Should Value For Money Be Mentioned In Reviews?

NowGamer: "MGS 5: Ground Zeroes is just one example of a game that sparked debates around value for money. But does the issue of value for money have any place in videogame reviews?"

[Excalibur]

Yes.

[RumbleFish]

Yes and the value for money is superb with MGS GZ.

[diesoft]

How? I haven't played it but I am hearing how quickly people are completing it (not including speed runs of 8 minutes or so?). I enjoy MGS but $30 for a sampler? Even at $10 I'd be upset. So how is the value there?

[Lord_Sloth]

^ The how is quite simple. It's very fun. I've plugged over 20 hours into the game and I'm still playing it. If reviews start mentioning price value than I am very curious as to how they will justify the MMO fees of $120 pet year required AFTER THE GAME PURCHASE. You wanna complain about price? There you go.

[Ratty]

Just like Lord_Sloth said. Anyway, doing all missions only once should take you 3 hours minimum on the first try and that's if you're on some sort of rush. It's true that you can complete the first mission and most of them under ten minutes each but that's only if you're already a pro, know exactly where to go and know enemy placement and routes well. It may not be for everyone but hardcore fans definitely.

Also, deja-vu and jamais-vu missions are now (or soon will be?)on both platforms, adding an extra mission to the game. It may still not justify the 30$ tag for some but it already did for me.

If you really just want to see the story and play once you're better off waiting for a major price drop or watch the cutscenes on youtube.

[RumbleFish]

MGS games are for the fans of the series. If You are a fan, buy it, you will have lots of fun with it because you will do what fans of the series do: play the game in every thinkable or unthinkable way.
The game has a main mission and 5 side missions. When you look at the percentages of the trophies, you will see how few people have seen the whole game.
There is a good amount of content for the money in that game.

[Mankey]

I would beg to differ.

[randomass171]

A game that can be beaten in an hour or less can be very fun. Binding of Isaac is such a game. And that's $5.

[Mankey]

Unquestionably.

[colonel179]

mmm I thought reviews were actually INVENTED for that exact reason?? The sole reason to view/read a review is to know if you want to spend money on the product being reviewed, so that you know more of the product and evaluate if it's of value to you. The first thing to know if a product is of value is the value of money.

EDIT: With that said, the value of games is relative to the player. For example, I am very satisfied with 8-10 hours single player games. I almost never play Multiplayer. Other player would only be satisfied with 30-50 single player games like RPGs, and other would only be satisfied if the game comes with MP. However, there is a standard for each of those genres. You expect a movie to be at least 1:30 hrs long, the same with games. If an RPG is 8 hours it is a very very short RPG, and therefore might not be of value. A single player game, should be at least 8 hours or else, won't be valuable either. Fighters might be expected to have 20 characters at least, and that's the reason KI was difficult to convince as a good value.

So there are some minimum standards for each genre that have been stablished. Like movies, there are going to be movies which are 3 hours long, and other that might even be just 1 hour, but those are exceptions, and because of that they NEED to PROVE their value.

MGS V: Ground Zeroes does NOT prove its value. (for most people)

[ginsunuva]

But not everyone buys games at the same price.

[xBigxBossx]

No. Because that's a personal opinion. Since you are all on N4G, the average gamer doesn't get on here to check reviews, they buy off hype. Any hardcore gamer knew about it's length so if you bought and were disappointed you should have already know about this. IMO this game is amazing. Is it short? Yes. But the replay ability is unreal. I'm over 50 hrs (yes I'm an addict) but I've played this game more than any next gen game. So IMO it's the best game to date

[randomass171]

"No. Because that's a personal opinion."

You mean what a review is? :/

[TitanUp]

agree with your yes, if a demo is priced tell us in the reviews of why you shouldnt pay for it.

[BlackOni]

Yes, games are competing for gamers' time and money. If the game isn't worthy of the price it asks, then it should be mentioned in the review. It's one of the biggest reasons I don't use a traditional number scale for my reviews.

*edit* Take The Elder Scrolls Online for example. I didn't play the game, so I can't speak on personal experience, but most people feel that the game is fairly generic in it's offering as an MMO, and as an Elder Scrolls game, it doesn't really feel like an Elder Scrolls game. It's $60 for the game upfront, and $15 per month after that. That literally directly influences how long you can play the game, especially if you have other responsibilities that take priority over paying that monthly fee. That factor alone warrants mentioning it in the review.

I agree with what this article is saying in regards to how we shouldn't have a checklist of features to refer to when evaluating whether a game is good or not, but to answer the question "Should you buy this game or not?" It kinda has to be a part of the discussion.

[Lord_Sloth]

Their job is to tell you the pros and cons. Your job is to decide it's value based on that.

