Why are reviewers now so leery of discussing game prices?

[Cold_Blooded]

@Pogue Mahone

But this is what reviews already do. A well-written review will tell the reader what the reviewer got out of the game. The price of the game is public knowledge. It’s up for the potential game buyer to make the decision of whether that game is going to be worth their investment, both in time and money. I fail to understand how a reviewer tagging on a statement like, “I totally got my money’s worth out of this one” is going to provide any worthwhile information to a reader.

Clarified in previous post. Original post seemed to be talking about all reviewers, on face of Earth, in perpetuity throughout universe, etc. etc… Your confusion is coming from your own perspective, which is definitely not unique, but also not universal.

There are absolutely audiences for outlets who focus on games for critique and analysis regardless of retail price. You yourself clearly belong to said audience. Outlets such as this very site and other critique/analysis publications serve this need.

There are also audiences of game-buying human beings who may be considerably more concerned about a game’s retail price, due to limited personal budget or whatever other reasons. To help them with their purchasing decisions, this other audience need some sense of value, at the very least, a relative one that puts a game’s offerings in some kind of context (“8-10 hour single-player only game in the vein of Bayonetta,” “brown military shooter with 4-6 hour campaign + lackluster multiplayer with a substandard number of maps,” “$60 MMO with $15 monthly subscription that isn’t as good as W.O.W.,” etc.).

Sadly, latter audience tends to outnumber former audience, which is why there are more GameReviewsForAllGamesOnAllPlatformsOutOf10.com-like publications than there are of the former…which is just a function of supply/demand.

[Cold_Blooded]

@John Many Jars

Surely a valid review can be written from either the consumer or the cognoscenti point of view? Surely this is a matter of taste?

Yes. That’s the entire point I’ve been making in so many words.

[Angrycoder]

@Cold Blooded

It’s nothing of the kind. Video games, of the sort that call for reviews, typically cost $60 new, and it’s the responsibility of mainstream consumer reviewers who write game reviews for general audiences to help explain whether said game is a good value for money. Failing to do so is failing to write a useful review for majority of consumers, whose funds are limited and actually make purchasing decisions based on reviews.

No, reviewers aren’t your personal shoppers.

At best all a reviewer can do is describe his experiences with the game, how to fits into the ecosystem of games as a whole, and whether it met the goals the reviewer felt it was trying to achieve.

[Cold_Blooded]

@Angrycoder

No, reviewers aren’t your personal shoppers.

At best all a reviewer can do is describe his experiences with the game, how to fits into the ecosystem of games as a whole, and whether it met the goals the reviewer felt it was trying to achieve.

Kindly scroll up one post.

[tomchick]

@Cold Blooded

However, should an outlet position itself as a consumer-facing publication that reviews games for just about anybody who might be interesting in buying them, such reviews absolutely need to include some sort of judgment about relative value. If [Imaginary strawman outlet] RankYourGameReviewsOutOf10.com, which reviews every single console/handheld/computer game under the sun, writes all its reviews along the lines of “I’ll tell you if I liked it, but about the price, whatever, you guys know what I’m talking about,” that outlet’s reviews are worthless, or at best, of far less value than a consumer site that actually bothers to try to put a particular retail game’s value into some kind of consistent perspective.

What’s the counterpart to this for other forms of entertainment? You’re treating games coverage as if it were no different from home appliance coverage.

-Tom

[Cold_Blooded]

@Tom Chick

What’s the counterpart to this for other forms of entertainment? You’re treating games coverage as if it were no different from home appliance coverage.

-Tom

Why does there need to be one?

What other forms of entertainment cost $60 a pop and also potentially hours upon hours of time investment?

[divedivedive]

@Cold Blooded

There are absolutely audiences for outlets who focus on games for critique and analysis regardless of retail price. You yourself clearly belong to said audience. Outlets such as this very site and other critique/analysis publications serve this need.

Yes, I belong to this audience, as do most people who frequent this website, I would imagine. No argument. It’s also true that as an older gamer, I have more money than time. I have no use for a “consumer report” style review.

@Cold Blooded

There are also audiences of game-buying human beings who may be considerably more concerned about a game’s retail price, due to limited personal budget or whatever other reasons. To help them with their purchasing decisions, this other audience need some sense of value, at the very least, a relative one that puts a game’s offerings in some kind of context (“8-10 hour single-player only game in the vein of Bayonetta,” “brown military shooter with 4-6 hour campaign + lackluster multiplayer with a substandard number of maps,” “$60 MMO with $15 monthly subscription that isn’t as good as W.O.W.,” etc.).

