Posts Tagged ‘price’

The size of the game world for upcoming Borderlands game, Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel, is bigger than the original but smaller than Borderlands 2, Gearbox Software president Randy Pitchford says. In a new interview with PC Gamer, Pitchford pointed that fact out and said, “We’re still getting a grasp on scope.”

“It’s pretty big. I don’t think it’s going to be as big as Borderlands 2. It might be as big, or a little bigger, than Borderlands 1,” Pitchford said. “It might be kind of in between the two.”

Concerning the price point for Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel, Pitchford said the final decision is up in the air and will ultimately be decided by publisher 2K Games.

“As far as price point goes, I don’t think that’s set in stone yet. It should be priced correctly, so we’ll have to see what happens in the market and understand the actual total value proposition that’s being offered,” he said. “But I’m the developer. The guys at 2K will figure that out.”

Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel launches this fall for Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PC. Gearbox is serving as co-developer on the project alongside 2K Australia. The studio is also working on unannounced new games for next-generation consoles. Pitchford said recently that the studio will “probably” have a new game for new consoles to announce as early as later this year.

Eddie Makuch is a news editor at GameSpot, and you can follow him on Twitter @EddieMakuch
Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email

Gamespot’s Site Mashup


Charlie Pulbrook was the UK’s first Xbox One owner. He spent £429.99 and only got a copy of FIFA 14.

UK supermarket chain Asda and online giant Amazon UK have both slashed the price of the Xbox One Titanfall bundle to £349.99. That’s the same price as the PlayStation 4.

The bundle contains both an Xbox One and a digital download code for the online FPS. The regular price is for the bundle is £399.99, so that’s a fairly sizeable £50 saving. It is by no means an official price cut from Microsoft, so it is almost inevitable that the price will return to £399.99 at both retailers over the next couple of days.

The Xbox One launched in the UK last November with an RRP of £429.99, but Microsoft officially cut the price by £30 after the machine had been on sale for just over three months. For the sake of comparison, it took the Xbox 360 almost two years to see its first price cut.

This latest Xbox One deal follows electronics store Maplin selling Xbox One stock for £349.99 at the start of March, but comes with two major advantages: you get a copy of Titanfall thrown in, and you don’t have to buy anything from Maplin.

Are you tempted to pick one up?

Gamespot’s Site Mashup


Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes has sparked numerous heated debates around the internet regarding its short length, and the fact that it is essentially a demo with a price tag attached to it. Now, considering that I will be reviewing this game, I have spent the better part of a week thinking of my approach to it. And the need to actually express these thoughts arose when this morning I witnessed a first review of Ground Zeroes (which most likely broke embargo) that gave the game 4/10, with price and content being the largest determinants of that score, and not necessarily the game’s actual merits or lack thereof. As you would expect, this sparked a large debate in which both sides brought plenty of interesting things to the discussion, and in this write-up I want to address the issue of review score versus content from the perspective of a games reviewer, and hardcore MGS fan.

Before going into the discussion, let’s establish what the two sides in question are. The first believes that a game review should be entirely on the product’s merit, and that price should not be factored in to the score itself as value is subjective and determined by the consumer. The opposing belief is that value for money is essentially what a review is addressing, because if you aren’t coming to a review to get help to make an informed purchasing decision, then what do you want out of reviews? Now, I want to say right out of the bat that neither side is entirely wrong or completely agreeable, as both have merit and as is always the case the solution lies somewhere in the middle.

I read a comment in which a gamer expressed dissatisfaction at the extremely low score because he or she wondered that if the game had been free, would it have then received an almost perfect score. I want to make something clear. We like to say that games should be rated primarily on merit. This would be ideal, but in reality value for money is a critical factor for any review, as they are theoretically there to help you make a purchasing decision. Of course, value has underlying subjectivity. For instance, I paid $ 20 for Gone Home, and finished it in an hour, yet I found it to be worth every cent and was overjoyed to have played it. Someone else said that it was a rip-off. Similarly, in my review of Thief I recommended that gamers avoid paying full price for it, yet some gamers said they got their money’s worth. Naturally, that means in addition to the hard value of a product, which is what’s actually in there with strict regards to content, there is also a perceived value determined by the user of the product.

