Warhawk review in EGM may change depending on price
In a complete wrong move on EGM's part, 1UP reports that the reviewers over at the magazine have had little notes posted onto their Warhawk reviews stating, in some form or another, that the review "score should be dropped a whole point if the price was announced above $30." Sure, Sony hasn't officially announced a Warhawk price for the downloadable version and that's a little odd, but I've got problem with this bit of news.
An unannounced price shouldn't affect a game's review score by such a significant margin. It's tough to grasp what the point of dropping a review score is because of a game possibly being priced above the rumored price created by the media. Does it make you enjoy it less? Does it make the graphics worse? Does it hinder the framerate? It might dissuade people from buying the downloadable version if it were, say, $50, but if that's the case, the retail version is a great deal. If the downloadable version is $30, that's a budget title and a great deal.
It's a bit difficult to explain, which is exactly why the EGM staff are concerned about how to review the game. I'd like your take on the situation, in that case! Is there a difference between buying a game due to price and buying a game due to quality? Price does affect many people's willingness to buy, but should it necessarily affect the score given to a game by reviewers getting the game for little or no cost?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
derrickgott007 @ Aug 2nd 2007 7:35PM
Now I am glad that my subscription to EGM has expired....They have officially lost their ability to review games honestly.
derrickgott007 @ Aug 2nd 2007 7:37PM
If the downloadable one is above $30.00 you could always just buy the package deal and get a Bluetooth headset included. Hell, I could use an extra headset, that way one could stay with my PS3 and the other with my phone, no having to re-sync with each device each time.
EGM is now worthless. They have lost their edge.
Tyler @ Aug 2nd 2007 7:40PM
Never did really like EGM, always gotten Game Informer
cheese @ Aug 2nd 2007 7:42PM
Imagine reviewing a Movie or Book with the same criteria. Silly Bastards.
WebMaster @ Aug 2nd 2007 7:44PM
Nick,
I agree with your feelings, but welcome to the world of biased game reviewers. Shadowrun suffered similar fate simply because it was lacking a single player version, however, you don't find single player games getting docked so harshly for lacking any real form of online multiplayer.
This is the single biggest reason I give absolutely ZERO credibility to game reviews. I bought my fair share of turds over the years, but I've also found quite a few gems that were panned by the "experts".
Spread the word on your feelings for warhawk, and hopefully it'll offset some of the potential negative press. Besides, if Warhawk is good, it's easily worth up to $60.00 to me, irregardless if it's a download rather then a retail box set.
Aaron @ Aug 2nd 2007 7:46PM
Seems like the budget price helped at least a little bit with NFL 2K5 getting such high scores.
Space_Butler @ Aug 2nd 2007 7:47PM
It affected Shadowrun's score, and playstation fans cheered. Now it may affect Warhawk, and suddenly EGM "has lost it's edge" and "is treating this game unfairly". It's either a standard to rate a game lower if the cost is a factor in justifying the score (for example, should live arcade and budget PSN games be held to a different rating scale than full-blown PS3 and 360 titles), or none at all. Pick one, and stick with it, but don't trash an offering from the other side to then turn around and complain when the same stuff happens to something on a console YOU love.
peer @ Aug 2nd 2007 7:50PM
i love ssd hd ... but, not as had it benn full retail ... although not the same as here
Hard Gay @ Aug 2nd 2007 7:51PM
EGM can suck my balls.
They are the most unforgiving and retarded reviewers out of every single gaming magazine...past, or present.
A whole point just on price?
Saysaysay....Hard Gay says...WTF?
jitty @ Aug 2nd 2007 7:52PM
How the hell do they review these games so freaking early? Like months before they come out?
Maurice M @ Aug 2nd 2007 7:53PM
@4: Multi-player has never and will never be as important to the majority of video game consumers as single-player.
Reviews are a consumer tool, and the value of the product (price vs content) should always be a large factor in the score. The review is for people deciding where to spend their money after all.