This is where you lose me. You’re talking about mixing a review, which is subjective content regardless of what the jokers on the Qt3 front page seem to believe, and a game’s price, which is an absolute hard value. A person can say that Bayonetta is big fun but kind of short, so it was worth $30 to them. But that’s meaningless to anyone else. Someone who absolutely loves Japanese beat-em-ups may be willing to pay full price. A ten-year-old who has saved up his allowance for six months may not be willing to pay $30 for a quick thrill. And what does the reviewer do when someone writes in yelling about being cheated? “YOU SAID THIS GAME WAS WORTH $60 AND IT’S CRAP I’M GOING TO SUE” You know that’s going to happen.

[Cold_Blooded]

@Pogue Mahone

This is where you lose me. You’re talking about mixing a review, which is subjective content regardless of what the jokers on the Qt3 front page seem to believe, and a game’s price, which is an absolute hard value. A person can say that Bayonetta is big fun but kind of short, so it was worth $30 to them. But that’s meaningless to anyone else. Someone who absolutely loves Japanese beat-em-ups may be willing to pay full price. A ten-year-old who has saved up his allowance for six months may not be willing to pay $30 for a quick thrill. And what does the reviewer do when someone writes in yelling about being cheated? “YOU SAID THIS GAME WAS WORTH $60 AND IT’S CRAP I’M GOING TO SUE” You know that’s going to happen.

I’m talking about explicitly stating that Bayonetta is only so many hours long, and single-player only, yet retailed for the full $60 standard console price at release–facts that a certain audience of game consumers would be very interested in hearing about, as these facts would very much be make-or-break factors in a potential purchasing decision for some, regardless of how enjoyable it was.

Again, original post seemed to take on all reviewers as a whole–my point is that at least some of said reviewers, such as those writing for AllGamesOnPlanetEarthReviewedOutOf10.com, whose target audience is intended for people who use reviews and scores to actually make purchase decisions, should make some attempt to contextualize value for this audience, and failing to do so, fails that particular audience, or at least, serves them more poorly than they could and should be doing.

[tomchick]

@Cold Blooded

Why does there need to be one?

Because I feel videogames should be discussed in the same way we discuss movies, books, and television. You’re arguing that videogames should be discussed the same way we discuss home appliances.

@Cold Blooded

What other forms of entertainment cost $60 a pop and also potentially hours upon hours of time investment?

What does that matter? There are all sorts of factors that make books unique from movies and music distinct from television. That doesn’t change the fact that they’re entertainment, not consumer products.

-Tom

[tomchick]

@Cold Blooded

[Reviewers] should make some attempt to contextualize value for this audience

That’s a pretty fancy way to say “make assumptions about the value of a reader’s money”.

-Tom

[aganazer]

There is nothing subjective about discussing how many hours long a game lasted the reviewer and how much the retail cost is. A purely objective “value rating” could be determined from that information.

I specifically calculate how many dollars per hour of entertainment ANY form of entertainment costs me (movies, books, games, etc). When it drops below $1/hr then it must be pretty fantastic to get my money.

I recently bought one of the books based on SWTOR. I finished it in an afternoon. Most books last me 2-3 weeks. If any of the reviews would have indicated how short it was then I wouldn’t have wasted my money on it. I think its the job of the reviewer to empower the reader with the ability to make a purchase decision. Most reviewers aren’t doing that IMO.

[aganazer]

double post

[divedivedive]

@aganazer

There is nothing subjective about discussing how many hours long a game lasted the reviewer and how much the retail cost is. A purely objective “value rating” could be determined from that information.

Actually no, you cannot derive any type of objective value from any input that is not objective. That’s the point I’ve been driving towards.

@aganazer

I specifically calculate how many dollars per hour of entertainment ANY form of entertainment costs me (movies, books, games, etc). When it drops below $1/hr then it must be pretty fantastic to get my money.

Oh OK, so you’re some kind of robot.

[Wolff]

Tell me if the game was worth your time, the highs, the lows I will make my own monetary judgements thank you.

[CF_Kane]

@aganazer

There is nothing subjective about discussing how many hours long a game lasted the reviewer and how much the retail cost is. A purely objective “value rating” could be determined from that information.

I specifically calculate how many dollars per hour of entertainment ANY form of entertainment costs me (movies, books, games, etc). When it drops below $1/hr then it must be pretty fantastic to get my money.

I recently bought one of the books based on SWTOR. I finished it in an afternoon. Most books last me 2-3 weeks. If any of the reviews would have indicated how short it was then I wouldn’t have wasted my money on it. I think its the job of the reviewer to empower the reader with the ability to make a purchase decision. Most reviewers aren’t doing that IMO.

