I don't really have that much money right now, not many people do.
As far as I know, we're not all driving fancy Italian cars and living in mansions made out of marble, gold and naked women.
We need money to live. Feed ourselves, our family, pay for the rent, pay for our studies, etc.
Often do I hear gamers saying: "I don't have enough money to buy all of the games that are coming out!"
Lucky for you guys who aren't swimming in a pool of your country's currency, you can buy games at whatever price-point you want to, provided you can wait a month or so for Gamestop to lower their prices or Steam to have sale.
Let it be used or new, the prices of games change as time goes by.
Usually, a "triple-A" game comes out at a scary 60$. A month later, it might be 30$, maybe less.
Just a single month later, you're going to play the product of the blood and tears of a bunch of guys who sat in front of computers making your favorite RPG, FPS or whatever you like to play, for half the price at launch.
With the price of games being so prone to change, why consider it part of quality rating?
"Absolutely. A $10 game that offers the exact same amount of fun as a $60 one is obviously the better package, and should be noted as such!" - Mr Andy Dixon.
I bought Red Dead Redemption for 17$ 2 months after its release.
It didn't play better, look better or made me happier because it was 17$.
It was the same product, I just paid less for it.
I bought Too Human for 5$.
It didn't play better, look better and it certainly did not make me happier just because it was 5$.
Too Human is still a terrible, awful game. (In my opinion)
My point is: I can get whatever game I want for free off Pirate Bay if I feel like it.
I pay the price that I want to. Everybody pays the price that they want to.
Nobody should judge the work of a human being by its price, for it be ephemeral and ever-changing.
It's in this oddly structured blog that I would like to say just how ridiculous it is to add the price of a game as a part of a critic's evaluation.