FrozenCell
Member
30 fps game = max 30 sounds much better
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Do Review Scores Factor In Game Price? Should They?
- Thread starter flkraven
- Start date
LithiumSpade
Member
I honestly feel so bad for you right now. Never seen a thread with such consistent examples of people not making an effort.
Shadow of the Colossus would have been a bargain!
This. I'm a little dumbfounded at the polar opposite reaction in this thread. Reviews are all about helping you gauge the value proposition of a new release. If something is released that befits a DLC price tag but is actually released at full price ($60), I definitely want the review to mention it, even if the score isn't radically affected by it.
Also, there a number of confused posts in the thread that seem to have inverted the OP's question, and are discussing whether a game's MSRP should be adjusted to reflect the score, instead of the other way around.
Yeah, this. lol. Staggering.
Every game wouldn't necessarily be "better," but having enough disposable income that I could immediately buy any game that I found mildly interesting would be a pretty huge change in my purchasing decisions.
I agree however I think price doesn't have anything to do with game quality.
Gaming standards doesn't change after few weeks though. Game being free doesn't make the game better than if it costs 60 dollars.
Jawmuncher
Member
Was quite the spectacle to see that unfold. The same thing also happened to RE6 as well.
I think reviews should be updated (and the updates clearly marked as such) for things like that since they can significantly change how the game plays. On the other hand, I don't think reviews should be updated based on price changes. You read the (updated) review, you see the current price on your store of choice, and you can make a decision whether it's worth it at that point.
No, No, No and No.
If anything Sony and MS should get going with the try before you buy features some of them were promising and cut ties with game websites altogether.
Once that feature rolls out, there would be no "need" for people to go through sites and their garbage to get an opinion from some dude that's not you.
If anything Sony and MS should get going with the try before you buy features some of them were promising and cut ties with game websites altogether.
Once that feature rolls out, there would be no "need" for people to go through sites and their garbage to get an opinion from some dude that's not you.
Stallion Dan
Member
If a game is free people are more like to play it and be more forgiving of its bad parts. Same as if a game cost less money.
NexusGamer
Member
unless the game has significantly more/less value than usual for a certain price point, it's not worth mentioning imo
ScatheZombie
Member
It also depends how far the reviewer personally wants to slide the product review/critical review bar for any particular title.
I've talked about this before, but the biggest issue in the consistency of game reviewing has been the disconnect between whether reviewers should be focusing on the critical analysis aspect of reviewing (Art Critic) or the consumer product analysis aspect of reviewing (Consumer Reports).
If the aim is to be an art critic, then price - and by extension, value - is nearly irrelevant. Is the game enjoyable as a game? Does it make intelligent design decisions, have good presentation, have an enjoyable experience? I think many reviewers approach games with this at least partially in their mind since so many reviews tend to focus on presentation and also touch on whether it is an enjoyable experience. Where many reviews fail, is being able to identify intelligent design decisions and, more importantly, why those decisions were made. And what are the bad design decisions and why were those decisions made. That's the level of critical analysis that's really missing from game's media. Another common aspect of this type of review, is to review the piece based on its own merits without resorting to comparison to other pieces - another aspect that most game reviewers fail on.
On the other hand, if the aim is to be a consumer product reviewer, then price and value are absolutely important considerations to be made. Products that cost more should perform better in order to justify the value proposition of the products. This is where largely irrelevant (to a critical review) components pop up - things like game length, monetization schemes (DLC), and value. This is also where the reviewer makes direct comparisons to similar products to justify the product's value or lack thereof.
Game reviewers really need to decide which one they want to be and what aspects of the product(s) they want to focus on - and then do so consistently. It is their inconsistency of fluctuating between attempting critical analysis and being a consumer watchdog from product to product that sets them up for uncomfortable questions about why one product gets certain scores while another (with arguably worse infractions from either a critical or consumer standpoint) gets better scores.
