Deleted

There isn't an answer in your poll that remins of my way of thinking so I voted for potatoes sorry

Anyway, I think it's very personal. A game can be objectively short (Due to the number of hours, for instance) but still feel very rewarding or 'complete'... For me. Maybe for you it's a short game and you feel scammed.

The money it's a tricky measuring rod too because it works with everygame. "Saint Rows 3? It doesn't cost 10$" although it can give you hours of fun.

Rise of the romb raider 40$? Too short and has been in a monthly. So bundles affect too... And the number of times the game have been bundled can even make it "bundle trash", wich is even worst that not costing the money on the store.

I don't value my games on dollars per hour of enjoyment but I do think price should be somewhat indexed to the experience and to what other games offer on the same price point.

HAving said that, I can equally enjoy games that I play on one or two sittings and games that take dozens of hours to beat.

I don't have a big budget to spend on games, so if I buy an expensive game I'd at least expect 1 hr of entertaining for $1. But I'm not too strict with it either. A good example for me is South Park: The Stick of Truth. Release price was $60 and now the actual price is $30. The campaign takes about 10 hours and it's relatively short compared to similiar games. But they've added four different classes and there are enough varying strategies that replaying the games multiple times can still be fun, even especially thanks to its relative shortness.

I totally understand why people think that $10 for like 2 good hours is fine since it would be similiar to a movie or a DVD, but paying that or more for one single hour is definitely too short for that price. I played a lot of short games and don't mind the length, but the price should be fair at least. Not every game needs to have a 30-50 hours campaign, but I feel like the price should somewhat depend on length, or more specifcally varying content.

Yes, a game can be too short for the price when the amount of content is too low.
If a game is built on a free engine, use Royalty-Free music, etc...
Makes me ask what was the price tag for.

And in other cases it is something like Lichdom: Battlemage, the game got a lot of content that I wouldn't see.
At the beginning, you choose between 2 protagonists to play with. Both of them are voice acted. The one you didn't choose will still appear in the storyline, but with different dialogue. So the studio had to hire 2 voice actors for 2 characters, for 2 different timelines, while the player will only experience 1 timeline.

With the size of my backlog, I do appreciate when a game is a short high quality experience. But I will sometimes get sucked into a huge game that lasts for dozens of hours. These are usually collectathons like Mario Odyssey or the Assassins Creed games >.>

That's where you're thinking wrong.
People want the same level of enjoyment just longer when they write "it's too short for the price".
What's the use of a wonderful tasting drink when you only get 5ml for your 5 bucks?
And other manufacturers give you 25ml?
That other products are watered down to reach an acceptable amount is another subject.

I prefer a good short game to a long boring game ^^
For instance http://store.steampowered.com/app/221910/The_Stanley_Parable/ 👀👀

i never consider time in my buys, as i became older time has become more precious to me than money, so i do very much a good game that makes good use of its playtrough, rather than a game full of collectibles or tons of grinding.

a couple of shot games i recommend are Grow Home, Gone Home

it depends on the kind of game. story-focused games can't be compared to a sandbox one for example. i'm usually more interested in the amount of content a game offers and its quality.
i wouldn't expect (or want) a game like the vanishing of ethan carter to last 20 hours because it's $20, i think ~6 hours is enough to enjoy it fully. i think the same could apply to hellblade with ~8 hours for $30, it might look expensive but the game is so well done that's worth its price:playtime ratio. ^^

It's hard to make a long game without it becoming stale or repetitive, so I'm leaning more towards make it shorter, but crisp, let it have an impact!
Also don't forget that people tend to undervalue games they don't own yet and aren't superhyped for, especially on SG because of the backlog many of us have. I like to know how long the game is I'm buying (along with genre, themes, etc) but after I played it, I always value the gameplay / enjoyment more, than the length. The two things are different though, like how Alice Madness Returns has awesome visuals, great joy to start playing each new scene but only to realize the combat is still boring and repetitive. That's surely a game that would have been better if shorter, because 20-30% of it was only padding, as the game lacked mechanical depth.

there are some really cheap and short games that can be fun and really thought provoking. i loved Outrunner and now im trying a similar game called pinkman

As someone who thinks in the "game per $" mentality, I just wanted to say

I'd much rather have a $10 game that lasts an hour and that is a joy to play from beginning to end....than a $40 game that's 50 hours long but full of grinding, wandering back and forth and pointless padding...even though the latter provides more "game per $"

That analogy is missing the point. The time spent "grinding, wandering back and forth and pointless padding" doesn't count towards the "game per $" ratio. Like was mentioned earlier, we want more hours of quality gameplay per $, not just a more time-consuming game.

I wouldn't say never even though quality comes first. I mean, I'd expect most games over $10 to have at least 2 hours of solid good quality gameplay which seems fair. Of course, I only grab games in bundles or on sale(50%+ depending how much I like the game) which makes me a much happier gamer.

I like playing short games from time to time. Not everything has to take 70+ hours of your life or whatever you expect. Quality over quanity is what I say!

A lot of my favourite games are short and pack a punch. But I also knew going into them that they'd be short experiences. If a game gets hyped up and has "all these things" and then turns out it's a really short game, it's often disappointing. Or even just my own assumptions based on description that it'll be a longer game (especially for price), it's automatically more disappointing.

I agree it depends on how much money you have to spend on games as well. I spend <$50 a year on games (maybe 1 full-priced, just don't have the money so have to be pickier), so I'd be more likely to put off a game that's expensive and short. But I know that's me. That said I wouldn't refund a game for being short if I enjoyed it. I've read so many reviews on shorter games saying they refunded the couple bucks despite loving the game. I don't think developers shouldn't feel forced to add filler to their game so that a lot of people won't refund their game.

For me its about "Genre,Fun,work, etc"
If i play a Rogue/indie game for 1h=1$ im totaly fine
If I play tripple A title [60$] i probably want 45h-120h gameplay
I i see work behind the game i would probably pay more [Background story ,good music and many other things ]