I understand the complaint that reviewers have games provided for them for free so they don& #39;t appreciate value, but you can& #39;t really have any game criticism otherwise. Also, game criticism isn& #39;t exactly a high-paying job - these folks absolutely know the value of a dollar.

And think about this: any YouTuber with a decent audience who& #39;s making content based on a game has not really "paid for it themselves." It& #39;s a business expense. The content they make off of it more than pays for itself, *and* they can write if off their taxes.

You could say you only want reviews from people who spend their own money to buy a game and then make no money from it... but those people are almost by definition wealthy (and aren& #39;t impacted by the expense) or the children of wealthy parents who support them.

You can say that you only want user reviews, but user reviews are anonymous and easily falsified and manipulated. You can& #39;t find a critic you agree with and stick with them. If you (and other people) do manage to find them, they become a full-time critic and are "compromised."

My thinking is this: isolate the quality of the game from the price, then let consumers decide if the price – which is variable – is worth it or not. If a 9 and a 7 are the same price, buy the 9. If the 9 is more expensive than the 7, maybe buy the 7 - it& #39;s still recommended.