Support NeoGAF

[sprocket]

The real question is, would they give the game a score that is a whole point higher if it turned out to be really low priced?

NO :lol They would then put negative spin on it buy saying the ps3 is so down that they have to practically give games away.

 

[TheGreatDave]

Of course it should impact the review score. You're not reviewing a painting in a museum here you're reviewing a game so that people know whether or not it's worth buying, and price has an impact on that.

The in-store deal seems like value to me, I'd be more than happy paying that price.

 

[Beef]

They are reviewing the game. The game, to Joe Rybicki, is not great value at more than $30. The headset nor the box and the manual will account in the score and things like that never do.

Because clearly every review of Wii play left out the fact that it came with an extra controller.

The game was obviously worth $50 on its own.

 

[RubberJohnny]

I thought this was interesting

"Joe Rybicki actually placed a note in his review to EGM Reviews Editor Greg Ford that his score should be dropped a whole point if the price was announced above $30"

For comparative purposes, Shadow run scored an 8.0. Shadowrun had 9 maps and 2 modes, it retailed for $60. As opposed to Warhawk which has 25 maps and 5 modes, retails for $60 with blue tooth headset, PSN price TBA.

Should games be knocked down because of price?

Did Joe Rybicki review Shadowruin? It's just him stating that as a caveat in his own review, he's saying that the review and score he has given is based on the game having a lower pricepoint. People don't expect budget games to be rated on the same scale as multimillion dollar AAA titles, do they?

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

Uh, why wouldn't it? The game is in that package, and the package itself also offers an accessory that is directly connected to the type of game that Warhawk is. For anyone looking to get a headset, it's an awesome value. Why shouldn't this be taken into consideration? If they want to be serious about reviewing games based on price and are interested in providing buyer's guides, then they should at the very least do it right. Provide a multi-tiered review with separate summaries and score sheets for each version, depending on the needs of the buyer.

That's like reviewing Wii Play and factoring in the inclusion of the Wiimote. Which many probably have done, but shouldn't have.

Should the GHII bundle for PS2 be reviewed seperately from the Stand Alone GHII?

 

[TheFallen]

I will never understand why people feel the need to include price/value in review arguments. On one hand you have a game such as Oblivion that could easily get 40 hours to 100 hours out of you, and on the other hand you have a game such as God of War which is an easy 8 hours. Does that make God of War inferior? Absolutely not.

Gaming is one of the only industries that still has its "critics" relying on price and value arguments far too often. You won't ever see Ebert saying the 168 minutes worth watching Pirates of the Caribbean is a better value for your money (and therefore a better movie) over Casablanca (102 mins).

 

[kaching]

Already said plenty about this as it relates to Warhawk in the other thread. On a more general note, I definitely prefer reviews that focus on telling me if the game is worth playing vs. worth buying. I don't want the reviewer's advice on whether to buy, rent or avoid the game altogether, I just want to know what they thought of the game itself.

 

[Rlan]

Sam Kennedy posted this on his blog:

http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8299344&publicUserId=4561231

As you might have already seen, Patrick posted an interesting story earlier today about Warhawk's price -- specially, that the game releases in a few weeks and doesn't yet have one (for the PSN download, at least). This story was rather important to me for two reasons: 1. because what Sony is doing with Warhawk by simultaneously releasing it on Blu-ray and PSN is rather unprecedented and I find this quite exciting, and 2. because I'm also reviewing the game for EGM and price, especially for a PSN game, is absolutely a factor to consider.

Why? Because reviews are very much an indication of how much value something represents to a consumer. We take everything, from the experience to the replayability into account when reviewing a game, but at the end of the day, we're saying whether something is worth your money. It's why Shadowrun, released at $60, was largely panned. It's why I recently gave the PS2 game The Red Star a 7.5 because at $20 I thought it was a good value. It's why every review of the iPhone answered the question of whether it was worth $600.

It's also the reason why PSN games can even stand a chance with us. If we didn't take price into account, PSN and XBLA reviews would be impossible -- just about any of those
games released as a $60 title would be universally dismissed. If Calling All Cars had been released at $40 instead of $10 as it was, would it have still gotten an 8.0 from most publications? I highly doubt it. Price, especially for downloadable games, is a factor.

Now, one question people asked after the story ran was why we didn't just review the game based on its $60 Blu-ray release. That was certainly an option, but considering that
there's a good possibility that a majority of people will obtain the game via a download, this wouldn't be entirely accurate or perhaps even fair to the game.

Warhawk director Dylan Jobe (who gave me some fantastic responses in an interview about the game earlier this year) has been incredibly honest with the press about the PSN version's pricing, stating that he believes Sony should, in the very least, price it $40 or under.

