See, I do understand that because it seems to be the model games are taking at the moment - loads of 8 or so hour single-player games sell millions of copies each year at full price

But an 8 hour game with no replayability is going to be completed in two, possibly three sittings for me.  If I had the money I'm sure I could justify it better, but for that price it would have be giving me at least a fortnight worth of play.  

So generally I only buy RPG's/games I'm buying for the multi-player at full price (unless my hype levels are really high for it) and otherwise I wait for the inevitable £20 a few months later sale.

I'd agree with Kowenicki too, a bolted-on MP isn't going to be a selling point at all, I'd treat such as game as a single-player experience that I may have a go at the online with.

Thanks for this reply, was really interesting.  I agree with pretty much everything you say, especially the part about separating ratings for games into single/multi-player and possibly even selling them at separate prices for the two components.  That would be an interesting idea.

Really? Your poll only inquires about different types of features, only marginally implying its length. A game with short single player and some online functionality might entertain me just as long as a single player game with lengthy campaign. As long as any combination of these things produce engough content to warrant its price I'm fine with that.

Maybe I should've mentioned that it takes into account the amount of money I spent versus the amount of time that I get. A very tangible comparison that I always do is, after I finish the game and know how much time I spent on it, I estimate how much money I would have spent if I were doing something else for the same amount of time, like going to the pub or watching movies. If the game comes out as the more efficient option, then I'm satisfied.

Let's take a 60€ euro game for example. If i would go to the movies with that budget, assuming each movie lasts for 2 hours costing 7€ a ticket, the price/hour ratio is at 3.50€/h. Thus, with that budget I can expect to be entertained for about 17 hours and if a 60€ game doesn't last that long I feel that I didn't get my money's worth. Not many games last that long, which is why I never buy games at that price range. Plus, the whole 60$=60€ thing is beyond retarded. They should use proper currency exchange rates such that new releases are valued exactly the same as in the US market, which would be at 48€ (hooray for UK Amazon). With the adjusted budget, going to the movies would entertain me for roughly 13.5 hours which is a more reasonable expectation to have from a game.

While I do have expectations regarding the quantity of a game, given its price, I don't differentiate between the different kinds of things that a game can contain in order to achieve that, be it campaigns, multiplayer, coop, level editors or anything else. I know that the developers cringe at this mentality. They want the quality to outshine the quantity aspect of the game, but I see that as an excuse to be lazy, allowing them to maker shorter and shorter games, until we all have to pay 100$ so that we can play the newest 'You have to cut the rope'.

I had to hack my poll down because half the text wasn't showing up due to the game I attached taking up most of the space at the top.  I've tried to remove it, but it won't let me.  Otherwise, the poll answers would have been much more in-depth than they are currently.  I was hoping people would read the text in the OP for clarification but it seems that isn't the case.

Thanks for the reply anyway :P

Oh, my bad. I read the first paragraph and given the poll figured how the rest would go. ;)

On a sidenote, I also bought Portal 2 full price and even though I love the game, I feel kinda cheated. Especially because I didn't even play the coop, just the single player.

Most of the times I compare my purchases of video games to movies. Granted I don't go to the movie theater anymore but I like to compare them. If a movie cost around 10 dollars to see at a movie theater for about 2 hours entertainment then if I can get at least 5 dollars (or less) per hour of gaming in for the game I bought then I feel like I came out ahead. So for a 40 dollar game I hope I to play it/have a good time for at least 8 hours. If I don't get at least 8-10 hours out of a $40 game then perhaps it wasn't worth it.

It seems you have pretty much the same mentality as me regarding pricing.   I'd be okay with an 18-ish hour campaign but anything less and I do feel kinda cheated, yeah - even with something as thrilling as Portal 2.  I liked the comparison to other forms of entertainment thing you did in your other post :)

From a full price game I expect at least 8 to 10 hours of fun, doesn't matter if it's on SP or MP. I usually don't even try out the multiplayer.

Short, replayable single-player.
But that's not the whole truth :P
I love games that are quite short but challenging. Coming back to lengthy games never works for me so I need to sit down and have a shot at finishing it within 3 days max. Otherwise it won't be an awesome game to me, just "good".
I love it even more when those short games make me have to try dozens of times to finish them or go for highscores/time attacks that demand precision and memorization of small, fast movements.

Sounds a lot like arcade games, right?
On the other hand, I love games that are like Mario. "Mission" based and not story driven. That way it's always easy to dive into it.

But I'm also into couch co-op and will buy games just because they offer this.

If I play the game long enough to justify the purchase price, then I'm happy. I buy aboult half of my games used, so usually I'm happy.