But remember guys Journey is totally okay and exempt from this, as are other short indie games that can be $10/hour. Or any other games that can be easily ran through quickly.

It makes no sense, what if someone took over 20 hours to beat it? Even if it's just them fooling around or replaying it for whatever reason, does that make it worth more?

Would 10-20 hours more of cinematic sequences really make you that much more happy about the game?

Basing a games price on the amount of hours you play the game isn't exactly sound logic.

I personally don't care about the price of a game when I purchase it. If I want to play it I will buy it.

Why rate a game on how long it takes to complete?

I'm paying $60 later this year for a 300 hour game, so no. Not in a million years.

Edit: Just realized this is an Order thread. I'm ready for people to forget about this game.

No, nee, nej, non, nein, nei, нет, hayır! Had ik al nee gezegd?

I paid zero, and have 64,968 hours in a game. So, clearly, you're all doing it wrong. (Although, full disclosure, I did voluntarily donate $400 to it).

Demand curves are not linear in this instance.

I haven't played The Order, but Vanquish is a 5h game, Metal Gear Rising a 6h game, both were great

How about 60$ for Halo 3 when you do not have xbox live. Essentially the same thing, can beat the game in 3-5 hours. Include Xbox live, another 60$ tacked on eh.

I personally will not buy The Order 1886, but it does not mean that people that buy it are in the wrong.

Would you pay 50 dollars for a really good blowjob? I mean, if you enjoy it, you enjoy it. that's how subjectivity works, and honestly, I really liked The Order. I agree it was "Too short" (that's what she said), but only because it felt like act 1 in a 3-act story, not because it was only 8 hours.

Portal 2 was only 8 hours and that was one of my favorite games in 2011...and it was competing with Skyrim!