Fun/time vs Time/Price?

[bigtakilla]

solidpumar said:

bigtakilla said:
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.

But the same developer could padd 6 more hours of bland filler gameplay/quest/movies, making what would be 4 hours of a great game into a 10hours bland game. This in essence shouldnt add value to the game, cause I would prefer short and sweet, given fun/time ratio.

No, then you're rewarding developers for being lazy. Maybe if there isn't rougly 10 hours of gameplay, they shouldn't charge the same price. 

In essence I'm not saying there are anything wrong with 4 hour games, some can be pretty great, but charging $60 for it? Hell no. It seems like all comments that defend the price seem to think that people such as myself are saying there shouldn't be 4 hour games. That's not true. I'm fine with 4 hour games.