I've talked about this before, but the biggest issue in the consistency of game reviewing has been the disconnect between whether reviewers should be focusing on the critical analysis aspect of reviewing (Art Critic) or the consumer product analysis aspect of reviewing (Consumer Reports).
If the aim is to be an art critic, then price - and by extension, value - is nearly irrelevant. Is the game enjoyable as a game? Does it make intelligent design decisions, have good presentation, have an enjoyable experience? I think many reviewers approach games with this at least partially in their mind since so many reviews tend to focus on presentation and also touch on whether it is an enjoyable experience. Where many reviews fail, is being able to identify intelligent design decisions and, more importantly, why those decisions were made. And what are the bad design decisions and why were those decisions made. That's the level of critical analysis that's really missing from game's media. Another common aspect of this type of review, is to review the piece based on its own merits without resorting to comparison to other pieces - another aspect that most game reviewers fail on.
On the other hand, if the aim is to be a consumer product reviewer, then price and value are absolutely important considerations to be made. Products that cost more should perform better in order to justify the value proposition of the products. This is where largely irrelevant (to a critical review) components pop up - things like game length, monetization schemes (DLC), and value. This is also where the reviewer makes direct comparisons to similar products to justify the product's value or lack thereof.
Game reviewers really need to decide which one they want to be and what aspects of the product(s) they want to focus on - and then do so consistently. It is their inconsistency of fluctuating between attempting critical analysis and being a consumer watchdog from product to product that sets them up for uncomfortable questions about why one product gets certain scores while another (with arguably worse infractions from either a critical or consumer standpoint) gets better scores.
That's what I'm saying. Some of the games I got for £20-30 I would consider AAA. Cities Skylines to name one.
I think there should be some reviews that take price into consideration. A lot of people don't have a lot of disposable income to drop on games, so value is important. There should be some outlets where people can go that help in that area.
Not saying every outlet should do that. Both should and can co-exist.
Not saying every outlet should do that. Both should and can co-exist.
Exactly. They are more forgiving of the bad parts meaning the game is bad. It doesn't become better by being cheaper.
SliceSabre
Banned
To a certain extent they already factor in game price. As an example I note a lot of reviews and others that have been favorable toward Resident Evil Revelations 2 partly because at full retail the game will only be $25 and you're getting a lot of bang for your buck, apparently. Whereas I'd be curious to see how they'd feel about the game if they were dropping $60. I don't take reviews to heart usually, but it is nice to read the ones that take price into consideration as it adds another dimension to look at.
It's an absurd idea to include price in one's assessment of a game? Like... It's completely unreasonable to say that you thought a game was priced very high relative to the experience it provided, or offered a lot of entertainment for the money?
Getting kind of hard to tell which posts are from people living in the PLATONIC WORLD OF IDEAS and which are just misreadings of the thread title.
Allforce
Member
It's hard for me to grasp the backlash against OPs ideas here (barring the people who clearly didn't read and think we're talking about publishers who would raise the price of a 10/10 game).
Every review thread we have on here has dozens of posts with "7s and 8s, sounds good, will buy at *insert lower price*". Why shouldn't this be a factor with professional reviews? They're not films, which is to say, everyone pays the flat fee of 5-10 bucks that all movies cost and sees the film for two hours. Games have interactive content and can span anywhere from a few hours to several hundred. There should definitely be a consideration of content vs the asking price in reviews.
Every review thread we have on here has dozens of posts with "7s and 8s, sounds good, will buy at *insert lower price*". Why shouldn't this be a factor with professional reviews? They're not films, which is to say, everyone pays the flat fee of 5-10 bucks that all movies cost and sees the film for two hours. Games have interactive content and can span anywhere from a few hours to several hundred. There should definitely be a consideration of content vs the asking price in reviews.
