There was a parity policy the reason why doesn't change that fact, so it still answers the reason why in regards to the of course you don't statement.
There are differences between playing the PS5 upgrade and PS4 version via PS5 BC, but worth is subjective and while our opinions on subjective matters are important, and have value we should also remember that they differ from objective reason and we shouldn't conflate the two.
The answer is simple and correct there is no perceived value for you in paying the extra money for the PS5 version but that all there is.
The last part was just me continuing on with a generalisation on the matter of subjectivity and wasn't meant to be critical of your's or anyone else's opinion .
I... I'm confused as well on what you're getting at, now
If you're talking parity between the COMPETITOR, so Xbox vs PS, then yes: there were parity clauses based on which one had the marketing rights for the game. But parity implies equality, so it was really just an allowed upper limit. This started to disappear as the midgen upgrades continued, though, and some games that had marketing rights on PS4P still had better showings on the X1X.
I think most people figure "PS5, next numbered system, must be a totally different machine than PS4", but it's really not. Sure, its components and architecture are different, but the only exception here is the SSD setup. Example: every time I upgrade my PC and swap out all of its hardware, mostly everything still works the same and games can often run better and have more settings turned up which proves that the upgrade process itself is not all that painful for devs to have worked out in their graphics engines. As graphics engines start making use of newer and newer hardware, I then have to upgrade my hardware to match or exceed it. This is the identical concept of going from one console to another, yet PC gaming doesn't require me to pay anything extra for my game to run at higher framerates or better graphic settings, or higher resolutions and installed ultra high res textures.
To bring that back to the topic, GoT's only real PS5 "upgrade" that's worth anything is adding lip sync for Japanese VO, but for a game that takes place entirely IN Japan and already has Japanese VO, this is really something that should have already been there to begin with (or later patched in). Thus, this just leaves the graphics upgrades which, per above, really aren't that hard to manage as I'm absolutely sure the graphics engine can simply be cranked up to higher resolutions, texture filtering can be turned up, and they can simply swap out the texture files for higher resolution ones that they already have (many don't realize that the textures you see in the game are often NOT the same quality they created the texture at to begin with; virtually ALL devs have the "original" assets of much higher quality, which in most cases is uncompressed textures). I also have no doubt that, as a first party studio with PS, that Sony has provided dev tools for Dualsense features that likely contain toolsets making that also rather easy. Adding 3D audio? The game already runs in surround sound, I have no doubt that Sony also has provided dev tools for converting or creating a 3D audio preset based on current surround sound channels.
"But... they did something, so they should be able to charge for it!" Well, if you're talking whether that's worth it or not based on a person's perceived value as opposed to how much work it really was, then in THAT case, someone has to look at the picture as a whole. Do Dualsense features really improve the value of the game? Does 3D audio for people with Sony headsets really improve the value of the game itself? I would say no simply because those features are things you paid to have when you bought a PS5, and are thus improving the value of the PS5, not the game.
I don't understand why reviewers pay attention to price, I get why you want to point out what you perceive as "bad practices" but that should be in a different segment, not something you talk in your technical analysis of the game. Especially that non-Nintendo games don't hold their value (for very good reasons) and drop in price faster than I drop hot potatoes. I would feel duped if I bought most of my third or first party PS4/5 games.
This game will literally be given for "free" at one point, whether through PSN sub or play at home initiative or at the very least, it will be sold for 9.99 dollars (and less) with everything included if you bother to keep an eye on sales. Even if you're not keen on sales, for the majority of its lifespan, this game will be sold for a third of its price now that BC has become the norm.
with that said, I will watch your review when I play the game to avoid the spoilers, it's one of the few games piqued my interest in the PS4 for sure, especially the good things that I hear about the combat. However, I am playing Infamous SS and I am very disappointed by it so far. Spider man on the PS2 had better traversal mechanics than this PS4 sucker punch game does, just a big no no for superhero game... a good example of why so many games of this caliber drop in value the way they do, they're just not fun
Reviews aren't a technical analysis, they're a summation of a the reviewer's experience with something. The more detailed the analysis, the better it provides a picture of the reviewer's experience to the reader/viewer. The reason many reviewers don't talk about value is because they receive their review copies for free and never feel the sting. The reason I talk about content/value is because I also have the intention of my reviews assisting people in how they spend their money which is almost entirely the sole reason people seek out reviews in the first place. It's an odd disconnect between reviewers and consumers in gaming I've purposely connected. Elsewhere in the real world, people EXPECT reviewers to pay attention to price.
Having said that, I'll use a real-world example: cars. When has someone ever bought a car without thinking about value? The fact that a car may go on sale/have incentives, or become cheaper, or be later bought used for even less is irrelevant to the point in time in which the reviewer is reviewing it. To ignore a vehicle's price point is to ignore, as aforementioned, the sole purpose the viewer is even seeking out a review in the first place. What do I get for my money? Is this car's performance justified by its price? Does the price justify enough features of this vehicle to suit my family needs? What options can I get and how much do they cost? Gaming is not as complex, but game prices themselves vary wildly once you bring indie games into the picture and also start thinking about genres. And thus, much like a car review, if my review comes out in a timely fashion (you'll notice there's a pattern in which I talk more about value on newly released game reviews than I do with backlog reviews; in fact, many backlog reviews, I mention sale prices or other things that may have convinced me to buy it!), it will reference the cost at the moment in time. A person can then decide based on my summation of my experiences and how I felt my money was spent whether to wait for it to be cheaper. Some people have FOMO, some people don't. So for the people that don't, I talk about price-to-performance. They can make the decision themselves to wait or get it right away at MSRP.
And I don't really spoil games in my reviews, I'm unsure of why so many people have said that to me lol... I mean, yes, I DO show the obvious thing you already know is coming: Jin eventually kills Khotun. Other than that, my reviews are about 99% spoiler free OR contain non-descript teasers of later parts that only people who played it know what that is. This is also inadvertently proof I've completed the game, too, and am demonstrating integrity in presenting my experience. Believe you me: there are reviews out there of people who have NOT played or completed a game.
I also have a review of InfamousSS from my first season 5 years ago, so you can also decide if you want to use that as a reference point above on whether your experiences and how I present mine line up. I'm all for people being skeptical of my reviews, as they should be. It's healthy to gather all of the information you can about a game before buying it, and that's quite literally what I'm here for. Sometimes my reviews line up great with the greater consensus, sometimes they don't. Sometimes when they don't, I show things people didn't realize or care about until I showed it, and other times I almost sound like I'm unintentionally regurgitating the general experience. You may not always agree with me, but I took the time to spell all this out so that you know if there IS one thing you can count on, I understand what being a reviewer genuinely means.