At the end of the day, though, Warhawk is going to be worth playing regardless of whether it's $30, $40, or even $60 with a headset, and my review will reflect that. As some of you already know, I've been enjoying the game quite a bit the last few months, and I can't wait for everyone else to get in on it soon. But not knowing exactly how much it's going to cost as a download has left me somewhat conflicted in terms of giving the game an actual score. This isn't a situation we've encountered before, and though this may seem petty to some, we take reviews very seriously. Because again, our reviews and scores aren't just telling you if a game is good; they're telling you if it's worth spending your hard earned money on. I truly value the trust readers have in our reviews -- I respected EGM's reviews long before I worked here -- and I want to make sure we always steer you in the right direction as best we can.

The good news is that we're now hearing that we'll likely find out the price for the PSN version before EGM goes to print, so our reviews will be entirely accurate and our scores completely appropriate. I look forward to you reading them.

 

[Ulairi]

Warhawk is like Battlefield right? I don't see a problem with a full priced game if it offers Battlefields depth.

 

[Jirotrom]

Definitely.

Halo 3: Boatloads of customization in multiplayer, single player campaign, co-operative play (online and off), ability to save gameplay footage.

All for $60.

VS.

Shadowrun: Multiplayer only, a few maps, a few non-unique weapons, a few magic spells... uh, that's it.

All for $60.

What game is worthy of your hard earned money and provides the most replay value?

PRICE is IMPORTANT people.

If publications rate games without factoring that in and grant them reasonably high scores, publishers will start running wild with putting games on the market with considerably less content.

I like how you make shadowrun seem like ass when the character customization for the battles is actually quite good...oh and you forgot to add the techs.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

That's like reviewing Wii Play and factoring in the inclusion of the Wiimote. Which many probably have done, but shouldn't have.

Should the GHII bundle for PS2 be reviewed seperately from the Stand Alone GHII?

Apples and Potatoes.

GHII needs the guitar. Should be reviewed as an $80 waste of money.

The headset is far more of a "Headset, with free Warhawk" type deal. It should be reviewed as a headset, not as the game.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

I like how you make shadowrun seem like ass when the character customization for the battles is actually quite good...oh and you forgot to add the techs.

If I had played the Shadowrun that so many similar posts have purported to exist I'd be pretty disappointed too.

Apples and Potatoes.

GHII needs the guitar. Should be reviewed as an $80 waste of money.

The headset is far more of a "Headset, with free Warhawk" type deal. It should be reviewed as a headset, not as the game.

True.

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

The problem is that 'monetary value' is something that can't be agreed on because it can be drastically different from one person to the next. However, most of us will agree that a shit game is still a shit game whether we make $10/hr or $100/hr, and vice-versa.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

If these critics actually did a good enough job writing the review, in terms of detailing content and features in a clear and easy to grasp fashion, a consideration of the price point in the review itself would not be necessary. The potential buyers would have gotten enough information from the review to determine for themselves whether the game is worth the current asking price. This would also void the whole issue with keeping the review consistent with current market and pricing conditions, effectively making it a timeless review.

But the EGM/1up crew isn't talented enough for this, so they have to go with the doofus method.

 

[tanod]

"Joe Rybicki actually placed a note in his review to EGM Reviews Editor Greg Ford that his score should be dropped a whole point if the price was announced above $30"

But they actually DIDN'T knock down the score.

 

[Belfast]

Definitely.

Halo 3: Boatloads of customization in multiplayer, single player campaign, co-operative play (online and off), ability to save gameplay footage.

All for $60.

VS.

Shadowrun: Multiplayer only, a few maps, a few non-unique weapons, a few magic spells... uh, that's it.

All for $60.

What game is worthy of your hard earned money and provides the most replay value?

PRICE is IMPORTANT people.

If publications rate games without factoring that in and grant them reasonably high scores, publishers will start running wild with putting games on the market with considerably less content.

Yes, and if you don't like HALO, but loved Shadowrun, then it doesn't matter how many features they pack in for the price, the former has NO value for you. Might as well give it a zero! Value does not necessarily equal price.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

But the EGM/1up crew isn't talented enough for this, so they have to go with the doofus method.

I think staff writers like John Davison and Shawn Elliott are among some of the best reviewers reviewing games, TBH. I think you're painting with a rather reductive brush.

 

[thekad]

If I had played the Shadowrun that so many similar posts have purported to exist I'd be pretty disappointed too.

:lol

And I like how the amount of weapons and powers in a game factors into its value according to these guys. What the **** does it matter if a game has hundreds of weapons and spells and techs if it breaks the balance?

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

But they actually DIDN'T knock down the score.

Not yet. But Warhawk has a pretty decent chance of being more than $30 on PSN.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

:lol

And I like how the amount of weapons and powers in a game factors into its value according to these guys. What the **** does it matter if a game has hundreds of weapons and spells and techs if it breaks the balance?