Under your dollars per hour of entertainment, quality of entertainment per hour seems to be irrelevant. That seems like a problem in the metric.

[SlyFrog]

@Tom Chick

Because I feel videogames should be discussed in the same way we discuss movies, books, and television. You’re arguing that videogames should be discussed the same way we discuss home appliances.

But again, with those things, there is not nearly as much pricing differentiation (or in cases such as television, the price is, for the most part, free).

Where there is pricing differentiation, reviews will sometimes give an opinion of the value versus price. Hence, “Okay, but wait for the paperback,” or “Rent the DVD when it comes out.”

The reason for saying those things is, in essence, saying that the book or movie at issue has some merit, but is not worth the charged price at full freight.

I actually think that we make valuation comparisons indirectly even in the game industry when we compare one game with another. There is a boardgaming podcast that has, for example, created the “Jones Theory,” which is really a glorified way of saying stick with the best in class/category. In the videogaming world, it would be akin to saying that if a new RTS comes out that is better than the others, sell the other RTSs you own and own and play the new one.

When we compare one product with another, if you know the price points of those different products, it also allows you (imperfectly perhaps) to make price comparisons.

I confess, I did not realize that it was so important to game reviewers that they be viewed solely as some form of artistic critic.

I am in the situation where I can afford to buy games. However, I do also treat them in most cases as at least a hybrid, as much commodity as art. So if FPS #1 costs $30 more than FPS #2, I do like to get some indication of how material the quality differences are, and whether they offset the price difference. I perhaps can work that logic out myself by comparing the two different reviews, but it is helpful if the reviewer also provides his thoughts on the value difference.

As stated, I think you can make assumptions about the value of money to a reader. Not based on what they make, but based on what other products that money can buy. I do not think that games are so much of unique pieces of art that no comparison can be made, but it sounds like I think they are more of a commodity than you do.

[Cold_Blooded]

@Tom Chick

Because I feel videogames should be discussed in the same way we discuss movies, books, and television.

You’re entitled to your opinion, and you’ve clearly found others who share it, who have become your audience. Yet your audience does not consist of all English-speaking people on the planet who have Internet access and might read about games. Why? Is it because you’re “wrong”? No, we’ve established that isn’t the case. Is then it because all those other people who don’t read your work are “wrong” not to? No, it isn’t that either.

@Tom Chick

You’re arguing that videogames should be discussed the same way we discuss home appliances.

No. I’m stating that for some audiences, it’s genuinely worthwhile to provide a sense of value-for-money prior to purchasing. That audience clearly doesn’t include you, but they exist.

@Tom Chick

What does that matter? There are all sorts of factors that make books unique from movies and music distinct from television. That doesn’t change the fact that they’re entertainment, not consumer products.

Games both provide entertainment and are also consumer products. They’re both. Their retail price doesn’t matter to certain people like yourself, but it does matter to other people who are not you. Until such time as all games are free, or all money is freely attainable in sufficient quantities, value-for-money will continue to matter for some people, especially while many games continue to carry such high price tags.

@Tom Chick

That’s a pretty fancy way to say “make assumptions about the value of a reader’s money”.

Yes, which I’ve stated, and continue to assert, is necessary on at least a basic level for a consumer-focused publication that purports to provide reviews as general buying advice about all games for the general game-purchasing public. At the very least, to say in each review, “this is what you’re getting for your money,” so that hopefully readers can compare different reviews and get a sense of what they’re getting in exchange for their money if they purchase Game A as opposed to Game B, considering that each game currently sells for the non-trivial sum of $60 US.

To clarify, the paragraph immediately above this sentence, judging by your posts here and elsewhere, does not apply to you, specifically, or to your own specific approach to your own reviews.

[Universal_Leader]

@Cold Blooded

What other forms of entertainment cost $60 a pop and also potentially hours upon hours of time investment?

Live theater and music, especially festivals. Film festivals. Museums and art galleries. Seasons of TV shows. Books.

[RickH]

@Universal Leader

This is the thread where people fail to understand the difference between criticism and consumer reporting.

I hope you put on your best beret before typing that.

[divedivedive]

@Cold Blooded

To clarify, the paragraph immediately above this sentence, judging by your posts here and elsewhere, does not apply to you, specifically, or to your own specific approach to your own reviews.

So what’s the point then? Surely somewhere in the vastness of the internet you’re able to find a reviewer who shares your opinions of this mythic “dollars per hour” value, and reviews accordingly?