[BlackOni]

Part of the pros and cons is evaluating what the end user gets out of the experience. That is in relation to the cost of said product, vs perceived value.

[Lord_Sloth]

Yes but the perceived value comes down to the individual making the purchase. Ground Zeros is a prime example of this. Everybody is complaining and calling it a top off but I must say that I've gotten more fun and time out of it than most $60 games.

[BlackOni]

Right. But when considering reviews, the review is only a reflection of what that one person perceives. A review, in it's very nature, is one's opinion of a game. If the reviewer, who sometimes goes out of pocket for the game, feels that there isn't enough value proposition, that's still a part of the process in evaluating the game.

[WizzroSupreme]

Why Kotaku's reviews are designed like they are.

[Einhert]

ummmm of course....This is why I like Angry Joes reviews.

[Mankey]

Complete honesty and he truly seems sincere. Best reviews out there.

[randomass171]

Eh, Angry Joe is too eccentric for my taste. I really like ProJared. He seems genuine as well and his review of GZ was actually really fair. He gave the game an 8/10 for its gameplay but insisted that people don't buy it because of its short length.

[king_george]

Probably my favorite reviewer because of how straight forward he is.

That guy needs more success he has certainly earned it

[LAWSON72]

No everybody has a different idea on money's value. Sure mention content and longevity, but IMO if a reviewer cannot get the point across on what a game lacks and they need to say "this game is to expensive" they are lazy and should not be a reviewer.

[DJustinUNCHAIND]

Value is mostly subjective.

But $30 for 2 hours is absurd, I don't care who you are.

[from the beach]

But.. you just said..

..ah, never mind.

[Hicken]

If there's only those two hours, I agree.

Unfortunately for what you're implying, there's far more than two hours of content in Ground Zeroes.

[randomass171]

Most reviewers have stated that the bonus features added an extra hour at the most and are just padding that doesn't offer anything as far as story is concerned. Couple that with a single story mission that is basically an hour long makes for an experience that is most certainly not full to the brim with content.

[Summons75]

I'd say yes and no. A lot of reviewers out there get the games for free so they have no base on the value for the money where as every gamer out there if they are unsure about a game is gambling with their money. It's also harder to tell someone that a money amount is worth the value because everyone has a different idea of what value is to them. Personally I think all Call of Duty games should be 10$ for the low quality production value on the game plus the dlc will eventually add up to the normal retail price, I find the games with poor game design, quality, and balance don't deserve the asking price especially when they get repetitive after a few matches.

A game like Ground Zeroes is well worth the 30$. Sure the main mission is short being not even a fraction of the full MGSV but the addition content really builds up. The different ways of doing a mission to completion, the finding patches and cassettes, the small side objectives that you can easily miss if you happen to not go a certain path in the game.

I'm not to happy about the 30$ demo but I am happy with the amount of time and replayability with the game. If it were 60, hell no, for what it is I got the value out of it.

[cfc78]

By the time a games been through the ringer on here i think we already know the value for money side of things,though you'll never know the true value until you play the game.

[Luke_fon_Fabre]

I'm going to go with the unpopular answer here: no. The value of the game should be judged based on the quality of the game and shouldn't be swayed by the price. Granted, it does suck when a game doesn't deliver bang for buck.

[Skate-AK]

I'll wait for a price drop. I like MGS but I am not a die hard fan.

[cfc78]

Same here probably get it just before the big 1 comes out phantom pain and go for maximum cheapness.

[McScroggz]

In a way, yes. I didn't like reviewers crucifying Ground Zeroes and having it take several points away from their overall score because it was a poor proposition for them. To me, it skews to perspective of the quality of the title.

A review should say relatively how long a game is and if there is replayability or extra content that extends the potential playtime of a game. Journey was 2 hours, no real replayability and cost $15. Ground Zeroes cost $30, had the same amount of base content (maybe a half hour less), but offered reasonable replayability and a handful of side missions. The former won multiple GOTY awards while the latter was vilified for being a glorified demo. Because I've played both, I understand the nuanced differences between why Journey wasn't a ripoff and why Ground Zeroes isn't a good value proposition unless you are a big MGS fan. But there isn't a magical time/money equation out there.

There are people who need to get 40 or 50 hours out of a game or they will feel it's not worth it. For me, generally speaking, I just want a worthwhile experience. That's why I don't want a reviewer editorializing value proposition because it muddles the water. Give me the info, if it really bothers you or a game has a ton of stuff then I suppose you can mention it, but it should not be a significant portion of a review.

[BlackOni]

Agreed. In certain instances, it should be a part of the conversation, but not an anchor to base all opinions on. Whether it's a good/enjoyable experience comes first!

