That kind of meta analysis should be saved for forums and video essays. It does not belong in Steam reviews, where people are trying to figure out if the game is worth their time and money. The conditions under which the game was developed has zero impact on that.
I'd say this is more of a reflection of issues with Steam's rating/review system. Which is something that I think could use some improvement (purely positive or negative ratings are an oversimplified metric imo). And the Steam store's search filters could use some improvements too.
That kind of meta analysis should be saved for forums and video essays. It does not belong in Steam reviews, where people are trying to figure out if the game is worth their time and money. The conditions under which the game was developed has zero impact on that.
Let's look at that closer
So you agree that the cheaper prices indies usually charge should be considered as part of the review?
"Indie" never reaches the $60+ mark that AAA does, but the titles are often at the $5, $10-15, and $20 price point.
A higher price than the quality warrants should be grounds for a downward ding.
A surprisingly low price shouldn't give bonus positive review points to slop. Food for pigs is food for pigs, no matter how cheap it is.
In this context, we're talking about the latter. So...
No.
When used to convey whether or not it's worth the money: yes.
Insofar as "wow bonus points for shoestring budget": absolutely not.
I'd say this is more of a reflection of issues with Steam's rating/review system. Which is something that I think could use some improvement (purely positive or negative ratings are an oversimplified metric imo). And the Steam store's search filters could use some improvements too.