Also, a lot of people who review games get them for free from a publisher or distributors so who are they to lecture me about a game's monetary value.
-
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.
Should price factor into a game's review/score?
- Thread starter blacklotus
- Start date
OP
OP
Not all triple AAA games are shit and not all indie games are the best games in the world.
That said, i personally think that when reviewing the graphical quality of a game, there should be some relativity towards what the game budget is, for example.
I think as a customer it would be important but for the review itself I would say unless its at either end of the spectrum (free or ridiculously expensive) then it shouldn't come into it since a month or two down the line that would no longer matter for non-Nintendo games (Yes im salty at their high prices lol).
Whats more important to take into consideration is just the game itself, and as such i am all aboard the idea that when games receive big updates post release it should be reflected in the review.
Of course this logistically isnt feasible since how long would you follow a games development? How often do you re-review? How do you manage this on top of an already huge workload? etc.
But i do think its important since the goal of a review is to reflect what the game is like to someone that hasnt played it.If your review says "This is how things work" yet that no longer is the case then it simply isnt reflecting the actual product and could be misleading. Judging games like Burnout Paradise or No Mans Sky from their initial reviews would be a disservice to what they are now.
Of course i think the best option for customers is to simply go to Youtube and look for reviews that are dated more recently and see what comes up since you are more likely to get an up to date picture of the game that way.
Whats more important to take into consideration is just the game itself, and as such i am all aboard the idea that when games receive big updates post release it should be reflected in the review.
Of course this logistically isnt feasible since how long would you follow a games development? How often do you re-review? How do you manage this on top of an already huge workload? etc.
But i do think its important since the goal of a review is to reflect what the game is like to someone that hasnt played it.If your review says "This is how things work" yet that no longer is the case then it simply isnt reflecting the actual product and could be misleading. Judging games like Burnout Paradise or No Mans Sky from their initial reviews would be a disservice to what they are now.
Of course i think the best option for customers is to simply go to Youtube and look for reviews that are dated more recently and see what comes up since you are more likely to get an up to date picture of the game that way.
I think the price should definitely be mentioned in the review, and I'd be more than happy for the reviewer to say that they had problems with the price - however, I'm firmly in the 'review it as art' camp so I don't think the review score should be affected as the game would still be To The Moon.
It's missing the option "if the reviewer wants to". I'm ok with both ways of looking at it, personally.
When I watch a review, I'm not just waiting for the reviewer to tell me what to do, I'm also paying attention to the footage and figuring out if it appeals to me. I've watched a few positive reviews that turned me off from getting a game, and negative ones that made me more interested.
When I watch a review, I'm not just waiting for the reviewer to tell me what to do, I'm also paying attention to the footage and figuring out if it appeals to me. I've watched a few positive reviews that turned me off from getting a game, and negative ones that made me more interested.
Yes - but to a limited degree and also value is a very personal thing that sometimes gets mixed up by reviewers.
The pure value of "enjoyment time per £" is fine to talk about. Absolutely. But often value is used as an uncalibrated scale to specify whether a game is "worth" it or not to the individual reader/viewer. This is wrong since you cannot compare value to a kid from a poor background who saves up a year to buy a single game to that of a young adult with lots of disposable income and no responsibilities. Its a totally different proposition. Its partly that reason why so many kids buy one or two games a year like FIFA and that is it. They can play FIFA for a solid 12 months on one investment and still be having the same fun 12 months down the line. Heck even beyond 12 months they'll get something out of it.
But those kids are more wary about other games they see that look "cool" but ultimately that they might lose interest in, or finish or whatever....
Whereas a gamer with disposable income is more likely to want a range of games and probably doesn't have time to properly invest in FIFA and FUT and all that stuff within that type of game. Time and fun becomes their more valued aspects over a pure monetary value.....
The pure value of "enjoyment time per £" is fine to talk about. Absolutely. But often value is used as an uncalibrated scale to specify whether a game is "worth" it or not to the individual reader/viewer. This is wrong since you cannot compare value to a kid from a poor background who saves up a year to buy a single game to that of a young adult with lots of disposable income and no responsibilities. Its a totally different proposition. Its partly that reason why so many kids buy one or two games a year like FIFA and that is it. They can play FIFA for a solid 12 months on one investment and still be having the same fun 12 months down the line. Heck even beyond 12 months they'll get something out of it.
