Bad monetization and excessively high pricing change the experience for gamers. There’s not a lot of chance they’re willing to say “microtransactions make a game ineligible” like they should, but cash grubbing microtransactions change what a game is, and they can’t just not acknowledge that at all.
Last year the nominations for Best Narrative were:
Alan Wake 2
Baldur’s Gate 3
Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty
Final Fantasy XVI
Marvel’s Spider-Man 2
On my local digital shop front Phantom Liberty was au$45 while Spider-Man was au$125. Should Phantom Liberty be given an advantage because it is priced at only 36% of its competition? I feel like those commercial value considerations might be appropriate for a review but for an annual Best Narrative award I want it to go to the Narrative that is actually Best.
That said if they added a best value in gaming award I would would be happy for them to consider games or hardware that offer significantly more value than their price would imply.
Not at random retailers anywhere in the world, but yes, if you get the same quality story for a third of the launch price, that matters.
It’s half the reason I never buy Nintendo games. Metroid isn’t inherently “worse” than indie metroidvanias, but it’s the same caliber game for twice the price (and the sales are less discounted by dollar value than the indies are on top of it). That does make it a much worse game for gamers, and it should get heavily docked for that.
Anything with microtransactions is cancer no matter how good the underlying mechanics are and should be completely banned from consideration.
Not at random retailers anywhere in the world, but yes, if you get the same quality story for a third of the launch price, that matters.
I was comparing the Australian PSN prices, I assume ratios are probably similar across other regions but couldn’t be bothered checking.
I’m a bargain hunter as much as the next person but I want the annual Narrative award to go to the game with a 9/10 story, not the game with a 8/10 story and 4/10 price.
Why wouldn’t it be taken into consideration?
Bad monetization and excessively high pricing change the experience for gamers. There’s not a lot of chance they’re willing to say “microtransactions make a game ineligible” like they should, but cash grubbing microtransactions change what a game is, and they can’t just not acknowledge that at all.
Last year the nominations for Best Narrative were:
On my local digital shop front Phantom Liberty was au$45 while Spider-Man was au$125. Should Phantom Liberty be given an advantage because it is priced at only 36% of its competition? I feel like those commercial value considerations might be appropriate for a review but for an annual Best Narrative award I want it to go to the Narrative that is actually Best.
That said if they added a best value in gaming award I would would be happy for them to consider games or hardware that offer significantly more value than their price would imply.
Not at random retailers anywhere in the world, but yes, if you get the same quality story for a third of the launch price, that matters.
It’s half the reason I never buy Nintendo games. Metroid isn’t inherently “worse” than indie metroidvanias, but it’s the same caliber game for twice the price (and the sales are less discounted by dollar value than the indies are on top of it). That does make it a much worse game for gamers, and it should get heavily docked for that.
Anything with microtransactions is cancer no matter how good the underlying mechanics are and should be completely banned from consideration.
I was comparing the Australian PSN prices, I assume ratios are probably similar across other regions but couldn’t be bothered checking.
I’m a bargain hunter as much as the next person but I want the annual Narrative award to go to the game with a 9/10 story, not the game with a 8/10 story and 4/10 price.