Should the Price of a Game Affect it's Score?

[Riderz1337]

I was just reading this Destiny: The Taken King review (http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/21/destiny-the-taken-king-review-a-new-beginning-or-the-final-straw-5400561/) and I noticed that the price of the content heavily influenced the reviewers final score on the game.

I was just wondering what your take is on this. Do you feel like price should impact a games review? I personally don't think it should. I mean if a game is a good game then it's good because of the content, story etc not because of what it's priced at. Obviously I'm only including realistic price points (Ie 60$ for new releases).

What do you guys think?

[ethomaz]

Others reviews did the same.
In my opinion you need to review the game and not the price.
When you review a Ferrari you know it will be expensive lol

[Legend]

Yeah it'd be fun if we switched to "benchmarking" games instead of reviewing them.

However reviews should stay as is. Value is a huge part of whether or not a product is worth recommending.

[BananaKing]

no. because these scores are permanent, prices arent. one should mention in the review how much he feels the price of the game should be. but it shouldnt effect its score.

[7H3]

Others reviews did the same.
In my opinion you need to review the game and not the price.
When you review a Ferrari you know it will be expensive lol

When reviewing a corolla that costs the same price as a ferrari though...

Price does and can play a key factor in game buying decisions, but I don't think it should affect the score perse but perhaps be noted to say if the product is worth the investment...

[Dr. Pezus]

Of course it should

[Xevross]

No it shouldn't. They should just review it, completely independently of price so that readers/ watchers can decide what value they think the game has. Everyone perceives price differently.

[the-pi-guy]

I'm agreeing with Bananaman.  

[Dr. Pezus]

No it shouldn't. They should just review it, completely independently of price so that readers/ watchers can decide what value they think the game has. Everyone perceives price differently.

But everyone perceives quality differently too. So the best solution would be not to review games at all

[Xevross]

But everyone perceives quality differently too. So the best solution would be not to review games at all

Well that's true but if you changed reviews based on price as well it would only make reviews more complicated and would increase complaints about them.

[Dr. Pezus]

Well that's true but if you changed reviews based on price as well it would only make reviews more complicated and would increase complaints about them.

They should at least talk about the price. Reviews aren't timeless anyway, everyone should know that nowadays.

[Xevross]

They should at least talk about the price. Reviews aren't timeless anyway, everyone should know that nowadays.

True but as banana said, price changes a lot so mentioning price would be useless in a few months time.

[Legend]

True but as banana said, price changes a lot so mentioning price would be useless in a few months time.

But patches change a lot too.

Gamers already look at DriveClub's metacritic and know the game is better now, and they look at MCC and know the game is worse than the reviews stated. If price should be factored out of a review, then you could argue network problems also shouldn't be involved. Same goes for bugs and glitches. Also can't give the game props for any multiplayer features since the communities will eventually evaporate.

Doing a benchmark for games like this would be really cool, but it's just so far removed from what a review sets out to be. Games should be reviewed as a complete package for that moment in time. Then gamers can use common sense to factor in how the game has changed since launch.

[Xevross]

But patches change a lot too.

Gamers already look at DriveClub's metacritic and know the game is better now, and they look at MCC and know the game is worse than the reviews stated. If price should be factored out of a review, then you could argue network problems also shouldn't be involved. Same goes for bugs and glitches. Also can't give the game props for any multiplayer features since the communities will eventually evaporate.

Doing a benchmark for games like this would be really cool, but it's just so far removed from what a review sets out to be. Games should be reviewed as a complete package for that moment in time. Then gamers can use common sense to factor in how the game has changed since launch.

I think that's the problem here. Gamers often don't use common sense, which is why reviews need to be so carefully made like this. There's a lot of problems with reviews, which don't really have a fix. For people that can use common sense and think about reviews, I think they're fine as they are. If you start to factor in price and such then it may start to over-complicate things as different reviewers will judge quite differently and may confuse people, so they don't know how good the game actually is.

I also think reviews should be updated as games are updated, Driveclub - as you said - has improved so much but the reviews don't reflect that. That's just one example

[the-pi-guy]

Maybe reviews should be automated somehow.  

AI is the future!