[user5669510]

No. value is subjective. a person with money to blow will look at the value of games differently than a gamer thats strapped for cash thats why im surprised people are still paying for xblive and psn when IPS are robbing us and are going to be robbing other companies next. they are putting the choke-hold on netflix already what going to happen to the free streaming service we're loving so much.

[00]

isn't that the whole point of a review to know if it's worth the money.

[Oschino1907]

Because reviews are always updated to reflect price drops and sales...

Not to mention it's vital for someone borrowing, renting or receiving as a gift to know if it's worth the original MSRP...

Seriously though, more reviewers need to stop reviewing things just because it's new and popular. Also instead of just explaining why they are/aren't into a game why not explain why someone else might or might not be.

Too many reviewers focus more on sharing their opinions over sharing the facts and details regarding the product in question. It's bad enough many reviewers are casual players/fans or mediocre at best with some games they review.

Now they want to try and tell me how their mediocre play experience relates to the games quality. Or better yet the ones who have the balls to start off saying they never played or aren't into a series/genre. Why should anyone even acknowledge those kinds of reviews as if they have any sort of credibility.

[jukins]

I'd leave that up to the consumer

[osprey19]

It definitely should, no point having a game that only lasts a few hours or has no replay value.
mgs:gz is just a money grab in my opinion, how can a game that's under 5 hours long at maximum and justify a £35 price tag or even anything higher than 7/10, even if what little u do get is good, thats still not worthy of a high score or price tag

[STK026]

Yes. Unlike music or movies, where most products will share a similar price with the competition, in the video games business, some games can be priced as low as 1$, and can go up to 60$, excluding F2P games as well as limited editions.

Angry birds is a great game for 1$, but should never be recommended as a 60$ game. There are many games that are easy to recommend at a lower price point, but not at 40 or 60$. As another example, Heavenly Sword was a great game, although very short with little to no replay value, I would tell my friends that they had to play it at some point, but that asking 60$ for it was highway robbery.

I would also add that reviews are mostly meant to tell gamers whether or not to buy a game, as opposed to being an ageless score for a game. Multiplayer components get shut down, bugs get patched, prices go down and content get added; when a critic reviews a game, his review only applies to when he actually reviewed the game.

[I_am_Batman]

You'll find informations about length of the game and quality in most reviews. You'll know the price before buying anyway. If it's as extreme as it is with MGSV:GZ there is most likely a whole section dedicated to it in a good review.

So when a review says something like: "Game x was tons of fun while it lasted, even though that was only three and a half hours. Thankfully there's a lot to unlock and you'll still see new things on your 3rd playthrough.", you should be able to decide if you want to spend x amount of money for it.

The score shouldn't be influenced by the length of the game or the price in my opinion. It should only be an indicator for the pure quality of the game. Otherwise we would ran into some problems soon.

Should Bioshock: Infinite be rated lower because it can't compete with the game length of GTAV? I don't think so.

[listenkids]

I've had more hours, personally, put into GZ than I have from some full price games.

[DVAcme]

Considering it's OUR money that is being talked about here, it is DEFINITELY an issue worth considering in game reviews. I am much more willing to make a day 1 purchase on a game if I know it has substantial length or replay value(they're not the same).

I always use the Souls games as an excellent example of value for your money. Not only are the games pretty damn long on a first playthrough(I'm 80+ hours into Dark Souls 2 and still haven't beaten it yet), but the New Game+ is genuinely a whole different beast from the first playthrough instead of the same + more loot.

[Perjoss]

I believe it should be mentioned somewhere in the review but certainly not take part in deciding the final score. If a game like GTAV or Skyrim were £150 instead of £40 this would not change the quality of the game itself at all.

Something that is top quality is top quality regardless of the price that is being charged.

[hkgamer]

after reading your comment, it made me feel that games with the standard retail price shouldnt really be judged by the price, but the smaller digital games such as ground zeroes should.

digital games at this current stage has not found the right price atm. maybe with reviews they could start the trend and guide developers/publishers to the right price.

[hkgamer]

its hard. i guess it depends on the person.

just wanted to compare ground zeroes with octodad.
price £24.99 & £11.99
both games quite short,finished both games wanting more.
maybe i am a mgs fan so it doesnt count, but i feel that i got more value from mgs.

however, i do feel that ground zeroes is incomplete and that should get marked down in reviews.

it didn't have a proper finale, no boss fight, no codec calls, etc..

[finito82]

yea of course i think value for the money is a major reason of even buying a game.

[ZombieGamerMan]

No, the review show focus on informing the customer, they should let people know what about the quality of the product and let the customer decide if it is value. Sure mention price and length if you feel people should know these things but for scoring the game? No.

[Ogygian]

Stupid idea. For value, you can just divide the rating by the price yourself, with higher values indicating comparatively better deals.

Plus prices change all the time, which makes reviews impossible to compare (their primary function).