I'm curious, when do you start differentiating? When a game has multiplayer? When it has challenges of sorts? Was Call of Duty: Modern Warfare worth $60? Mirror's Edge?

OT: I don't care so much about length, it's more about content. So the article has a point, and I agree with some of the underpoints, but discussing game length feels pretty futile, for both sides of the fence. It's not about size, it's how you use it.

Point one is ridiculous because it assumes that 1) movie prices should be $10-15 and 2) there is a direct relationship between movie and game prices.

Movies require a large investment of capital on the part of the middleman (projectors, screens, 3D tech, etc. that all have to be updated every few years).  Games require none of that.  Only big budget "blockbuster" movies are only available at $10-15.  Smaller titles can frequently be found at alternative theaters for much cheaper prices.

Much of the replayability in today's games comes from user generated content, which requires only the creation of the tools necessary for players to create their own content.  In the case of FPS, the replayability really comes from playing against others.  Every match is different.  All it requires is the design of maps and modes.  In this sense, creating hours of content is easy (unlike in singleplayer only games).

My three favorite games at the moment have all let me put in more than 25 hours.  I'm already planning on doing another run in ME2, so that should be good for 50 hours or so.  GT5 is going to have hundreds of hours devoted to it by the time I'm done.  Counter Strike: Source is older than this generation and is a perfect counterpoint to "too much of a good thing.  I've devoted almost 400 hours to it over the last couple years.

For a single player game to be worth it to me, it needs to either be 10-15 hours long and awesome enough to want to replay it more than once (i.e. HL2), or 20 hours long and pretty good.  Then, you get gems like ME2 and LoZ games that are both long and so amazing that you'll play them over and over.

I don't mind a 6-10 hour game, but I cannot justify spending more than $20 to get it. Now if it has a ton of replay value that's another thing. For instance, Black Ops' campaign was only like 7 hours long, but I basically get unlimited replayability with the solid online. But if the game is only single player, I expect either a HUGE campaign, or a really cheap price. I could never stomach spending $60 on a game that you burn through in 6-10 hours and then are stuck with nothing left to do. In fact, there is only a handful of games that I have even bought for $60.

I wholeheartadly agree with the article...especially with point number 2. I can't tell you how many times I have been playing a really good game and just got tired of playing it even though I know its amazing.

CoD4 I never paid 60 dollars for, Mirrors Edge I beat and never paid for it, soooooo no those aren't worth 60 dollars to me, CoD at least has the multiplayer to make it worth it however, that's the main draw, and the multiplayer lasts much longer than 6 hours, you could get a few hundred depending on how good you are at the game.  

Basically I'm not putting down the games that actually do focus on multiplayer and decide to make that their main draw, though I still get slightly irritated at the short uninspired singleplayer, I am far more willing to forgive the games that craft a good/balanced multiplayer especially when they have local, than a 6 hour game with a tacked on multiplayer that isn't fun nor balanced... which is exactly what I said in my original post...

Basically if you're going to be multiplayer focused, make it good, if you're going to be singleplayer focused, make it good with reasons to keep playing, if you're going to focus on both but make singeplayer only worth 1 play through and six hours and then make multiplayer unbalanced and not keep up support, I'd rather you either A dump the tacked on multiplayer to make your singleplayer better, or B not make the game at all.

You know another form of entertainment?

A Book. These things take me 10 hours to read and yet they only cost $10

I hate the argument of, you go to a 2 hour movie for $10.  YOu take ONE example and try ot apply it to all.  doesn't work that way.  

Another thing about a book is that you will very likely get a story that is superior to what is found in a videogame to.  Videogames have other things to fall back on, but a book is ONLY the story to hold it together (of course other things like dialog to, but I am counting that as part of storytelling).

And for pure gameplay, someone can lean on a boardgame, or other vs other people genre of gaming that also give a lot of play value for the money.

But with a game like Mirror's Edge, it's designed so that the same content is run through over and over again with its time trials and the campaign, and I spent so much time with it that I would gladly pay full price all over again. So even though the story is short (you can run through it in less than two hours if memory serves), there is no "different" way of replaying it, and all the time trial maps are based around the singleplayer campaign, you still get a lot of replay value if you're into this kind of game, despite there being very little content on paper.

Is that still not a justification, or should the game have had a longer campaign to justify the pricetag?

No I feel that game is fine, but not at 60 dollars, not at all.  Downloadable at 10 to 15 maybe.

to much of a good thing could kill me. well i want more then enough so i can die happy. died when i played UC2 and coming back for KZ3, UC3 and the other 18 exclusives coming to PS3 this yr and ghost recon4, GEARS3 and LZ skyward sword.

the undead walks again my friend.

3) Replay Value? Really CGI! i guse RPG'S are the exception right? i've played VC 4 times in the middle of the 5th and planning the sixth, and no its not because i don't have a life. as for the 18 bit thing those games where alot harder even with stupid back and forth AI. replay value is purely about the enjoyment v how long you've played the game, but i'll tell you now any game that plays less then 8hr's is not worth 60 bucks.