Alright.

 1- Warhawk is NOT a fully priced game and they know it, how is it fair of them to whine about the price and threaten to lower its score.   We all know its not 59.99 for just the game, we know damn well it will cost less then that.  They are whiny bias idiots willing to lower a games score just casue it might cost 10 bucks more then they wan it to be.  

Bro your going to get banned edit before a mod see's it, aww man dont screw up like I did.

I see nothing wrong with reviewing price as part of a game, as long as you mention in the review if the price is affecting what you score it. Most people read reviews to help decide whether or not to buy a game, so if the reviewer doesn't feel like the game justifies the pricetag, then as a consumer, I appreciate them adding that in.

In regards to warhawk, I would agree that it's not a $60 game if you have the option of buying it without the headset, but if there's no choice, then it's a $60 game, since people who already own a headset are still being forced to buy it at that price.

Simple if you account for scoring when it comes to games you have 2 main ways to do it.  Either Tiers or an exact percentage drop.

 For example their tiers could go like this.

 Tier 1: 51 to 60 Full priced game

Tier 2: 31 to 50 Discount game.   Cheaper, but still likely should be almost as good as a full priced game.

Tier 3.  10 to 29 Half price discount game.  So you'd expect it to be nowhere near as good as a regular priced game.

 Tier 4. under 10 dollar games.  Cheap throw away games that should be judged soley on how fun and addictive they ware.

A game that gets a 5 on tier 1 might get a 6 on tier 2, an 8 on tier 3 and a 10 on tier 4.

 The other way an exact price to points ratio would likely be messy because you'd have to take off a certain percentage point for each dollar more it cost.  Also putting a formula like that in a review, or giving it to an editor would be asking for a mix up.

Perhaps they don't think Warhawk is a big time game?  That it doesn't compare with the other full price games therefore charging more then half what a full price game would cost would be too much because it's just not that good of a game?  I mean it isn't arbitrary.  You are going from a half priced game to over a half priced game.  Half priced seems like a very logical place to end a tier for value. 

 EDIT: By the same point.  If Mario Galaxy was cheaper it's reveiw would be raised.  They did give a fair review as a half priced game, if it becomes more then half price it effects it's value.  Seems logical to me.

I completely agree with you, I just wish more people would lead your logical post and stop arguing about stupid things.

They don't like something I like! Bias! Bias!

I think that where one stands on this is determined by one's understanding of review scores. If a review score is supposed to represent the quality of a game, then it's absurd to allow price to affect it. However, if a review score is supposed to represent the value of a game, then it makes perfect sense.

I tend to agree that price matters - a review score is primarily a tool used by owners of a system to determine what they ought to buy, and is only secondarily a way to directly compare games on/across platforms.

Look at reviews of other products. Any iPhone review that doesn't consider the price a negative is being silly, any Wii review that doesn't count the thing's affordability as a bonus is being dishonest, etc.

Most people don't read reviews in order to have arguments about which game is better - they read reviews in order to see what's worth buying, and it's no sin for a reviewer to consider all factors that determine a game's value. Considering the price of the game yields a score that is more useful to the average reader, which is exactly what they should be trying to do.

Edit: And while I agree that Warhawk isn't quite the same thing as a $10 XBLA game, the precedent still exists.  Cheaper games are not held to the same standards.

Instead of thinking of this as 1up penalizing the game for costing more than $30, think of it as giving the game a handicap if it's $30 or less.

What a terrible thread.

The Sony fanboys who're crying bias need to get over this. I remember when Lost Planet was supposed to be *the* game and it ended up getting a score of 73 from EGM (dispite the fact it got some higher scores like 85 from IGN, 83 from Game Informer) and I didn't see any Xbox fanboys crying over it. They just accepted it and moved on, something the Sony fanboys could learn from.