But those kids are more wary about other games they see that look "cool" but ultimately that they might lose interest in, or finish or whatever....
Whereas a gamer with disposable income is more likely to want a range of games and probably doesn't have time to properly invest in FIFA and FUT and all that stuff within that type of game. Time and fun becomes their more valued aspects over a pure monetary value.....
An indie is an indie not because of the price tag of the product but because of the scale of the production.
The idea that indie is related to the price of the product is already somewhat toxic ...
There's many indie games that could be priced at € 60, but are stuck at 20, because it's where indies "belong".
Like, Stardew could be sold at full price, so could Wargroove.
Also, if you're a mom/dad and wanna gift your kid a video game, you wanna know what's gonna be fun to them - money isn't an issue and you have no idea what "indie" means. You want scores to reflect "what is a good game?" not "what's worth your money".
Prices change over time, value propositions are incredibly subjective and highly dependent on not just your disposable income, but also your free time.
I have no issues with reviewers adding "should you buy this?" or "is this worth your money" information to their review - that's a good thing, but the 'quality-of-the-product-UNRELATED-to-price' information should be readily available, as that's what's relevant to me.
Most reviews are used/made for determining whether you should buy a game at launch, so yeah. Review as a product, not as art.
Yes. It is a factor when buying a game.
I can buy a 15$ 1 hour game, but not a 30$ 1 hour game.
I can buy a 15$ 1 hour game, but not a 30$ 1 hour game.
I judge indies as harshly as I judge AAA releases based on if I feel they are succeeding at what they are trying to do, and how much enjoyment I am getting out of the final experience. If a game is trying to be a graphical showcase, then I will think of it higher if it succeeds and judge it more harshly if it is marred by technical glitches or poor performance. If the look of an indie game compliments the gameplay or fits the tone the developers are going for, I can appreciate that as much as a AAA experience, but if I were to feel the game looks poor in a way that doesn't match the tone or feel otherwise, it has failed.
Pricing is a different matter entirely, as that is evaluating the value proposition of a game, rather than the quality of the game, which I feel is what reviews should reflect. As others have pointed out, game prices can change fast and will likely not be the price they were reviewed at for the majority of their existence. A Steam sale that makes a game 50% off does not transform it into a 50% better game, but it may make it a better value proposition and worth buying.
For me on a consumer level it does. It different for "official" reviewers since they don't even pay for the games.
You don't have to tell me things I already know. To throw that back at you, there's no need to make that separation into tiers because one can create a good artstyle with the most rudimentary toolset. In my eyes that segregation shouldn't exist, because it's a symptom of people note even valuing style over substance, but fidelity over substance.
I say no, because ultimately games eventually come down in price and/or hit services like PS Now and Game Pass.
So if you review with the price in mind, then you're essentially reviewing it against the launch price, which means your review score has a short expiry date.
Also we never see movies judged on their price of entry. They're judged on their own merits.
But the game's budget should certainly be kept in mind. Just as an indie movie isn't necessarily going to be criticised for its poor special effects and budget, and the price of entry is the same for a movie regardless of its budget.
So if you review with the price in mind, then you're essentially reviewing it against the launch price, which means your review score has a short expiry date.
Also we never see movies judged on their price of entry. They're judged on their own merits.
But the game's budget should certainly be kept in mind. Just as an indie movie isn't necessarily going to be criticised for its poor special effects and budget, and the price of entry is the same for a movie regardless of its budget.
Of course it should.
The price at launch is the entry barrier to the experience. If the experience is average, it having a smaller entry barrier doesn't make it feel like it was a waste of money. On the other hand, if that price is high then you end up feeling cheated.
Regardless to whether the price drops, or in some other cases increases, later, it should always be a factor in the analysis of a game. It shouldn't weigh heavily on the score or whatever, but it definitely needs to be considered.
Movies have much less variety in terms of length and price compared to games.
The price at launch is the entry barrier to the experience. If the experience is average, it having a smaller entry barrier doesn't make it feel like it was a waste of money. On the other hand, if that price is high then you end up feeling cheated.
Regardless to whether the price drops, or in some other cases increases, later, it should always be a factor in the analysis of a game. It shouldn't weigh heavily on the score or whatever, but it definitely needs to be considered.
Movies have much less variety in terms of length and price compared to games.