Only if there's a huge disconnect, I mean something like The Order is short, but has huge production value and it is something you can see, production is not some unmeasurable tangible. On the other hand like someone said earlier, the mobile game that reviews great because it was $1, if the game is $60, price should be considered in the review, because you can see the production costs was not so high or did not take as long to make and probably reflects it in length and graphics, etc. If GTA 5 was $1 why not give it 10/10. Every site should infact. That is a big disconnect and should be factored to inform the consumer what a great deal it is. More for less, less for more should be considered but only if the more, is a lot more or the less is a lot less.
Haha, yeah seriously. As soon as I began seeing such a blanket negative response to the OP, I knew something was going on with misunderstandings, because it's a totally reasonable suggestion. Haven't seen such a widespread misread in a while on GAF.
Netherscourge
Banned
How do you set a price for Pre-orders without a review score?
I don't care about "value", or consumers (as a group, outside of myself), or about the gouging that is supposedly commonplace. What I want from a review is an informed, insightful argument for the merits of a game (or lack thereof), as a piece of work – and hopefully an argument that maintains its relevance whether I'm reading it two weeks or two years after the game was released.
In theory there would be room for both short, shallow reviews that function as consumer buying advice on release day, and more in-depth criticism that isn't done on such a tight timeline. But the reality is that the latter barely exists, probably partly due to the intense focus on the former in the gaming press and its audience. There just doesn't seem to be enough demand, I guess, given an audience that prefers to focus on total non-issues like review scoring systems, rather than the actual quality and substance of the criticism they are reading.
NoMoChokeSJ
Banned
Nope. A good game is good on its merits, not on its pricing. There are a lot of great $20 games out there that are great because of their mechanics, story, concept, ect, the pricing is just a bonus. And while a less expensive game may allow one to look past it's faults, they still exist. The value is determined by the consumer, but the reviewing should be to a consistent standard (In theory).
Give War A Chance
Member
They should take into account the intended size and scope of the game. This is usually reflected by the price... usually. So, I guess in a roundabout why, yes. But it shouldn't have anything to do with price, specifically. It's more about "The Ballad of Gay Tony" vs "Grand Theft Auto V."
There is a difference. Because if Journey was $60, it would not have received the reviews it did, point blank. I'm sure some reviewers may have even said in their reviews, "I'd pay $60 for an experience like this!" But if it were $60, they would have told you about how short it was and it would have been knocked a bit for it.
There is a difference. Because if Journey was $60, it would not have received the reviews it did, point blank. I'm sure some reviewers may have even said in their reviews, "I'd pay $60 for an experience like this!" But if it were $60, they would have told you about how short it was and it would have been knocked a bit for it.
Natureboy99
Banned
How could they when price is decided way early in the planning stages before even 1 line of code is written.
SerTapTap
Member
Would you expect a "good" pair of $10 headphones to be the same as a "good" pair of $1000 headphones? Would you expect a 4 star review on a $10 pair of headphones to mean they're identical in quality to a pair of $1000 headphones that got a 4 star review? I certainly hope not. Now why are games different?
There's definitely a place for purely academic criticism regardless of price, but like I said earlier, 95% of reviews out there are essentially product reviews not academic criticism.
silvermember
Banned
Reviews should have no DIRECT effect in determining the cost of a game. If they did companies could just pay reviewers to rate their game higher to get around this restriction. Then you got the issue of what reviewer should review the game to give it the appropriate cost and all that stuff.
OR
Instead going through all that worthless process, you let the free market determine the value of the game. If the game sucks, except for nintendo games (which rarely suck) the price will eventually reflect its true value.
Which is easier and doesn't require any major systematic changes? I am going to say the current method. Change for the sake of changed is extremely idiotic.
OR
Instead going through all that worthless process, you let the free market determine the value of the game. If the game sucks, except for nintendo games (which rarely suck) the price will eventually reflect its true value.
Which is easier and doesn't require any major systematic changes? I am going to say the current method. Change for the sake of changed is extremely idiotic.
Raptomex
Member
Agreed. This made me laugh, too. No review should determine a price. Reviews are subjective.
