Personally I'd do away with price defining the score all together, because who knows what a dollar means to somebody. When Sonic 4 Episode 2's price was revealed, I read a ton of comments from people moaning about the price (not here) saying they'd have to save up their money. To me, saving up $15 is a joke. I have $15, its no issue to me. So when I read a review and they give a game a poor score because $15 is too much for them, it makes it hard for me to figure out how to trust the score. Like, if something like $15 is a non-issue for me, would the review score be higher? Probably, considering price was a big factor in the review.
You're looking at it from a different angle.
Yes, dollar value is different for everyone and that's totally valid. To some, they literally can't afford $15, and you can. Okay, that makes sense.
But that's not exactly where I'm coming from. I'm thinking more along the lines of something else. I'm going to put out a thought here (one I disagree with; I really enjoyed Sonic 4: Episode 2 far better than Sonic CD) but here's what I'm talking about:
Okay, Sonic 4: Episode 2 is selling for $15. That's at the high end of pricing for digital-only titles on XBLA/PSN, but it's common pricing for NEW games with this type of hype. But then Sonic CD can be purchased for $5. Is it worth paying 3 times that price for a game that is "not as good"?
See what I'm saying? It's not an issue of being "able to afford" $15, it's an issue of "maybe there are better games I can buy for cheaper or for equal pricing to that relatively high asking price."
"Hey, I can afford to pay $15, no problem, but is the game worth paying $15? for?"
That's sort of the issue. Gamers have lots of games that they're interested in and that they want to buy. I think they want to know which games are better value for their money. A gamer with only $50 or $60 to spend at this moment may want a game that'll get them the most for their money. If you were only going to pay full price for one and wait for a drop on the other, and I were to recommend either Xenoblade Chronicles or Mass Effect 3, I'd recommend Xenoblade, a 60-70 hour game...over ME3.
I didn't harp on that in my reviews of either Xenoblade or ME3 (I think they're both worth $50-$60 and didn't mention price at all in my reviews of either) but I have a section in almost all of my reviews for Replay Value where I almost always mention the length because that's important to most people.
The only reason I mentioned price for Lollipop Chainsaw is because it was a game clearly developed on a low budget and a game that, I felt, based on its quality and the amount offered, should have launched for a lower asking price; It was a rare instance where I felt strongly enough to mention it, and I think gamers want to know that. Again, it's not the main criticism I'm leveling against the game; the game is what it is and it will always be what it is, even with a lower price.
However, my point in bringing up price was to tell Suda 51 fans that in SOME WAYS, the game is still worth experiencing, just maybe for a lower price. In other words, at 5.5/10, this is NOT a recommendation. But if you can find it for a budget price, you may find its many flaws and uninspired gameplay more forgivable. Again, this will *not* make the game any better, but at a lower price, you may be more willing to look the other way regarding certain major issues with it.
I think price is perfectly valid to bring up,
on occasion. It's not something I do all the time, but price is fairly important to people right now, it seems.
