Does price have an effect on a review score?

This is hard to explain, but I'll try. Say, Gamespot gives brand new game which retails at $60 a review score of 7/10. Now, say some time passes, and now that game retails for $30. Would the score change to reflect the lower price? It may only be a 7/10 game at $60, but if the same game were $30, could the store perhaps be an 8 or 9/10?

Another question is, are game reviews more about telling you whether you should spend your money on a game, or are they more about whether you should spend your time with a game?

See. I like to wait until price drops to buy games. If you wait long enough, you can get them pretty cheap. I also look at review scores (I know some of you don't care about scores, but I do, so please don't debate me on that because I have no intention of debating you). Sometimes I see a game with a pretty average score, but I know at the time they reviewed the game it was selling at the full original retail price (usually $60). However, if I were to find that game in a bargain bin for $10, I think to myself, "should I adjust the score in my head for price difference?" Then it ultimately comes down to, "do I want to spend my time playing this?"

Yes, most reviewers factor in the price of the game into their review but this is typically only done based on the launch price and not subsequent price drops or sales. A game with only 4-5 hours of content might get dinged if it comes with a $60 price tag (like The Order) but the same game for only $20 might get higher marks.

-Byshop

They do factor price but that does not necessarily mean a game that got 8/10 at £40 will be 10/10 when it drops to a lower price. Standards change as time passes. Normally once a game reaches bargain bin prices it is rather dated.

I think reviews should focus mainly on the overall quality of the product. But price should be a factor. With games IMO we are always talking on relatively low quantity of money. I mean, if someone is reviewing cars, price can be a huge factor, as a £1.000.000 car is a world apart from a £20.000 one. When we are talking of a £30 vs £60 game the price is far more irrelevant.

Absolutely: Deadly Premonition would have received a slew of 2/10 had it been launched at a $60 price point, instead of the 7/10 average it has, having being launched at $30.

Which takes us back to the fact that reviews are first and foremost a buyer's guide to tell people whether they will get their money's worth when buying a game.

Well I think the lengh of the game as more to do than the price because nowaday retail games come at a 60$ price mark everytime unless it is a game that came out only digital and they release it in hard copy. It isn't like it was 15 years ago or 20 years ago when you had many price point that really reflected the quality, the lengh etc of the game. I remember that Final Fantasy VII costed a lot more than a Tekken game. Now you either buy The Order 1886 or The Witchers 3, they all cost the same.

I think it's worth mentioning, but it should not be factored into the actual score. Scores should reflect the quality of the game. I don't know what most professional reviewers' stance is on this, but I don't think it would be fair if a game scored better than another game simply because of its price.

What are you on about Byshop? most reviewers factor price into their review? what has given you that idea. Because that should never be included in the review itself.

A review should be that critics opinion on the game and it doesn't matter if it cost 30$ or 60$. Which is also what i get from gamespots review of indie games or lower cost games.

Yes I believe it does somewhat in a value for your money kind of way but I don't think it's something that will increase a score of a game over time as it gets cheaper.

No they arent going to re-review the game as it gets price drops

I'm assuming you mean "what has given you that idea because that is not and never should be the case".

Lots of reviews factor in game price. Most games retail for the same price but for most people it's about the value you get out of the game relative to what it costs you. I can point to specific reviews where the price was specifically mentioned as a plus or negative. Deadly Premonition was mentioned in this thread already, here were the list of good points from Gamespot's review:

THE GOOD

• Bizarre and entertaining story keeps you guessing
• Memorable cast of characters will get under your skin
• Lots of variety leads to pleasant unpredictability
• Many hours of gameplay for only $20

That sounds to me like price was absolutely a factor in this game's reivew and that's not the only spot where it was mentioned. That's fair, because most people who might spend $60 on God of War or Halo would probably be annoyed if they spent the same amount of money on Deadly Preomonition. Ultimately people are trying to find out if the product they are interested in buying is going to be worth their money or not. If all games were free we wouldn't need reviews, we could just try every game ourselves.

Steel Battalion cost $200. I doubt there's a single review of this game out there by any publication that didn't mention this and factor it into the overall value of the product.

-Byshop

I'm not sure for Gamespot but for my review, I have in the past take the price in consideration for the score.