I believe price should be a factor in reviews or at least part of the discussion but only a small one. A bad game is still bad regardless of price as it's still time you could spend on a better game.
Renting games such as with Gamepass however shouldn't be taken into consideration imo as you are renting and not buying the game.
Renting games such as with Gamepass however shouldn't be taken into consideration imo as you are renting and not buying the game.
Absolutely in the discussion in a review but absolutely not in the score. Length, launch price and lasting appeal are topics a reviewer should touch upon. Those are constants. Same with review score, it is a constant that will never change. Price on the other hand is a variable that will shift drastically with time so it won't mean the same thing at $60 as $5.
Yes. Stardew Valley is a 10 at $15, and would be a 6 or 7 at $60. I expect a lot of technical achievement at $60. This is one of my most frustrating grievances with Nintendo. They charge $60 for everything, but a lot of their games are low budget and short. There is a huge quality divide in their internal studios.
No, value is attributed differently person to person. There's a lot of people on here who wouldn't see anything not Big Dev priced over £15.
Also how long before companies start abusing it if it affects their score and just making up the losses in mtx or held back content dlc further down the line, could create a mess. And where does f2p stand.
Just review the quality of the game and let people make up their own minds whether it is value for money.
Also how long before companies start abusing it if it affects their score and just making up the losses in mtx or held back content dlc further down the line, could create a mess. And where does f2p stand.
Just review the quality of the game and let people make up their own minds whether it is value for money.
Reviews almost always come out on launch where there are no sales
Definitely.
Reviewers are not doing reviews just from the goodness of their heart, they are getting paid or earning money because there is a market for it - which involves understanding the basic needs of the people ( the target audience ), and then assessing a product.
If you recommend 10,000$ machine for an Excel usage, you're a bad reveiwer.
We must distinguish which reviewers are rating a game as an art and which ones as a product. A 10,000$ (say) game is still a wonderful piece of art but a failure of a product for market.
Reviewers are not doing reviews just from the goodness of their heart, they are getting paid or earning money because there is a market for it - which involves understanding the basic needs of the people ( the target audience ), and then assessing a product.
If you recommend 10,000$ machine for an Excel usage, you're a bad reveiwer.
We must distinguish which reviewers are rating a game as an art and which ones as a product. A 10,000$ (say) game is still a wonderful piece of art but a failure of a product for market.
lol, how do you suppose review something without a price? By that logic you could compare a McDonalds to a 5 stars restaurant.
Yep. Look at Hollow Knight as an example. A $15 game that is oozing quality in every nook and cranny and easily provides like 30-40 hours of top notch gameplay? Something like that is bound to have an impact on anybody's impressions of a game.
Budget is the factor, and that goes into consideration (as far as understanding why a game is restricted in the way that it is).
But even still, a game would be good or bad regardless. So yes, while there should be nuance in the review that takes the above into account, an Indie game should still get the score it deserves. A lot of times, they get a great score in spite of its lacking in other categories (affected by budget).
Undertale looks mostly like shit (I'd give the gfx a 4/10). But the story and gameplay ingenuity (along with the soundtrack) make it a whole greater than the sum of it's parts.
The opposite can happen with multi-million dollar budget games.
Depends on brand, brand loyalty, marketing, different target market etc. etc. It's a fairly bad comparison.
Not for a moment did I go 'WOW, this 15$ game is amazing' though. I just went: 'This game is amazing'. When recommending it to others, I do use the 'it's only 15$, try it out' argument, but not in my acknowledgment of the game's quality.
You absolutely could in fact compare McDonalds to a 5 star restaurant.
Part of the point of a review is to recommend buying/not buying a game. Sure, Hollow Knight is excellent enough to be an easy recommendation regardless of price, but all that stuff and quality for just $15? That makes it an infinitely easier recommendation.
No it shouldn't because the price will be totally different in a few months. Time is a more precious resource than money. A bad game isn't worth your time no matter the price. The reviewers aren't paying for the game, and can't really speak for other people's financial situations. The review should be clear on how much content is included and time to finish and the consumer can decide the price for themselves.
Stick a prestigious badge on it and people will and do lap it up.
You can compare a McDonald's to a Michelin star restaurant, but it wouldn't fare well. Example would only make sense if all the best games cost the most money, but it doesn't work like that.
