You have to remember that the Sony fandom have been on top undisputedly for two generations, they don't know how to deal with loss, set backs or compromises. This is going to be a trialing time for them just as its going to be the rest of us.

Then Tetris or Bust a Move ,Bombjack or Snow Bros re-released at 50 ctn should all get perfect 10 because the price ?

 You're assuming price is the only thing that matters and is just an all around asinine comment.

Tetris I would.  The rest.  not so much.  They should be reviewed against other 50 cent games.  Or what the expectations for what a 50 cent game would be if there are no other 50 cent games available. (Which would be the case if only one of the 4 were released.)

 In otherwords those 4 games should be rated compared to each other and not compared to Killzone 2, Call of Duty or Mario Charged Strikers.

 Just how you wouldn't rank a fine dining restruant the same way you would rank a fast food restruant.  I mean compared to the master chef restraunts that exist all Fast Food Restraunts would get a 1/10 and you'd have no clue whether to go to Taco bell or Chipotle for mexican fast food.

So if it's fine to deduct points for a game being higher priced, then it should be okay to deduct points from games that say are pretty short or shorter than normal console games...this would account for games on the DS and PSP then.

I feel it's ridiculous to deduct points based on it costing more than a "decided" high point.

It's different if they rate all games based on value for money i.e. if it's got a budget price, but is good value for money, then great....give them an extra point, and if a full price game seems not to be value for money, then deduct a point.

What about this an example......a game looks great, plays great and sounds great and is very enjoyable, but is quite short, then should this game be reduced a point because of this?

Yes...if a game feels short, it should lose points. It may be a great game, but if it's too short, that's definitely reason to lose points.

I don't know how I feel about the price being a factor...but if one knows that a $20 game is being released for $60...it should at least be mentioned in the article that the game is not worth the price. I suppose it doesn't need to be factored into the score....but it's the reviewer's right to tell whether or not a game is worth buying.

double post.

The funny part is you are making the exact OPPOSITE point you want to.  you treat DS and PSP games differently then console games just how you would treat regular priced games different from budget games, budget games different from half priced games, and half priced games from cheapo Xbox arcade games.

 They do rank all games based on value for money.  That's exactlly what 1-up is saying in that article.  Since they can't do that since there is no price released they are forced to guess a price.  Which they guessed $30.  If it costs more or less then that the ranking needs to be changed.

 I'm fairly certain that mario galaxy will be considered a "full" game, don't you?  Score based on price is irrelevant for an AAA title don't you think?  Exactly what's your point here?