This would be the dumbest thing I could imagine. A subjective opinion on quality is in no way something that should ever impact price, that should strictly be based on content, budget, licensing, etc
Edit: Ok, to be a bit clearer a review is reflective on the reviewer's opinion on the quality of the game. If they believe a game's price is not justified by the content on offer and lower their score then that is their particular opinion on the game's overall quality, and something that should not dictate what a game retails for as every person will have a different opinion on that front. The market itself is what decides what a game is ultimately worth. For example, when they learned about The Order: 1886's length I saw a lot of people say that they would not pay full price for that game and wait for it to go on sale. For them the game was worth $40. Others felt the $60 price tag was worth the production values.
Edit 2: Honestly, if this thread had been titled "Does game price factor into review scores?" then the arguments people are having would be cleared up in a jiffy
Edit: Ok, to be a bit clearer a review is reflective on the reviewer's opinion on the quality of the game. If they believe a game's price is not justified by the content on offer and lower their score then that is their particular opinion on the game's overall quality, and something that should not dictate what a game retails for as every person will have a different opinion on that front. The market itself is what decides what a game is ultimately worth. For example, when they learned about The Order: 1886's length I saw a lot of people say that they would not pay full price for that game and wait for it to go on sale. For them the game was worth $40. Others felt the $60 price tag was worth the production values.
Edit 2: Honestly, if this thread had been titled "Does game price factor into review scores?" then the arguments people are having would be cleared up in a jiffy
There are still posts on this page of people still getting it backwards. Come on guys! Lol
LithiumSpade
Member
Sure yet mine also works and I am now realizing I have inadvertently created a brilliant way for me to determine who's opinions to ignore based on whether they read OPs or not.
ThatChairMan
Member
Similar to what some others have said, but it depends entirely on what kind of review. A consumer value review, to inform consumers about what they're spending they're money on, absolutely should factor in price. A review looking only at the story, gameplay design, or any other artistic qualifier shouldn't really care about price.
We can even extrapolate this conversation out a bit further. Kotaku gives games a 'Should you play this' rating of yes or no. Does that really paint the whole picture? Should I rent it or should I buy it? It's not as cut and dry as cinema, since every movie ticket more or less costs the exact same amount. Isn't it somewhat unfair to completely disregard the price?
The difference is cost of production. You and I are not using the same definition of AAA. I'm not talking about the quality of the game itself but rather the cost of producing a game such as The Order vs Cities Skylines. I am guessing that Skylines cost a fraction of The Order. So, IMO both games are priced accordingly.
Either way, The Order will adjust to market demands and will reach an acceptable price point.
JayhawkerStL
Banned
I think you may have misunderstood the question.
yeah you know or if you want to engage in a discussion you could start doing that by reading the opinion of the person that wants to start a discussion
But I wonder if the way The Order was presented would change how it was received. What if it was split into 2 or 3 chapters at $20 or $30 each and sold like episodes. I wonder if it would review differently.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Right. Money would no longer be a contextual factor. Instead, I might consider whether each game was worth my time. If I can buy literally every game but obviously cannot play every game, then I will prioritize by anticipated enjoyment per unit of time. That metric would also factor into my final opinions/reviews of the games I played.
GarciaHotspur
Member
Exactly what i think about it
GankzyMcfly
Member
The question was whether or not reviews are influenced by price, not if reviews should influence price.... I personally can't see how this would be up for debate, if you take piers solar and the great architects and charge 69.99 for it and give it a full physical release the game goes from a 3.5 of 4 to a 2.5 IMO... keeping the price at 14.99 digital makes the content and quality reasonable for the cost
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Exactly what i think about it
If you would enjoy a McDonald's hamburger for 2 dollars but not for 20 dollars, you're doing it wrong! It's the same burger!
SmoothRunningGun
Member
I think they should since we live in the real world and not fantasy land. And I want to know how long the game is. This extra info doesn't hurt people who don't care.
Similar threads
- Poll