@Jaz007 If you're basically saying «quality, not quantity» then I'd completely agree with you, and I'm pretty sure a lot of other folks around here would, as well.
If you're not, and you're just busy and don't have time for long games, then… well, I'd agree with that, too!
@RogerRoger It’s a mix of both. I think games are pointlessly long (padded out) and there’s not enough time to play too many long games. RDR2, Eder Scrolls and the like need to be long, but that should be the exception not the rule.I think hear a lot would agree, but I feel like I’m general people have become a bit obsessed with play time and use the word only when talking about game length a lot.
@Jaz007 I think Play Time and 'Value' do play a part in that — not necessarily for the 'better'. If you are expected to pay $70 for something that you finish in one session and can't buy anything for a while or have anything new to play, it can feel very bad 'value' considering you can spend the same money on some games that will last you until your next Pay Day and beyond.
I can't buy 'every' game I want to play the day it releases and so I have to choose which game may represent the 'best' value, a game that I could buy that will last at least until next payday or offers the best cost per hour. I don't mind a great Story lasting around 8hrs or so, but I am not paying $70 for something like that — not unless it comes with additional modes, content etc — like a full Muli-player or Co-op suite — as we came to expect through the 360 era.
I think with Prices going up, people become more concerned about the 'value' proposition — buy something for $70 that will last you a month or more, last you to your next paycheck, last until you can buy another game etc — not pay $70 for something they finish in a day and then feel they didn't get 'value' in a cost per hour from their game. It's not as if games like GTA, RDR, Witcher etc don't have 'Quality' that these 'linear' 8hr games do...
I find shorter games often
Read more on pushsquare.com