However. This can’t always hold. Games must be mainly rated on merit, of course, but this can’t be done at the complete exclusion of price as a point of consideration. For instance, I consider Journey to be a perfect game, and would give it a perfect score on any day of the week. Just like I would Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. But let’s use Journey since it’s roughly an hour or two in length. If that game cost $ 60 at launch, it would be a gross oversight to say that, “well if the price was lower or it was free, that score would be justified.” A review surely must consider whether something is actually worth its asking price, and make the fairest possible recommendation based on their beliefs and opinion. Whether you like it or not, price matters when buying a product, and it should be a factor of the review. After all, a five minute game can be flawless too, but can you give it a perfect score if it costs $ 30? That would be absurd. We don’t live in imaginary worlds where we think in terms of “if it was free.”

But this is not me saying that I side with the other extreme. I do not believe the price is a greater determinant of score than the actual product’s merits, otherwise what are you? An accountant? A game’s merits should be core to a review, and that’s why I strongly disagree with, as an example, a 4/10 score for Ground Zeroes on the sole basis that its content doesn’t justify the asking price. If that was the only reason given for the score. Then, it would appear that game quality does not matter, or that price matters far more, both of which don’t match the intention of a review. The buy-in is a consideration point. No one gets it for free. Ground Zeroes could be money well-spent for an MGS fan. We don’t know. So by giving the game an extremely low score because of its content alone, you aren’t equipping your users with the necessary knowledge of the game’s actual quality.

On that note I’ve also seen many fans and gamers defending Ground Zeroes by referring to the additional side missions and bonus content. While this is surely to the game’s credit, I just want to briefly state that it is not entirely fair to gamers to say that in order to get a decent return in hours on their game they must invest into the sorts of things a completionist is inclined to do. There are many who play Metal Gear Solid purely for the story. Also while replay value is a very subjective thing, it ideally should be a result of a gamer actually enjoying a game, and not being made to essentially grind in order to squeeze more hours out of limited content. That is the difference, and why having bonus content does not mean that core game content is extended, especially not for everyone.

Of course, there is another side to Ground Zeroes that makes it get perceived negatively. Aside from its short content, it’s the accusation that it’s a paid demo essentially, and as such should have been free. It’s a poor practice to charge for something like Ground Zeroes. I won’t get into that debate now, as there’s plenty out there already, but I do want to briefly discuss the matter of ‘bad practice’ and its affect on review scores. I personally believe that this is a tricky thing, as it’s very subjective. My conclusion would be that a bad practice should affect a review score if it has proved detrimental to the game’s quality. For instance, if you suffered with SimCity or Diablo III server crashes, data wipes or inability to connect due to the always-online thing, it would be fair to have that affect score since the practice you disapprove of actually hurt the game on a functional level. But to score, let’s say Street Fighter X Tekken, really low because you dislike that twelve characters were locked on the disc is moving away somewhat from game merit and objectivity. Unless there were two characters at launch.

By all means, dismantle bad practices in opinion pieces or subsequent articles, but a review does have an objective and a purpose and, even though it may be an opinion, it is not a blog post where you vent your personal principles. You’re assessing a product, and generally you shouldn’t want to over-complicate the review process. You are most likely going to see very polarised review scores for Ground Zeroes, as some reviewers will score it low for its content and on principle, while others will ignore that and rate it only on its quality. But the above discussion brings me to my proposed solution on the matter, which is of course somewhere in the middle of two extremes.

Value should affect score, no two ways about it. Otherwise, you can charge extortionate amounts for games that have little content, but may be excellent. It would distort the entire process of reviewing. However, value cannot be the dictator of a score – of merit. It’s an ingredient. A point of consideration. But it cannot determine a score all on its own. Otherwise, reviews not only become infinitely more complex and have even more subjectivity thrown in, but it also becomes detrimental to allowing consumers to decide whether they want to buy-in based on a game’s merits. Basically, content and value should absolutely influence, but not decide a game’s final verdict, as that should always be down to actual merit at the core of the pie. There are the game’s merits, and then all else on top of that.

This would be the way I’d ideally approach a review of Ground Zeroes once the game lands at my feet.


The post Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes: Discussing Price Versus Content And Review Scores appeared first on #egmr.

#egmr - Blog Ping-Dienst, Blogmonitor

    Powered by Yahoo! Answers

    Games Blogs
    blog directory