Kxpuc @ Aug 2nd 2007 7:55PM
doesn't really matter what the price is for the downloadable version if it's lower then the retail one. I'll be picking up the game anyway still jonesing from playing the beta and want to get back killing
Toby @ Aug 2nd 2007 7:58PM
i think that the psn version is worth at least 30, i would pay upwards of that for it. im getting the blu ray tho.
clankman @ Aug 2nd 2007 8:03PM
Another reason to hate EGM.
WebMaster @ Aug 2nd 2007 8:07PM
@10
"Multi-player has never and will never be as important to the majority of video game consumers as single-player."
Perhaps not today, however, according to the expected broadband penetration, along with the state and federal programs to mandate broadband for rural areas, the future it is most certainly to change in regards to online vs offline.
"Reviews are a consumer tool, and the value of the product (price vs content) should always be a large factor in the score. The review is for people deciding where to spend their money after all."
Reviews of a video game are usually a much different beast compared to reviews of standard consumer products. A toaster either works or it doesn't-there's not alot of room for personal bias to make a difference.
A video game review is much more biased by personal choice, fanboyism, corporate whoring, advertising, taste, and preferences, therefore dramatically decreasing it's value as a consumer tool.
I do find value on consumer reviews of some items, however, have found them nearly worthless, due to the aforementioned reasons, when dealing with video games.
To each his own.
RangerPrimeX @ Aug 2nd 2007 8:27PM
Price does matter. Perceived value factors into how much you like a game or not. A lower price will make you more forgiving. I enjoyed Project Sylpheed better since it was lower price I felt that I got my money's worth but a higher price and I would have felt slighted. Just look what happened to Shadowrun.
sheppy @ Aug 2nd 2007 8:34PM
"It affected Shadowrun's score, and playstation fans cheered. Now it may affect Warhawk, and suddenly EGM "has lost it's edge" and "is treating this game unfairly". It's either a standard to rate a game lower if the cost is a factor in justifying the score (for example, should live arcade and budget PSN games be held to a different rating scale than full-blown PS3 and 360 titles), or none at all. Pick one, and stick with it, but don't trash an offering from the other side to then turn around and complain when the same stuff happens to something on a console YOU love."
Actually, a vast majority of the 360 fanboys were jeering about the price as well. Facing facts, all we have to go on for pricing right now is rumor and speculation. If a magazine will hold a rating binding to rumor and speculation, I wonder what that magazine is worth. Not alot apparently. Because over the past three years, EGM has been going from the leader to a floundering rag trying desperately to maintain readership.
Now, having said that, I can say this. I was in the Warhawk Beta. Of the many, many betas I played, this is the absolute first that I went over 100 games with. Despite system freezes, I still played over 100 games. When my friends came over, we all jumped in (four player local CAN go online together). The game supports local multiplayer if you're not feeling the 32 player matches. And from my time with it, I'd spend $60 easily.
But here we have a problem. The whole single player vs. multiplayer game debate. Shadowrun was NOT content heavy, period. Warhawk, however, is definately content heavy. Trust me on this. So many modes, maps, and layouts. And none of them felt inbalanced to me. But it's multiplayer only... okay, big deal. Now we look at another aspect...
The Battlefield series. Most reviews glow for something that is multiplayer only. There is no single player, there are only bots.
grass @ Aug 2nd 2007 8:43PM
Woooooooooow. More bullshit when it comes to EGM....I mean, they seem to be pretty biased when it comes to things like the ps3, give or take a few praises. I mean, come on, this is not going to sway my purchase. I was actually going to buy the retail for the headset, seeing as mine usually doesn't auto....meaning, it wasn't supposed to but now seems to. Which, has anyone else noticed? Anyways....when it comes to purchasing the game online, I would be surprised if it was above 30 dollars. But for a pending rating depending on this, it seems ridiculous. I cannot believe that once again, EGM is finding ways to just straight out bother me. Fools is all I say....
