Value for Money?

Why reviewing based on cost isn’t all it’s cracked up to be

RamRaider posted a debate some time ago on the issue of pricing, alongside some top names in British video game journalism. In summary, he believes that reviewers should take into account costs before giving their support to a game. You can read the contributions here

It was certainly a useful debate to have. Present economic woes mean that people are tightening their belts and trying to squeeze every penny. However, its one thing to rag on Rock Band. Quite another to look at the feisability of applying a value for money-driven approach to reviewing.

I should say that I agreed with Rammy’s stance 100% up until about two days ago. Games reviews are consumer advice after all, and therefore the pricing should be core to any assessment of the worth of a game, in theory. In practice, such a system would be difficult and expensive, while being even more open to abuse than what we've got at the moment.

Lets follow a fictitious gaming website called Cymrogamer. Cymrogamer has a policy of administering scores based on whether a game’s content is worth the cost.

One day the editor receives his review copies of Halo-Zone IV. Immediately the reviewer comes to the editor with a problem. Because the game hasn’t retailed yet there’s no price to work with.

“Shall I wait until release then?”
“No, no, that’ll be far too late.” replies the editor. “We’ll just assume a value of £40. That’s what most games retail at.”

The reviewer has a hard time imagining this, because the game is free and he’s getting paid to play it, but he runs with the concept. He likes Halo-Zone IV, reckons it’s a good solid shoot em up. However, it doesn’t really add anything new to the table, and after all Halo-Zone III, last year’s big relase is now available at around £10. Therefore, the game gets a 5/10 on the imaginary scale of numbers, and the review goes live three days before release.

The next day The editor wakes up to a stack of angry emails. Cymrogamer forums are full of comments arguing about the review score. Most of the posts argue ‘I’ll pay £40 and you’re a fag,’ or something to that effect. A call comes through from Halo-Zone IV’s publisher. It seems the game is planned to retail at £30, not £40, and the publisher demands a re-review. The editor decides that discretion is better part of valour, and instructs his reviewer take another look.

“Won’t that make us look like we’re being influenced?” asks the indignant reviewer. 

The editor is deaf to his complaints, and the reviewer replaces his free copy of Halo-Zone into his free X-Station 360. He decides, on balance, that the game is now worth a 7/10 on the value-for-money-O-matic.

The following day, the Editor wakes up to an even larger stack of angry emails accusing Cymrogamer of caving in under pressure from the publisher. The forums are ablaze with accusations of cowardice and homosexuality.

“But that’s what happened.” points out the reviewer.
“Yes, but we don’t want people to think that! Anyway, I’ve had another email. There are apparently Ebay traders selling the game at under twenty pounds.”
“But that doesn’t make any sense, the game isn’t out until tomorrow! Who posted the listings? How many copies are available at that price?”
“Never you mind that!” Shrieks the pug-faced editor, “A policy is a policy. Just you get to re-reviewing that bloody game.”

So off trots the increasingly disgruntled reviewer.

“Bah give it a nine.” He muses “That’s the number next to ten. Perhaps now everyone will shut up about this bland, horrible game!”

The morning of release day, the penny drops. Halo-Zone IV has sold in record numbers off the back of largely positive reviews. The game has been flying off shelves at the low low price of £49.99. The editor and reviewer are ashen-faced. Neither dares check the forums.

“Shall I...” Starts the reviewer.

But then comes a knock at the door. The post has arrived with the review copies of Current Warfare II.


Now, I appreciate that it would be difficult to conceal a retail price, much less change it at such short notice. But it highlights the problems you’d face by making pricing a cornerstone of review policy. Price naturally fluctuates, so it would make monthly (at least) re-reviews pretty much mandatory. To top that off, the shenanigans that companies could try, for example, fake ebay listings, manipulation of their own in-house stores, or even deliberately driving down the retail price in order to fabricate a positive review. The main problem though is that reviews, as a form of advertising, directly influence the success of a game, and therefore influence the medium to long-term price. A good review, and a game stays at retail for a long time. A bad review can be a one-way trip to the bargain bin.

The crux of the argument in favour of price-led reviews is that people are happy to spend a money on a bad game, so long as it isn’t a lot. For myself, I’m not sure that there is a gaming equivalent to the penny-dreadful. But really, the consumer base within gaming is now so diverse that any blanket judgment on value for money is largely irrelevant.


There are some exceptions. Certain recent games  have held above average price tags, and this should be pointed out to the reader. Two recent examples are Tony Hawk’s Ride, and We Sing. But at the end of the day, these games were bad because they didn’t work, not because they were over-priced. The expense was just an exacerbation of that fact. 

As a rule though, reviewers need to avoid making sweeping generalities about something so subjective as “value for money” on behalf of the consumer. A review, neutral to price, can distinguish whether a game is any good. The consumer, armed with that knowledge, can make an informed choice what to spend their money on.

Because at the end of the day, it is their money.