I think games are fine to be anywhere from 5 minutes to 200 hours for 1 playthrough as long as the game offers FUN & DEEP gameplay, entertaining replay value, and intrisically rewarding challeneges.

A lot of older games really excelled at these aspects of gaming, so even if I run though a good NES, SNES, ps1 game, etc. I don't really mind starting a new playthrough as soon as the credits finish.

So really, I think total playtime is a more accurate measure of value per dollar, though thats really only one factor of value.

BTW, 6 to 10 hours TOTAL play time is really, really low.

I can't really say I agree with the article's argument, but I do agree with the point that 6-10 hour games can be worth the money. They can be worth the money if (1. They pack a lot of quality into that time period- I think GoW III is a good example, or (2. They have replayability. The important point here is gameplay mechanics. I would consider games like Devil May Cry 3, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden I II, and Demon's Souls to be good examples. While these games all have play times over 10 hours (I think), I would still consider them a good investment if they were under that benchmark because they have great combat systems that take lots of time to master.

Honestly though, time just isn't that important to me. If I'm playing a game that will take 20-60 hours, usually RPGs, I just have to be in the mood to play it. I just don't play games as much, so it would take me a while to beat those types of games. About the only games I prefer to be short are shooters. They just get a little too repetitive for me. I find myself looking for the credits most of the time, barring some exceptions, like Bioshock.