GL @ Aug 2nd 2007 8:44PM
I have "little notes posted" that say, "EGM gets 1 point off for spouting stupid sh*t again."
GRT @ Aug 2nd 2007 8:46PM
Price absolutely matters to a review. Like someone said, SSD is a great game for $10 but if I'd paid $60 for it I wouldn't feel like I got enough value from it.
The problem here is that the EGM reviewers drew such a sharp line. So $29.95 and the game gets a (for example) 4 rating, but at $30.05 it gets a 3? That doesn't make sense. Even a more realistic difference of $29.99 vs $34.99 isn't worth a full point of rating difference, I don't think.
They should've just reviewed the blu-ray sku and been done with it. They know what that price is going to be.
GRT @ Aug 2nd 2007 8:50PM
BTW, on the MP vs SP front... Epic is putting much more single player content into the new Unreal Tournament. Why? Because they tracked how many buyers of the last Unreal Tournament played online, and it was a very small amount. 20% or thereabouts.
And that was on the PC, and there're a LOT more networked PCs than networked gaming consoles out there.
People who play MP console games think they're in the majority, but the numbers don't back that up. They are generally a more loyal portion of the fanbase and play a given game for a lot longer, but when it comes to number of units sold, many more games are landing in single player households than in mp households.
So yeah, not having a single player component is a much bigger drawback than not having a mp component.
dalejrfanfreak @ Aug 2nd 2007 8:53PM
I think that when it comes to game reviews, price should be something that is left out of consideration for a couple of reasons. First off, the price, as you said, does not affect how the game plays or whether or not the framerate is poor. The game should be rated upon quality and how it makes the user feel. Of course price can affect how one feels, but for a lot of others they don't care the price as long as the game is good and I don't think price should be considered in reviewing a game.
Just because those at EGM are cheap and that they probably can't afford a game due to their poor business ethics that shouldn't affect the score of a game review.
Popfrogs @ Aug 2nd 2007 8:53PM
Every single gaming mag since Gamefan is crap and will always be that way. Those of you cool/old enough to remember know what I mean.
GL @ Aug 2nd 2007 9:08PM
GRT,
Here's how it will go...
$29.99 = EGM REVIEW = 7.2 (Meh, good game. But nothing special)
$30.05 = EGM REVIEW = 5.5 (OMFG!@ Taht is teh suxorz! Halo rulez!)
Basically, the 360 fanboys over at EGM are just looking for a reason to knock off points.
Darkdrium777 @ Aug 2nd 2007 9:10PM
I got a PS3, so I know good things cost good money :)
I don't care for the price, just bring Warhawk.
EGM can think all they want about the price, I don't give a shit about them.
OrganicShadow @ Aug 2nd 2007 9:19PM
They aren't told how much retail games are going to cost when they come out, yet they slap a review on it anyway and speak nothing about price point.
"But OrganicShadow, all games are $50/$60 when they release!" Not so. Although that is a "standard" price, it's by no means a requirement, and is often undercut by niche games and various ports, GoTY Edition titles, and sometimes split series such as the .hack games.
Game reviewers should review THE GAME. It should be up to the gamer from there on out weather or not it's worth whatever is being charged for it. The game stays the same, but the price changes over time. Are they going to go back and modify the review each time the game's price goes down? Are all of the PS2's "Greatest Hits" titles automatic 10's for being $20 or less?
Bluebrake @ Aug 2nd 2007 9:37PM
Excuse me? Of COURSE they should factor price in when determining a game's score. Flow was well-received because it was a good value for $10 -- if it were $60, people's opinions would have been a lot different, and rightly so. The same goes with Wii Play. How can a reviewer look at a game and NOT take this under consideration?
And the fact is that EGM gave the game the benefit of the doubt. They gave it the higher score and recommended dropping a point if it was too expensive, when they could have just as easily done it the other way around. The fact is that the game didn't deserve the score it got as a full product, but they gave it anyway. They -did Sony a favor-!
