On the latest Player One Podcast episode, CJ, Greg and Phil discussed the news that Joe Rybicki, in his review for PS3′s Warhawk, noted if the price of the PSN version was above $30 to drop the review score one point. This turned into a debate about whether game reviewers should factor a game’s pricepoint into the overall review. Now, this isn’t anything new; rather, it is a renewed discussion from not-so-way-back in May where David Jaffe went bananas over a review damning the lack of content in a $10 download.

I most-unfamously wrote that game reviewers might not be the best people to assess a game’s value based on its price point, relating to the Guitar Hero II song packs on Xbox Live, and looking back I don’t think my argument was complete. I used the example of how reviewers had unrealistic cost expectations in terms of optional downloadable content, such that they could not separate their personal socio-economic classification from their professional duties in order to provide an objective viewpoint. But I argue since game reviews are personal opinion anyway, one person’s position on value might differ as much as another person’s predisposition to, say, first person shooters. Even though I believe in my original argument, I can see why others may not.

But I have to ask a couple of questions, to which I may not have the answers. The first is, how can someone determine the value of a game based on its cost to the consumer? If a $60 game has six hours of gameplay, then the value is $10 per hour. But if that game is considered the best ever, based on a reviewer’s personal opinion, then it would be recommended over another game which might have a lower cost-per-hour ratio, because each of the six hours is substantially better than an hour of any other game. If one were to use this formula to calculate value, then there would be consistency, within an acceptable variance, across all games. Right? Well, not if another reviewer decides sheer value of one game is superior to an hour of gameplay in another, regardless of how great that hour is.

The second question was brought up during the podcast discussion, in that how can one factor cost into a review when cost is a dynamic variable? A game is initially released to retail at $60, but in a few months that game could be cut to a fraction of its original price. Yet the review for that game is written at a certain point in time, and the review score does not change in proportion to a falling price point. For example, Shadowrun is regarded as a good multiplayer game, but the review scores indicate the game does not offer enough value to justify a $60 purchase. However, once the price of the game begins to fall, the score still indicates its original tepid recommendation. If Shadowrun was released initially at $30, review scores would undoubtedly be higher. There’s clearly a discrepancy of review scoring between games initially priced lower and those which match that lower price over time.

I agree with what Joe is doing. He is using his position in the gaming press to help communicate his personal opinions as a gamer. And as a gamer, he is speaking for all gamers. If Sony hears his voice, it benefits everyone; if they don’t, at least it’s “point taken”.