But I'm not sure if I could do it again. I think I now prefer to give a score without considering the price and in the good and bad points at the end of my review, I'll say if the price is good, fair or expensive.

To clarify, when I do see price factored into a review it's typically weighed against content/length as opposed to how "good" the game is. Quality of gameplay isn't usually mitigated by a lower price tag in a review, but game length is.

-Byshop

No, i meant what i said. Its one thing to mention it, like on a "The Good" list. its another to factor it when writing your opinion on the game.

I have never gotten that impression that any critic on any site uses the price as anything else than a added bonus or added drawback, when it comes down to the game review itself its about the game.

Sorry, but I couldn't make sense of your original statement because it read like it was missing a word. I'm not trying to split hairs. I think I understood what you meant and I was responding to that.

"what has given you that idea because that is (the case) and should never be the case" is contradictary so I assumed you meant to say that this is "not" the case and never should be the case since that seems to be backed up by the rest of your statements.

I would agree that a review of a game's gameplay or story isn't necessarily affected by the price the game is sold at but I certainly think that the length of the experience is something that's weighed against how much it'll cost you at least in broad strokes. I do agree that small price differences don't factor in at all because prices like these can vary even from country to country, but I think that there are a few major "buckets" that games are weighed against like "is this a AAA priced $60+ console game?" versus "is this an indie priced $20 game?" versus "is this an MMO with a monthly subscription fee?". Deadly Premonition got good reviews from some sites for its charm, uniqueness, and in spite of its many, many flaws but I think that's because it was being judged as an indie game because that's where the price point was. I don't think any reviewer would have scored that game well if it were in the same price range as AAA titles like Halo, Gears of War, God of War, etc.

-Byshop

*Takes off Staff Hat*
For me, price has an effect on my overall score for a game. For example, I think Terreria (a game that is often in the $5 range) is an amazing game. Had it been a $60 game, my tone would have been very different.
*Puts hat back on*

Eh. It depends on how much importance the author places on monetary value. I've played plenty of $5 or $10 games that I gladly would have paid full price for because the experience they delivered really spoke to me. But I guess I'm an outlier, since I tend to place more value on the experience itself rather than the price, hence why I tend to avoid talk about price and the like in my own reviews. Not because I'm wealthy or anything (gods, wouldn't that be nice), but rather because I don't have much money to spend on games. If I'm gonna buy something, I want to make sure I'm getting something I'll enjoy, or at least get something out of.

Well Said C_Rake I agree with that.

A price is such a small thing of a game, so i will never get why it would effect a opinion on the actual game.

I think price should be irrelevant in review scores because it's an external variable, but I'm sure I'm in a minority as I constantly hear reviewers/forum-goers bring up how "there's not enough value in the game for $60".

I feel reviews should be based off of the game's merits, so if it's an amazing game, then it's an amazing game, regardless of price. Xenoblade being $100 at one point didn't stop me from recommending it to people because it wasn't my concern of how others manage their budget. Judging games partially off of initial asking price causes a review to be less helpful in the future. People complained about The Order 1886 not being worth $60. A lot of the discussion revolved around price debates; however, a week after release you could find the game on market places going for $40 or less, now 3 months after release it can be found as low as $28, making the initial arguments irrelevant.

Well, given how games are an expensive hobby, I don't fault anyone for getting hung up on price. I mean, $60 is a big investment. If someone felt they didn't get their money's worth because there wasn't enough content for them, I can understand that. When you're spending that much money on something, it's only natural to want some justification for the price tag.

I think sometimes they give a more generous score to a game thats cheap. But that makes sense. If a 10 dollar game is pretty fun and gives you 5 hrs of fun gameplay thats good. But if a 60 dollar game only gives 5 hrs of similar gameplay, it deserves much less if you were to factor in price in a review.

Although i've played terrible free games and even not paying anything i'd give them awful scores if i reviewed them.

@psx2514: There's always inflation to the score regarding games. A 10/10 in 2005, would be a 5/10 today or something similar. When you compare it to the mechanics, graphics, etc. But the original score still stands because that's how good the game is. You have to decide yourself if it's worth the money if it got a 7/10