You people talking about differences of $29.99 and $30.05 are deliberately being morons. The minimum price increment is $5, and more likely $10. When they say "over $30," they mean $35, $40, or more, and you know it.
I don't come to a site called "PS3fanboy" for top quality journalism, but I expect a little better than this.
John @ Aug 2nd 2007 9:47PM
"The following reflects the personal opinion of Nick, and does not necessarily reflect the views of PS3 Fanboy staff. PS3 Fanboy does factor price into consideration when reviewing games."
Awesome, Nick! I have never seen any other writer get that line, on ps3fanboy or joystiq. Mad props!
gullum @ Aug 2nd 2007 9:48PM
Seriously, if they were so worried about the price affecting the score, they should have just waited to find out what that price was before publishing their review. They were in too much of a rush to get their opinion out because they knew their biased turd of a mag needs all the attention it can get. And an advanced review of Warhawk will probably push a few copies for them.
John @ Aug 2nd 2007 9:53PM
I tend to agree with OrganicShadow.
This problem, of considering price, is quite peculiar to videogames.
When Ebert reviews a film, we all know what the film will cost.
Same for music, etc.
But with videogames, price has become a consideration.
You may want to keep an eye on Gamefly, who RENTS games.
Tom32 @ Aug 2nd 2007 9:57PM
WTF??? Games shouldn't be rated based upon price.Plus the game is $30 because the retail version is $50 and inclubes a headset. ALSO EGM'S CHEE CHOU RATED STELL BATALLION A PERFECT TEN,A GAME WHICH COST OVER $150!!!!!!!!!!!! SEE FOR YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!! http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3049216&sec=REVIEWS
REMEMBER TOO LOOK AT THE EDITORS RATING NOT THE AVERAGE GAMer RATING WHICH IS 8.7
Tom32 @ Aug 2nd 2007 10:02PM
ALSO IN THAT CASE HALO 3 SHOULD GET A LOWER SCORE SINCE THERE THE SPECIAL VERSION IS $149.99 AND ONLY GIVES U A HELMET AND A BUNCH OF DVDS. MAN RAINBOW SIX VEGAS SHOULD GET BUNKED TOO. IF YOUR GONNA BE PICKY LIKE THIS MIGHT AS WELL GIVE EVERY GAME A SCORE BELOW 6.
Popfrogs @ Aug 2nd 2007 10:24PM
DUDE DID YOU KNOW THAT CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL? ME TOO!
Thomas @ Aug 2nd 2007 10:42PM
This is so dishearting, I've subscribed to this Magazine since, the 90s. You have to buy games that you think you will enjoy. Can't sit around and wait for others to review the game, cause they'll talk you out of game that you'd probably enjoy.
GL @ Aug 2nd 2007 11:00PM
Sorry Bluebrake. But EGM is not doing Sony any favors. Even if Warhawk was 39.95 it would still be a great deal. That's $20 off the regular price. I don't care what EGM rates the game. I'll ignore them just like I do gamespot.
I'm getting the Blu-ray version even thought I already have a mic because I want the extras on the disc.
patrikshard @ Aug 2nd 2007 11:25PM
The bottom line is content for dollar. If a game has no content and costs 60 bucks, it may get a bad rating... AND THAT IS FAIR!!! Geometry Wars is an awesome game, but would you get 60 bucks out of it? No. Of course, quality counts too. Shadow Run didn't really have quality or quantity, so 20 bucks is absurd (let alone 60).
scott @ Aug 2nd 2007 11:27PM
"Is there a difference between buying a game due to price and buying a game due to quality?"
Yes.
"Price does affect many people's willingness to buy, but should it necessarily affect the score given to a game by reviewers getting the game for little or no cost?"
Yes.
It's a factor of overall value in a game. I get great value in a game that is fun. But there is also value attributed to the money I need to get that fun value. A game can be fun, but I'm not as happy if I just spent way more than it's worth.
