Should price be taken into account to a game review?

Although I agree that if I pay $60 for a game I expect more from it than from a $20 game, the price should be categorised the same as "fun-factor" in reviews.

Not everyone is willing (or able) to spend the same amount of money, just like not everyone likes to play the same games.

I used to play EVE online (way before it went F2P) and spend a lot of time in-game while paying a monthly subscription. In my opinion money well spent and most reviews say the same. Although I did stop playing simply because I wasn't able to pay anymore (thus the price too high).
When it became F2P recently I started playing again and, even with the F2P limitations, I still like the game and gives "value for my money" ($0 < 100% value) and it was good enough to start spending money on it again.

However I never had this with World of Warcraft. I bought the game, had a subscription, and never played it... And then all those expansion packs just made it worse and worse... So in my opinion a waste of money.

Of course I'm not saying that WoW is a bad game, otherwise it wouldn't be as big as it still is.

If I would have to do a review of WoW I would be very honest as say that the gameplay is great and the amount of content amazing. But that the price (base game + expansions + subscription) can be very high.

Does this mean that the price gives it a lower score? No, not in my opinion.
However it should be noted in the review, and perhaps we all should agree on the $1/hr "rule" for single player games, and something else for hybrid (SP+MP games) and MMO's.

I think a review is also an art form, not just buyer's reccomendation. A good review should be fun to read on it's own. If mentioning the price makes the review more interesting, wittty or whole - add the price. Otherwise don't.

Price does matter, definitely. A pricetag sets some expectations, if it's high, expectations for the game are also high (the same can be said about pretty much everything, books, wine, cars etc). Forgiving some minor faults in a cheap indie game is easier than having the same faults in a major full-price-tag AAA game (i.e. mirrors/reflections not working in 7 Days to Die, a $20 indie game, is a lighter "sin" than mirrors/reflections not working in Watchdogs 2, a $100 super-hyped supposedly AAA game).
You cannot really leave out the price in a review.

Price affects perception, so it's okay to mention it, but it shouldn't come at the expense of details and it should be mentioned. Just saying 'not worth the price' doesn't mean much when one doesn't know the price. Of course it would still be totally subjective, which makes it a bad measure of the game.

This morning I found a developer's opinion about this subject.
http://www.puppygames.net/blog/?p=2290

A small excerpt:

The current fashion for consumers is to play something for hours and then whine like a spoiled Californian teenager who just got given an iPhone for Christmas in the wrong metallic finish. “$10 for 5 hours gameplay! Rip off!” And that is the mentality of the herd these days: somehow being totally entertained for $2 an hour is no longer value for money in exactly the same way that coffee is.

i do more than a few reviews and though i don't normally talk about price unless the game it of low quality.

Absolutely not. If a game is good, then it's good, no matter the price. I personally even prefer short games over long ones. Long games most of the time are so long, because they are full of busy work (for instance, your typical modern open world game...). Those can be fun, too. But I generally prefer short, intense, story-focussed games. And it's simply a fact, that the longer a game is, the more stretched the story. So, instead of wasting my time with said busy work, I can play and beat 5 other games in that time. And I usually get better experiences out of those.

I recently played What Remains of Edith Finch. I paid 20€ or so. It took me 2.5 hours to beat the game. And it was one of the greatest experiences this year. Absolutely worth my money. And it really saddens me, that so many people think otherwise. That those emotional, artistic games have such a hard time convincing the players, just because of the price point...

A review of the game itself? No, the content should stand on its own.
A review of the game as a product? Yes. Cost, content, and quality are the pyramid of value for games. Typically you can only have 2. Time being your trump card.

Price is a HUGE factor in a game review. For example, I recently reviewed a game called Razenroth and gave it a glowing review because it's a good game and it costs almost nothing. If they were charging $15 for it, I wouldn't have been so generous. I rate the game "Bernband" extremely highly because it's both free and incredible. If it cost $30 then I'd admit it's awesome but would drop the score. How-long-to-beat should be a factor too.
Or look at No Man's Sky for example: it's a small team indie game with about 10 minutes of content, and they were charging $100 for it. If they had priced it reasonably with the other similar procedural indie titles then I doubt they would have received all the harsh criticism.

NO. Money doesn't have an intrinsic value (it's fiat money, baby), plus it's so highly subjective as saying this game is an RTS and I hate RTS games so no RTS game should ever cost more than X.

Another thing that should never be taken into consideration is length.

PS: as for cheap games - I don't have an infinite time to live, so if a not so great game is cheap, it may still not be worth playing.

I picked other because prices doesn't affect the quality but it affects what you get out of the game. Two 6 hour games and for the sake of the argument they are very similar games. One is $30, the other is $15. The $15 will give you more out of it because, yeah, it's cheaper. Price is incentive for the most part, as lower prices on anything causes people to go for the sale. I work in a grocery store and products on sale go quickly regardless of the price.

In general I'd say yes, but I also somewhat support the idea of separately saying if it's just good on it's own merits. But that has huge flaws because it's hard to find something merely just not worth your time. Like even a bad or boring game for free is still free and worth a try, you might find something worth it. A time sink at the absolute least.

So yes for the most part.

I think the main consideration should be if a game is fun. But I think cost has to be one of the factors if people are writing a review.

I've played many of cheap indie games and got a few hours fun out of them and thought of them as good value at a few quid. If they had cost £50 I'd have expected a lot more in terms of production values, length of campaign, etc...