Eh... I agree with you mostly on that, but I'd say converting it into time is probably not the best way to do things. I put about 30 hours into Skyrim and honestly enjoyed it just barely enough to keep going until I stopped. I beat Mario Galaxy probably in about 10 hours or so but loved every minute of it. So quality of the time has to factor in as well.
But the main thing I think we're agreeing on is that the value of a game is based on how much you'll enjoy it, which is not determined by the number of a particular thing in it. Didn't enjoy Mario Odyssey more than Galaxy just because it had more power moons than Galaxy had Power stars. Didn't enjoy Shadow of the Colossus less than Punch Out!!! just because it had less boss battles. Didn't enjoy Pokemon Sun more than I enjoyed Pokemon Pearl because it had more Pokemon. Most people didn't enjoy Brawl more than Melee because it had more characters in it. It's kind of weird to pick one factor and insist it's the only one related to value.
It is not the only factor, but merely an example about how subjective his views on value truely are. Using time alone as a measure of value is no more or less viable than saying 425 vs 800 objectively determines the value of a Pokemon game.
People value different aspects of the gameplay and therefore value is subjective. To someone who just collects 100 or so Pokemon but enjoys the gameplay and has never felt the need to "collect them all" for examplr, his entire scale is worthless.
Yeah. In playing all of the Pokemon games, I think I transferred about five over when Pokemon bank came out just to try it. Aside from that, I never felt like going out of my way to transfer my old Pokemon. Generally because I always lose interest in actually creating a competitive team about 5 hours of post game grinding. The ability to transfer old Pokemon is theoretically something I could do, but practically something I'm not going to, so its absence is kind of a non-factor.