If every game were $1, and still played like a $30 game, then the world would be a much happier place.
BlackBeltJones @ Aug 2nd 2007 11:39PM
EGM is justified, and anyone who says they are biased against the PS3 has never heard of a man called shane bettenhausen, he is a bigger sony fanboy then anyone on this site.
Maurice_Chavez @ Aug 2nd 2007 11:52PM
@2
You got it. That's what I'll be doing. 20$ bucks would not have altered my opinion about this game, money should be taken into account for "smaller" games such as SSHD, Calling all Cars etc...
If the word out makes this game a worthy buy, people will follow and that's just what this game is all about. If there are players this game will work and I think it will be well worth the price because I'm really looking forward a popular multiplayer FPS on the PS3 (RFOM is nice, but you can play on a 4 way splitscreen online with Warhawk which totally RockS)
E. Dub @ Aug 3rd 2007 12:06AM
Nay, Nay, a thousand times nay I scream! Are you all video game fans or are you charlatans? Do we review movies based on ticket prices, or books based on the price of the hardcovers? No! Why not, you ask? Because reviews live on long past the game. I don't have a PS3 right now (and live vicariously through this website), and by the time I can afford one (I would pay a solid grand if I had that and a better TV, come on Sony, help me out, I'm trying to go to college) this game might be cheaper, so how am I to know how the gameplay is if the review is based on the price? And more than that, in six months I won't care about the price. If James Joyce's Ulysses cost $100, would it make that a better book? Worse? How about if it only cost $.50? The words in that book are the same, and the gameplay is the same no matter what it costs.
Aside from that, the point of the review is not to tell you if you should buy the game or not, just as that is not the point of the literary or film critic. The job of the video game is, first and foremost, establish and define the goals of the video game designers, developers, etc., and second to judge how well the critic feels that they accomplished those goals and why. With a game like Narc, I can understand this discussion slightly more, because that was a title that was produced specifically because they could sell it cheap.
And I can forgive PS3Fanboy for taking price into account because that is their stated goal, they are a relatively small, close-knit group of folks and they're reviews do not hope to be relevant to the mass of gamers for years to come. (Please don't kill me. I'm so scared, and I'm sorry that I have boiled the blood of the fanboys. I just want to be you someday).
DannyV_El_Acme @ Aug 3rd 2007 12:31AM
The thing is, this isn't "just a PSN game" that you can download to play for little whiles. Warhawk is supposed to be a KILLER APP for the PS3, and it should be rated on THAT standard, not on how much it costs. If the game deserves to be labeled a killer app, it should get a good rating, regardless of price. I would gladly pay full price for a great multiplayer-only game. In fact, I was planning on doing it when Team Fortress 2 came out. Yeah, it's gonna be free with the Half-Life 2 Orange Box, so whoopty doo, but I'd still pay full price if it was released stand-alone.
The fact is, there's many single/multiplayer games that don't really get much use in single player. As good(or bad) as single player is in the Halo series, everybody's gonna buy Halo 3 for the multiplayer. I don't see why getting rid of the single player altogether should affect people buying Warhawk. If anything, it'd incite people into interacting with the PS network more.
bxbailey @ Aug 3rd 2007 6:59AM
EGM editors are a bunch of @ss Clowns!
Brian Spence @ Aug 3rd 2007 7:13AM
I disagree about factoring in price. What if I want this game in 6 months or a year? The price won't be as high, but all the reviews will be gimped. Bad call.
Nate @ Aug 3rd 2007 8:18AM
Price should never factor into the rating for the game. The rating is a measure of the quality of the gameplay experience, not how much it impacts your wallet.
Price should be mentioned at the end (when MSRP is a known fact), just something like "MSRP is $60, but with the small amount of content, you might want to wait a few months for the price to come down. However, the gameplay was top notch, so if you just have to have it, go for it, you'll love it."
