A lot of players expect a good deal of hours from the games they purchase, especially if they're full retail price. This year, probably the most popular example was the Order 1886. It had a single-player campaign that lasts around 5 hours and was released at full price. A lot of people had issues with this saying that the amount of gameplay in a single playthrough didn't compensate the amount of money they had to shell out. Although this happened to with other games, supposedly Halo 5's single player was among the shortest in the series, but it at least had a good multiplayer component.

This is where I want to hear you guys' opinion. At what point is the length too short for the price that's asked for. What examples can you give? Would you prefer a game that has 100 hours of content or really well crafted in it's single player like Uncharted or Tomb Raider?

Personally, I don't like seeing games as a "$/Hr" investment. I really think this is a shallow perspective of playing and viewing the medium. As of late, I prefer game that make me "feel" an amazing experience or have a really solid gameplay/campaign rather than have a lot of content. That's why games like Tearaway and Journey are in my top list of favorite games. They do what they do extremely well. I'd be more than happy to spent the standard 60$ for those games considering how amazing of an experience it was for me. But I will admit, if they were 60$ and I had not play them at first, then I'd have my doubts on even buying them at first. So obviously length and word of mouth definitely has some importance and weight. 

To end, I'd rather have an awesome 10 hour game than a 100 hour game with a lot of slow/dead pacing. Don't get me wrong, that's not to say every game that is long is like that, I'm playing Witcher 3 right now and loving it. Although I had my share of games I'd spent a lot of time on and I can tell you I enjoyed really well crafted campaigns better than "you can do all these side missions" games. You'd think I'd complete all the side missions in something like Infamous to get the most hours out of it? Pah, fat chance.

For me, game length isnt as much an issue as the quality of the experience in the entirity of the game

A mario type game can be less than 5hours to run all the levels and still be fine, it just needs to be priced adjustingly.

A story driven game, is going to suck, if gameplay is less than 5hours.
Its just too short a time to really tell that fantastic a story in (if there needs to be room for gameplay as well).

If you have that little time, and you need to compress good story into it, you should just do away with the gameing aspect all together and go read a good book or watch a movie.

Basically it depends on the game.
But either way, Im not paying 60$ for something that doesnt have atleast 10hours of enjoyment playing it in it.

When you tire of the mechanics before the game concludes.
Not the worst problem in the world, you just stop playing at that point. Its better than the game ending before you tire of the mechanics.

It really depends.As long as the game is not trying to strech out the game artificially by repeating stuff or doing completely unnecessary backtracks, the longer the game the better.A good example of what not to do is see the second half(more like the last 35% of the game, but i digress) of Bravely Default.Now thats tiring.

If it is less than 10 hours long for full price you would actually get more entertainment hours per dollar going to see 5 different movies at the theater. I know dollar per hour is a bit rudimentary but if a game cannot give more dollars per hour than going to a theater and watching a movie that is too little.

Personally it depends on the genre. If its an RPG I expect at least 50 hours out of it. However if it is a high production value story driven game I am fine with 20-30 hours (Tomb Raider, Uncharted, TLOU, etc). There are a few games for me that were on the cust, Infamous:SS is not exactly what I consider to be story driven, it lasted maybe 25 hours for me, but those 25 hours were such a blast I was cool with it.

My standards (for full priced games)
under 10- Unacceptable. If it is less than 10 hours drop the price.
10-20- Generally unacceptable, it better be the most amazing 15 hours I have ever had or drop the price
20-30- Fine for high production value games
30-40- Open world games, like Farcry, AC, Batman, etc should at min fall in this window. They do not offer the story driven cinematic experiance, but typically have a very good story and content offsets the lack of elite story
40-50- Open world games, with lessor story. MGS5 was a perfect example of this category it gave me about 55 hours. FPS multiplayer games. If I buy a MP focused game I was to get a least 40 hours out of it. Right Now I am at 49 hours for SW BF so to me it has met the value mark.
50+ RPGs. Tales Games, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Mass Effect, The Witcher, Dragon Age, etc. They all typically have zero issues reaching this on for me. Most of the time they go over 100 hours. closer to 200 if I decided to plat.

As long as the game can be engaging without it feeling like it is dragging, game length is never an issue for me.

yes but Mario games typically give some incentive to play more. Like collect all stars at all levels. This takes the average player over 30 at least to do. But games like Mario skew heavily based on skill. When I was 5 I spent days trying to beat the 1st world of Mario 3. Where as even rusty now I can do it in less than 10 min. 

I need a lot of hours from my game, though this is less of a problem because I almost always buy games after they've gone down in price. I'm a thrifty person, and I also don't feel like I have enough money to spend five bucks an hour or whatever for my entertainment. In fact the only new games I've bought in the last... Woah, I think it's been since Shadow of the Colossus... Well since then they've only been Nintendo games that I was dying to play, and only ones that offer a hefty amount of hours (Zeldas, mostly).

But for the sake of argument, if I were in a situation where I could spend money more freely, I would say that the lowest I would want was something like twelve hours for a full-priced game. Any less than that and it's got to be pretty mind blowing with a lot of replayability, and even then I doubt I would go lower than eight.

To me, it depends on the kind of game. An RPG can be 30 hours long and that's fine, but if it lasts 50 hours + I won't buy it.
Generally, 10-20 hours of play time is ideal for me. The games I recently played are Metroid Prime (8 hours), Metroid Prime 2 (10 hours), Walking Dead episodes one and two (2-3 hours each) and God of War: Ascension (10 hours). I sometimes buy games that last very long, but I never finish them: I don't have much time for gaming these days and I want some variety in my roughly 5 hours per week of video game time. Playing a single game for two months straight isn't much fun.

There is definitely a market for shorter (and cheaper) games. I won't buy Witcher 3, Xenoblade X or Final Fantasy for the sole reason that I'll never finish them. My friends are heavily into DOTA 2 and I was interested - until they told me "you get really good after 500 hours". If a dev says "The game has 100 hours of playtime" I run for the hills. That's an absolute deal breaker to me.