I really don't care how long a game is, to me it's the experience and what it leaves you with that matters. I mean you wouldn't buy an album based on the number of songs, or choose a film on how long its screening is... I feel games are the same now. I'm totally okay with spending $60 for a 2 hour game if the experience is enough to justify it... albeit I can't fathom how a game could be that good :P.

I think 6-8 hours is probably about right for a publisher / developer to target. While for most on here that's too short the fast majority of the AAA mainstream gamer market people they don't want longer. Completion percentages of games which go slightly longer like Assassin's Creed 2 are around the 40% mark - most people don't even finish them. And that 40% figure is generally regarded as one of the best in the industry.

Obviously depends on genre too, there is an expectation for an RPG to last longer then a shooter. Thats inherent in the games mechanics and progression design, few shooters have the mechanics to make a 30 hour experience stay fresh and interesting.

A full single-player game, one which focusses on the story and the single-player aspect, should last more or less 30 hours at minimum. One that puts multiplayer at a similar importance or doesn't focus on story (like platformers), should last 15-20 hours. Any game that goes past that 30 hours (usually the big RPG's) is money well spend.

This is why the 6 hour long 'The Force Unleashed' was heavily disappointing . Anyway, voted 21+ hours.

6-8 hours is enough and with that they would offer far more entertainment value than a movie.

about 10hours tops as $60 is a bargain game in AUS haha.

Interesting, because that just as much as the heavy online games have and the rest of the hours are sated through multiplayer. For a single player game is six truly justifiable? I mean seriously, look at the Force Unleashed 2 and Enslaved. They could've been so much more if they lasted longer. Games demand a different type of care than movies and sixty dollars is quite a bit. If I had a choice most 6-8 hour titles would be $30 to 40 dollars. I bought Black Ops 2 yesterday for $40 and I felt like I got the biggest deal in the world. Why? Because the game is quite robust in its offerings that its well worth a price I wasn't willing to pay just yet. I waited for the sales and got it at a great price while the popularity of the game was still rather high. 

Well it depends on the game. Ico lasts about 8 hours, and it's easily worth $60.

That being said, I wish developers would invest more time and energy into single-player experiences.

Luckily, so far we've never had to make the choice to pay $60 for a Team ICO title. The Last Guardian hasn't yet been released. I have the Ico/Sotc collection which was around $40. It's interesting to see how much people would truly pay in this time period.

It's all relative. I only see people bitch about game prices in combination with their length and no one doing the same with Blu-Ray prices. If you don't like them, buy'em later it doesn't change the fact that games are still among the cheapest forms of entertainment after books, even though they take much more manpower, time and thus money to produce.

Obviously 6 hours for an RPG or sandbox game are too short, since most of these games involve running around without really doing anything (aka wasted time) and lots of storytelling etc.

I voted 21+ hours.

However, it totally depends on the game and what I'm planning on playing it for. The last game I paid full price for (LittleBigPlanet 2, £40, think that's the equivalent of a $60 game) had a 5 hour campaign with about double that in replayability, but obviously has all the creation tools & online levels. Which are going to keep me playing for years. So I was happy paying full price for it because LBP 1 had proved the series' value to me. The same thing applies to Starhawk & Twisted Metal (both of which I bought for £30), as they both had fleeting single player experience but have provided me with well over 50 hours of multi-player fun.

If it were a single-player game only, I think I would have trouble justifying £40, unless it were a JRPG (which give me well over 50 hours of gameplay) or something really open-ended, like the Sims 3 which I'm playing at the moment. And even then, I'd still rather wait and pay £30 for them than buy them the day they come out for £40!

I chose 5 hours as if the game is great fun or has replayability then I'll get my moneys worth. Your article doesn't really take into account games without a "campaign". Sports titles for example, or games like Rock Band. I completed most of the Guitar Hero games inside a hour or two but then would concentrate on completing achievements and score hunting.

A game is first and foremost about fun, a long storyline is secondary to providing that experience. I love Halo but you wouldn't release Combat Evolved as a title these days as the campaign was too long, which meant it lost pace in the middle. Game developers like movie makers did are learning that its better to have more quality in a shorter amount of time to really make your story engaging. If a story takes too long to pan out then you lose your audience.