I was trained on a steady diet of Crackdown impressions, so I'm used to this sort of thing.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

I think staff writers like John Davison and Shawn Elliott are among some of the best reviewers reviewing games, TBH. I think you're painting with a rather reductive brush.

Not at all, I'm telling it like it is. If these guys actually published better reviews (and keep in mind that "talent" can in this case also apply to the talent of communicating information within a limited amount of space for a review), then the price evaluation would be easy for the potential buyer's to make. They would know what the game offers, and so they would also know if it's worth the current asking price.

 

[Kabuki Waq]

Value should be considered part of the review.

As long as they mention in the review that price was factored in it does not matter.


I know i will buy wipeout(PSN) even if it is priced as a regular games because i have faith in the replayability for me with this game. This does not mean i dont want the reviewer not to factor in the price for the masses who are just casual fans of the game.

so that they dont feel ripped off interms of content.

 

[MMaRsu]

Well if you like shooters, Shadowrun is totally worth the 60 bucks. At least it was to alot of ppl .

 

[alterno69]

Wouldn't it be better if they just rate the game based on the known retail price which is the bluray version at $60 with a headset and put a disclaimer saying, if the PSN game is more than $30 buy the retail version or something? Deducting a point from the score is just wrong considering there are 2 available options.

 

[McBacon]

Sorry if people have already said this

But thats why scores are stupid

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Value should be considered part of the review.

As long as they mention in the review that price was factored in it does not matter.


I know i will buy wipeout(PSN) even if it is priced as a regular games because i have faith in the replayability for me with this game. This does not mean i dont want the reviewer not to factor in the price for the masses who are just casual fans of the game.

so that they dont feel ripped off interms of content.

Again, the "masses" would know if the current price is a rip-off if the review is well written enough. But that'd require of EGM to actually provide good reviews.

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

I can't wait for this discussion on 1up Yours. Mangod will reach new levels.

 

[Mac the KNife]

Uh, why wouldn't it? The game is in that package, and the package itself also offers an accessory that is directly connected to the type of game that Warhawk is. For anyone looking to get a headset, it's an awesome value. Why shouldn't this be taken into consideration? If they want to be serious about reviewing games based on price and are interested in providing buyer's guides, then they should at the very least do it right. Provide a multi-tiered review with separate summaries and score sheets for each version, depending on the needs of the buyer.

In this case they are reviewing the game without knowing the price, thus making the value of the game difficult to calculate. The fact that there are different ways to buy the game might be conveyed in the text of the review.

 

[JdFoX187]

Definitely.

Halo 3: Boatloads of customization in multiplayer, single player campaign, co-operative play (online and off), ability to save gameplay footage.

All for $60.

VS.

Shadowrun: Multiplayer only, a few maps, a few non-unique weapons, a few magic spells... uh, that's it.

All for $60.

What game is worthy of your hard earned money and provides the most replay value?

PRICE is IMPORTANT people.

If publications rate games without factoring that in and grant them reasonably high scores, publishers will start running wild with putting games on the market with considerably less content.

I love how you really try to put down Shadowrun. It doesn't matter if a game has one map, one mode and only a few weapons. If the game is fun and addicting, that's really all that matters.

Value =/= Price...that's all that needs to be said.

I've logged more time playing on Crackdown than probably all three of last-gen GTAs combined. Yet, GTA has always been perceived as the "better value" and Crackdown's scores were docked because it didn't have more things to do.

You can have hundreds of different things, but if they're not interesting, they're just wasted.

 

[Haunted]

If a review takes the price into account, does it need to be changed/updated when the price of the game drops?

1up pandering to the poor once again. reviewfare

You're not thetrin.

 

[Bad_Boy]

I guess all the game websites should add 5 points to their original God of War scores since the game can now be bought for 20 bucks.

 

[MMaRsu]

:lol

And I like how the amount of weapons and powers in a game factors into its value according to these guys. What the **** does it matter if a game has hundreds of weapons and spells and techs if it breaks the balance?

Too bad for you that Shadowrun is balanced as hell

 

[Kabuki Waq]

Some people would buy Geometry wars for 59.99

but if it did sell at that price i would want the score to factor the price when giving it the score because IMO it would be a rip off.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

SHADOW RUN!!!!!!!!!!

i swear sometimes the PS3 hate on 1up is palpable

Please meet Shane sometime.

 

[thekad]

I guess all the game websites should add 5 points to their original God of War scores since the game can now be bought for 20 bucks.

That makes no sense. Stop saying it.

 

[AstroLad]

If a review takes the price into account, does it need to be changed/updated when the price of the game drops?