-Nate
BruceLeroy @ Aug 3rd 2007 9:51AM
7. It affected Shadowrun's score, and playstation fans cheered. Now it may affect Warhawk, and suddenly EGM "has lost it's edge" and "is treating this game unfairly". It's either a standard to rate a game lower if the cost is a factor in justifying the score (for example, should live arcade and budget PSN games be held to a different rating scale than full-blown PS3 and 360 titles), or none at all. Pick one, and stick with it, but don't trash an offering from the other side to then turn around and complain when the same stuff happens to something on a console YOU love.
Posted at 7:47PM on Aug 2nd 2007 by Space_Butler
Dude....STFU...why don't you say that to all the 360 fantards that were crying foul when Shadowrun got reviewed badly because of price? You're just another typical 360 moron.
JL @ Aug 3rd 2007 10:35AM
Price should never effect the overall score of a review. Why wouldnt I release a horrible game for 5 bucks. Its only five bucks so, it gets a 9! This is stupid. The reviewer should always talk about the price in the review but it shouldn't effect the score.
Scores should be based on quality of game.
Patrick @ Aug 3rd 2007 11:19AM
I don't know what you guys problems are. Price does make a big difference in a game. Yes, gameplay is a major part in a game review, but the price of the game must be justified. For instance, the price of Madden and the old 2K ESPN games. Madden is a good game and many can justify its $60 price, but think if Madden was just $20. Many more people would buy it and would be more forgiving on its flaws just because it was $20. The cost of a game is a factor in a game review too. I have many times waited for a game's price to go down just because I didn't think it was worth the price. I have no problem with EGM doing this same method as long as they disclose the reason for the game's low score is the price. Yeah, I know it's not fair, but nothing is fair in this world.
HektikLyfe @ Aug 3rd 2007 11:23AM
I for one will stand alone and defend EGM. I no longer subscribe to them and lately have found myself disagreeing with them more often but not in this case. I don't believe we have the full story. For one, take into consideration that 1Up is made up of reviewers from EGM. So they frequently bash on each other by giving incomplete information. I don't believe that the price of the game shouldn't reflect how enjoyable the title is. Because I am a big Halo fan in no way means I am willing to pay that $130 they are asking. It is all about content. EGM has (most likely) already seen the game in its entirety. I had the opportunity to play with it a little at last years E3 and granted, it has evolved much since then, but I know that when I did play it I would not have paid $60 for it. Price has always been a factor in game reviews for many different media outlets. For example GameSpot. You can look at their reviews and you will see them state that it is an extra bonus if the title is available at a lower than average rate. It has never been clearly defined as a rule but it has been an unstated assumption for a long time. I've heard similar things like that commented since the NES era. It's not a PS3 bashing, its simply a case of EGM looking out for our benefit as PS3 owners to make sure that we get what we pay for. Would you pay $60 for Tetris? I know I wouldn't even though the game itself is still great.
thebluick @ Aug 3rd 2007 12:37PM
I think price is something that should be considered. Calling all cars would have been gotten a 1 out of 10 if it was a $50-$60 dollar game but as a $10 game it was a solid 8.
jojo29 @ Aug 3rd 2007 12:54PM
To ALL the people who think price should affect a game's review score: You are all morons.
Let me explain: Ok let's Game X comes out at $59.99. Its an average game, with single and multiplayer modes, and decent gameplay. Let's say it gets a solid 7.
Now wait 3-4 months down the future. Now the game is at $39.99, so what now, do we re-review the game and give it a 8? Oh wait, the ps3/Wii/360 ALL have thier versions of "Greatest Hits" where the game will retail at $19.99. That means this 'decent, yet average game" now becomes a perfect 10!??
Yup, way to go EGM, you yet proved to me why whenever i get a 'free issue' its only used as my puppies' shitbox paper. IGN/EGM/Gamepro....glad i dont read that crap anymore