However the fuck long a developer wants to make it. Their vision, their money, their game. Don't like it? Don't buy it.

If the question is, how long should a game be before you spend money on it. That's entirely subjective and a completely different question altogether.

A number of people have said there's a problem with it lately, but I've seen others posting embed's, so I'm not sure what's up with it.

http://www.gorissen.info/Pierre/files/YouTube_code.htm

need to get old youtube embed code from this site. Then sometimes you'll need to post it, and then go back and edit the comment for it to actually embed

View on YouTube

Uncharted 2 was 8-10 hours long (not rushing, but not completing everything either).
Did it prevent it from being stellar ? Nope.

I remember some games that were beatable in about 5-6 hours with not so much replay value in the 90s.
As long as the experience is good, I'd say roughly 10 hours is enough.

Now, it's always better to have longer games with more replay value (TLOU can be freaking 20 hours long, for a TPS it's huge), but it's not THAT bad is it's a little short.

The main flaw with The Order imo isn't its length, but the fact that they took too much of the player's involvement with their cinematic approach.
Mixing video games with movies is an interesting thing, but you can't ignore the basics of the genres. A game has to involve the player. Take that from him/her, and he/she might be bored.
It seems to be the case for some people.

I personally loved it, even though it's definitely flawed. The story, the characters, the music, the ambiance (the hospital is amazing), the lore... I was sucked in. But I also was frustrated at times, I wanted to play more of the game, and watch it less. (a 7.5/10 for me, looking forward to a sequel)

EDIT:

Got a bit off topic in the end, sorry about that. 

Yeah that was my initial reaction to the question, listening to him now.  I agree with allot of what he's saying, but, I also don't think I have any right to tell someone how to price their product, or how long their game should be.  It goes hand in hand with my views on free speech issues in games.   It's someone elses fantasy, someone elses dream.  I either choose to pay to enjoy that fantasy/dream, or I choose to skip it.  It's really that simple.  Can a lower price help sales?  Can increased game length lend to better publicity?  Sure, or as Jim said, it could be 20 hours of absolute tedium.

I'll never be involved in anything that tries to force someone to wrap their dream/fantasy around some card-board cut-out 'structure' like pricing, length etc...   Again, the choice is up to me whether to buy it or not.  And, because the costs associated with gaming can range from negligible, to expensive, it's also up to me to research these titles ahead of time, to ensure I understand what I'm buying.

I essentially agree with what he says. Developers should think about being more flexible with prices as well. Look at Nintendo for example, I highly doubt Captain Toad would have been the success it was commercially if the game was fully priced at $60. The $40 price tag really helped drive its success.

Also some people say short games are not worth $60, but the reverse argument is never made. Should a game, like Xenoblade Chronicles X for example, be priced more because it has more content than most games?

Solid jimquisiton. He's right. People are so focused on run time that they don't see the real problems that The Order has, which is only exacerbated by a short play time.

The Order aside, if digital titles were more prominent in consoles, we could see developers being more flexible with their prices. I admit, i much prefer hard copies over digital but I can see myself going for digital if some of these AAA only devs start being more worried about the cost of gaming, not just the cost of making a game. I almost cant blame them, they are trying to make a living we have to meet each other half way at some point.

EDIT: The value for a game should be dictated by the actual player, not reviewers and angry anti-[insert one of the big three] telling us what we can spend our money on without it being a goddamn waste (granted, reviewers are not ihenrently out to stop people from buying specific games...unless a game is horribly fucking terrible like Sonic Boom)

Good point. Making game prices more flexible can be an open door for money-grabbing companies/studios. 

I would say 60$ should be the limit for a game.

But as for The Order 1886, it is short, doesn't have a lot of replay value, but there's obviously a lot of work on the story, the characters (well, especially Galahad), the musics, the lore, and the engine. So can we really say they (Sony) should have made the price lower ? I'm not sure.

Will watch later when not at work, usually watch his videos and agree with him (didn't on the youtube Nintendo thing).

Great piece and I agree with everything he said. I love how he ended it XD

Length seems like a strange fixation. Is it a better deal to get punched in the balls for an hour than to have them skillfully played with for 15 minutes if the price is the same? (I realize that some people may prefer the former, and to each his own. My point stands!)

As for The Order, from what I can tell so far brevity seems to be the very least of its problems.