are is an important factor. The price of a game inevitably makes it ground for comparison with other similarly priced games. To get a recent example, Crackdown 3 was kinda trashed, but had been an indie game sold for 20$, it would have been rated a lot higher. Prices define expectations as they are also relevant to the game's value, length, production values. If a game lasts 1 hour but is only 5 bucks, I can probably recommend it. If it's a 60$ game, unless it's designed to be endlessly replayed like Rez or a bullet hell shooter, it's probably not worth it and the price will have a factor in the rating.
I think there should be two kinds of reviews. Because there are different approaches in choosing a game to play. As for me, I don't need to know price to decide weither I want to play the game or not. Usually there are very few times when price of a game is more than $60. So, if i like the game it most likely costs not more than that. And i don't care if it's $10 or $20 or $60. I don't have much time to play games so it has to be the best I want
Hell no.
But it should be brought up as a point of measured value.
A good game is still a good game whether at $5 or $500
But it should be brought up as a point of measured value.
A good game is still a good game whether at $5 or $500
But that's the developer improving upon the product. Not the retailer clearing shelves. Should Fallout 76 review scores be allowed to change if Bethesda patches the game? Sure, why not.
Should they, just because Best Buy is selling it for 20 bucks? Nah, i don't think so.
And I'm saying if you dock points for not being worth the price on release, how helpful is that review score to someone buying the game a year later or whatever. It's not so clear cut.
Review scores are reductionist. If you get rid of the score, there's no harm in talking about the price in the text of the review somewhere. As time passes and the price changes, you can ignore that part.
This is true, but there are some instances where a game gets re-reviewed after significant patches/changes. I don't think anyone has done that for a game dropping in price.
OP
OP
I have different expectations for a $10 game from a $60 one.
Just because a game might get cheaper in the future doesn't mean one should review it as such.
Kind of like reviewing a game being hopeful patches fix it
Just because a game might get cheaper in the future doesn't mean one should review it as such.
Kind of like reviewing a game being hopeful patches fix it
OP
OP
Don't know, but don't free to play games have some kind of business model to make money? What if it's a blatant pay to win game? Should the score be affected by it?
I think so, yes. Like for instance, if a publisher sells a port of a years old game for a full $60/£40, it absolutely should be called out on in reviews.
Karak does "Buy, Wait for Sale, Rent or Never Touch" - which is fine, too. (though i personally just translate that to 8+, 6-7, 'super short game' and '5 and below' in more standardized metrics ;)
I voted no because that's the idea I want to convey, though the answer is obviously yes.
No, because I hate it when reviewers assume for me what is my dollar : hours of entertainment ratio. I mostly hate this because they assume I'm a 12 year old with very little money and lots of free time that needs to be wasted for as long as possible, leading to excessively dull and bloated games. In reality I'm 36 and have much, much more money than free time, and any kind of padding utterly destroys the game for me. I can make my own decision whether I find something worthy of my money.
Yes, because I do like that there are different price levels and different breadths of experiences, in that I think it's okay that a student-made $5 game can be judged to different standards.
No, because I hate it when reviewers assume for me what is my dollar : hours of entertainment ratio. I mostly hate this because they assume I'm a 12 year old with very little money and lots of free time that needs to be wasted for as long as possible, leading to excessively dull and bloated games. In reality I'm 36 and have much, much more money than free time, and any kind of padding utterly destroys the game for me. I can make my own decision whether I find something worthy of my money.
Yes, because I do like that there are different price levels and different breadths of experiences, in that I think it's okay that a student-made $5 game can be judged to different standards.
Absolutely, there's no doubt imo. Reviews are based on the game at that point, not if / when it drops in price months down the line. Expectations for a budget title are often fairly lower than a pricier one - even if it's just from a production value perspective. Price is a major factor for many folks buying games therefore should play a role in the overall evaluation of a product.
Last edited:
