[Every Friday, Destructoid will pose topical a question to the community. Answer it if you want!]
This is a debate that's often sparked among game reviewers, because people seem to have such strong opinions on either side of the matter. Should the price of a game be factored into a review? Do lower prices come with lower expectations? Are expensive games held to a higher standard?
Those against the price factor argue that it dates a review -- prices constantly change, so a review that mentions cost will become obsolete in a few weeks. They also tend to believe that a good game or a bad game are always good or bad, no matter how much they cost. You can't put a price on quality.
Those in favor of prices argue that the cost of a game can absolutely impact what that game has to deliver. After all, for $0.99, you can get away with a simple minigame like Angry Birds, but nobody would sanely charge $60 for such a title. Likewise, if a game is buggy, visually sub-par, and generally feels like a $20 budget title, the MSRP of sixty big ones is definitely worth considering.
I'm personally in favor of factoring in price, at least as a point of interest. I think knowing what a publisher expects in exchange for its game is worth thinking about, though it shouldn't be the primary focus. But what about you? Should price factor in reviews? That is the question.
[*].disqus.comto your security software's whitelist.