Ostensibly, by then the game will have dropped in relative value accordingly (e.g., when there are better games out) but the general convention of only reviewing the game once trumps that anyway. Factoring price into reviews is so freighted with problems, it's almost hard to wrap your head around even all of the obvious ones, but the effect of price drops are not among them.

You're not thetrin

And I have no idea who that is.

 

[Bad_Boy]

That makes no sense. Stop saying it.

It was sarcasm. :/

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

Not at all, I'm telling it like it is. If these guys actually published better reviews (and keep in mind that "talent" can in this case also apply to the talent of communicating information within a limited amount of space for a review), then the price evaluation would be easy for the potential buyer's to make. They would know what the game offers, and so they would also know if it's worth the current asking price.

You're doing it right there. You're talking about one review by one person and the editorial mandate being discussed ("the price evaluation would be easy for the potential buyer's to make.") and then saying "these guys" referring to the entire staff of the magazine and online imprint. That's not telling it like it is, that's oversimplification at its most extreme level.

 

[Aalyx]

Value should be considered in a review but dropping the score by a whole arbitary point is stupid. If Warhawk provided a "8.0" gameplay experience, there is no logical reason why the score should be dropped to a "7.0" because the reviewer in his head thinks the game provides value worth $30.

Also, what the heck happened with Shadowrun then...

 

[test_account]

Well.. its not so easy to say if you should include the price in the total score. If Halo 3 was $150, would it be still be as fun to play if it was $50? I can understand that you might expect more the higher the price is tho, but still.. i dunno.

 

[J-Rzez]

I honestly have to quote myself in here as well

Shadowrun $60: -1 point
"Only on Xbox" on the box: +2points
Possibility to be the next editor to get a job at a MS studio with overly glowing reviews for everything MS: +5points

That's how I believe that scoring went because that game at any price above $10 is a spectacular fraud in every gaming sense...

Seriously, it's out of hand... Shadowrun getting a 8/10 then? :lol that would mean it's a 9/10? :lol That game is a solid 4.5/10...

We'll see what the PSN price is because if that game is $30, it's probably nearly justifiable due to now you packaging, shipping, middle man, shelf space with the physical copy... Oh, and it has a BT headset... wtf...

 

[methane47]

So let me get this straight... Does that mean that all free games should recieve 10s? since its great value for the money and all that...

 

[Metalmurphy]

That is so dumb. Did they also drop BF2 and BF2142 a full point?

 

[fortified_concept]

I got to quote Raist here: So Shadowrun is a 9/10 game? :lol

Insecure, are we?

Protective of the hive, are we?

 

[thekad]

So let me get this straight... Does that mean that all free games should recieve 10s? since its great value for the money and all that...

Value =/= Price

A broken game will not have any value whether its $5 or $60.

Spoiler

i have no idea why im trying to talk sense to you

I got to quote Raist here: So Shadowrun is a 9/10 game? :lol

To whoever reviewed it, Shadowrun is an 8/10 game. Yo have never played it, so how would you know anyway?

Spoiler

you too

 

[Jirotrom]

I don't value should ever be considered at the point basis in a review. It should be explained in the text, but value is subjective to the likes of other.

 

[tha_con]

That's stupid. First and foremost because there are two versions of the games with two different prices (thus, two different value's).

Second, prices drop over time. If this game suddenly hits the Greatest Hits point in 6 months, is 1up going to go back and 'add' a point to the game now that it's cheaper?

A review is based on the content of the game, and only the content. Price should not be a factor, because no one is going to say "man, this game is awesome, but I think it sucks because it's expensive".

Do they subsequently add points for lower priced games? Do games that retail at $39.99 get an extra point because they're not $60?

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

You're doing it right there. You're talking about one review by one person and the editorial mandate being discussed ("the price evaluation would be easy for the potential buyer's to make.") and then saying "these guys" referring to the entire staff of the magazine and online imprint. That's not telling it like it is, that's oversimplification at its most extreme level.

If you want to talk about simplicity, then talk about the stupidity of including price as a deciding argument in a review when a well written review, something no one writer at EGM seems to be capable of producing (possibly because of the limited space format, but then maybe that's something that should changed), would have the same effect and would have this effect regardless of whatever current price point the reviewed game has. And as this point is also supported by other members of the staff, there's certainly nothing wrong with arguing that it's a problem with these guys. In fact, "these guys" could under these conditions apply to a good chunk of game critics, as this mindset and poor standard is hardly limited to EGM.

 

[Drakken]

Review SCORES should not reflect price. They should be based solely on the game's quality.

The review TEXT should mention the price.

 

[tanod]

Not yet. But Warhawk has a pretty decent chance of being more than $30 on PSN.

Maybe we should wait until they do something before we get out the pitchforks.