I hear people comparing games, by talking about the length and replayability of a game, giving great importance to the factor Time/Price, where the higher the factor the better for them. For me this factor is important only if the factor Fun/Time is high enough.

For me mostly important is the factor Fun/time, regardless of price. Cause I already have more games that I will ever have time to play, and buying games is reasonable cheap. The limiting resource is time, and I want to harness the most fun of the little time I have. Given this, I hate game padding lenth with bad moment to moment gameplay, and would pay more for a short game that gave overall the same fun than a longer game, cause for the longer game, for me to get the same fun, I had to invest more of my precious time into it.

If Fun/Time factor is high enough, only then the factor Time/Price should come into play, and where length and replaybility come into play. Never wanting to stop playing a RPG of 100hours cause it has such a interesting story, charaters, rewarding mechanics etc  or keep playing a shoorter,multiplayer game cause is so exhilirating/streess reliefing or such.

So, I ask, would you pay more for a shorter game, if you could get more total fun out of the game than a longer game? Or is your time so abundant that you are only looking for a time filler, of the cheapest price you can get?

This gen has introduced another factor I have to consider when buying games, install size. Stupid full installs make 48 GB games very undesirable. If it is that big it must be a game I can finish in a few weeks and then delete again.

I'm starting to resent DA: Inquisition. It's taking up 50 GB, would be nice to have that back, yet I haven't finished it yet. The problem is indeed time, I have more games than time to play them, which also leads to a full hdd with a bunch of started games. I deleted some, and of course a few weeks later I felt like playing one I had removed and get the cheerful message, you must free up disk space, after inserting the disc.

Time and disk space requirements pretty much stop me from buying DS3. It's 'only' 18GB, but it will be a long time 18GB :/ plus games get bloated by patches all the time.

Shorter games please.

Fun matters. I really only need a game that's fun enough to keep coming back to and replaying, regardless of time, content, and length.

Though I prefer shorter games to longer ones. I only have so much time. The length of a 3D Zelda is about as lengthy as I can bear.

Fun is the only thing that matters to me. I generally dont play games with a long story because i find i generally only can play a game by myself for an hour or 2 at a time. I generally prefer playing games with my friends online in muiltiplayer games. RTS games and shooters and what not. Price really doesnt matter too much to me i just want good games and experiences.

Ultimately, I just want to play great games. Sometimes a great game costs $60 at launch; sometimes it costs $10. Some legendary games can be played for hundreds of hours; others can be beaten in an afternoon.

I don't mean to prevaricate. It's just that there's no hard and fast rule on this complicated subject.

I have no silly ratio or stats to define the value of my games. If the experience was worth the price, then the experience was worth the price. That's all.

I don't have a $x = y play time formula, but if I buy a game at full retail, it would be worth the price (which is really hard to quantify)

Games are cheap enough that I don't understand the 'squeezing blood from a stone' mentality of "1 hour per dollar spent" or whatever. Short & sweet is infinitely preferable to huge & bland.

While I don't have a strict 'Money To Time' ratio, I do typically take game length into account when buying something at full retail price, simply because I do have money constraints. x3 I.e. if I buy a full retail game here and now, then it might be a few weeks til I can justify the expense of getting another one... so picking up a game that I'm going to pretty finish in the course of a single dedicated afternoon/evening probably isn't a wise investment on my part unless the actual core gameplay is engaging and varied enough to make replaying the exact same experience just as fun as it was the first time. This usually means being able to do things 'outside the box' to a degree, like Prototype, where I spent far more time running around the city just being an utter dick to EVERYONE than I did actually doing any missions or challenges.

Although at the same time, I'd argue there can be room for games that take things at a slower pace and don't feel the need to be 100% engaging all the time. I know that No Man's Sky is ultimately going to be filled with hours and hours of flying around, quietly exploring planets and gathering resources, crafting etc, etc, to go with all the space battles and conflicts I'll inevitably stumble upon/possibly instigate. And that's fine, because the exact thing I want from a game intended to be a massive, dozens-of-hours experience is for it to have quiet, contemplative times as well as tense, exciting danger times. =D A game with the length of Skyrim, but the intensity of Devil May Cry (nothing but enemies enemies enemies gogogo shiny particle effects EXPLOSIONS) would, in my opinion at least, just becomes rather monotonous.

Still, I certainly have nothing against shorter titles, some of my favorites are in fact extremely short, such as Journey, Thomas Was Alone, The Stanley Parable, etc.

It's hillarious seeing all these "I rather have something short and fun then longer and bland", as if that are the two options. If a developer can't come up with something longer than 4 HOURS for an adventure game, then the cost of the game should not be $60.