Can we not get rid of bad reviewers, I suggest it should be punishable by death.

That's a little harsh don't ya think?

Price is part of the product, because part of its quality lies in the value it provides for the money. Deal with it.

No, I'm with OP on this one - burn them all.....

That's a slippery slope.
Who will determine what exactly a 'bad' reviewer is?
And where does it stop? In print magazines? Large websites? Blogs? Forums? Comments?
Pretty soon we'll be executing the creator of this topic for making 'bad' topics.
So I disagree, not because I don't want him/her to die, because I don't really care about that.. but because I don't want to die for so silly a reason.

If one were able to reasonably demonstrate why they think the product should be priced differently, then sure, I think a case could be made.

But $9.99:( isn't even remotely helpful.

That is impossible. To demonstrate something like that you need to look at it objectively, but reviews are subjective, always were and always will be. Price matters when reviewing a product, just don't expect the perception to be the same for everyone reading it.

But yeah, "$9.99:(" was a retarded "review".

I think that if a game costs 60 euro and lasts for 5 hours, then price should be a factor in the review, but if its a gog game, 5 hours for a tenner shouldn't be an issue.

EDIT : out of curiosity, what game sparked the thread?

As otherrs said: price is a part of the package and therefore influences the review.

That said, reviews on old games probably shouldn't factor in the price so much since it's subject to change sooner or later, while the game itself isn't. Therefore, tying a review to the product's current price will render the review obsolete much sooner.

In case of useless reviews like the "9.99$ :(" one, just rate it down, the review feedback system has been been implemented for exactly such situations. Bad reviews will fall into obscurity through downrating.

Yeah, that particular review is pretty stupid. However, it's not stupid because it downrates it on the issue of price, but rather because it fails to address anything but the price.

Right, let's punish bad reviewers by death and everyone who says anything against you as well. Oh, wait, we had that already in Germany 70 years ago and it didn't really work.

That article is utter bollocks. The author keeps going around in circles and completely ignores a key market fundamental: why should I buy this game when I can get newer/bigger/better ones (assuming that you believe "newer" or "bigger" is "better", which i don't, but I understand that people do)?

He compares a game of basketball and a game of Civilization to a minute's skydive on the basis of its time, yet he fails to address the limitations of the gaming experience. Games rarely exceed €70 because the experience that they can offer is limited in comparison to say, skydiving.

The market has decided that a gaming experience is not worth more than €70, and competition is regulated on the basis of that price ceiling. The age, quality, length and reputation of the game are all factors that can conspire to bring that price down because old age, shortness, poor quality and unknown brands are all issues that gamers perceive to be value-diminishing factors.

Sure, but I'm not asking for an objective definition of the value of the game. I just want to see a reasonable argument put forth if you're going to use that as a factor in your game rating.

http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/robin_hood

^The one for this game that just came out today. I downvoted and reported as spam so hopefully it goes away.