Judging the value of video games

Gaming is not the cheapest of pastimes. Modern consoles run upwards of £200, and then on top of that, most games fall around £40 to £50. In recent years, a once fledgling indie scene has flourished with masterpieces which cost significantly less than their AAA counterparts, though these titles often reflect this with their lesser sales. Fans on a budget look for the best value for money, and with continued variety in pricing, it is increasingly hard to tell if one game is worth more than another.

Is it then the duty of reviewers, who are already relied upon when judging a games quality pre-purchase, to take this into consideration when reviewing games? Should they include an extra factor of ‘worth it’-ness into reviews and how difficult would it be to do so?

A review should provide a report of a game’s positive and negative qualities, and leave it up to consumers to decide if they think it is worth its price or not.

In answer to the second part of the question, probably quite difficult. The biggest factor being that most mainstream outlets like IGN, Gamespot, Eurogamer, etc. receive free copies of games. It is not a secret that they do. Even if they didn’t, I would find it hard to believe these companies would expect reviewers to buy titles out of their own pocket. In this sense, it would be impossible for most reviewers to judge the game based on its cost, because to them all are effectively free. Though this is no bad thing. I don’t think a professional review should consider a game’s price tag because what a player values in a game varies.

Consider 2016’s Firewatch which received a 9.3/10 from IGN. Campo Santo’s game has a beautiful art style and exhibits fantastic storytelling, though it was a little short at roughly 2-3 hours long. Gamers who prefer quantity would undoubtedly find the game’s £15.99 price a little steep, but others would see value in the quality of experience despite the length. Equally, the inclusion of grinding and fetch quests that have permeated from MMOs into AAA action and adventure, to artificially expand the game-length, adds no value or quality to it.

Image: IGDB

When reviewers start to judge games based on their price the waters become unnecessarily muddied. Where do free-to-play titles fall in? How about micro-transactions? What about when games go on sale, or (much less often) increase in price? A review should provide a report of a game’s positive and negative qualities, and leave it up to consumers to decide if they think it is worth its price or not. For better or for worse, someone else can’t tell us our opinions on a game’s value.