You are in the minority though, although we wouldn't know based on this thread. Most people don't have the time nor the energy to spend 60-100 hrs playing one game. I am very satisfied with a game like Uncharted, GOW, Infamous, I get to finish those games unlike a GTA game. 

Kinda funny about that, I think that's the biggest problem with the last FInal Fantasy, it was a 20 hour game stretched to 40 and it would have been significantly better had it been shorter.  Though I say it really depends the game you make, even an RPG can be good at a short length, it really depends on the content.  like with shooters there's nothing but shooting things in the first/3rd person view so I wouldn't want the game to be more than 8 hours.  Same with action games.  Though there are some exceptions like Resident Evil 4 was great at the 25 hours it took for me to beat it, but there was so much to do in that game, exploring areas, shotting, following the story, etc.  On the flip side look at Resident Evil 5, takes about 6 hours to beat, but I don't think it would have been better had it been 25 hours with the same kind of gameplay (Not enough content in Resident Evil 5, just go foward and shoot things, no going back and forth to unlock keys and open up rooms with those keys).  I think the biggest problem is people just don't wanna replay games anymore, and with the way devs have cut release times to 2 years from 3 (games seem to be hitting 1 year releases now) by the time you beat one game the sequel is out and there's no time to sit down and enjoy a game.  I mean if it was years past I'd have played Final Fantasy XIII and XII 2 times by now.

the problem is that you have games selling that give only 6-12 hours at the same price as ones with 100 hours. 

there should be an price variatation for example you have games that are small be 20-30 dollars while full massive blockbusters more than 60 dollars for example 80-100 USD dollars. That means you go into an store. And you can choose: should i spend 100 dollars on an game that will last me many weeks/months like red dead redemption. Or i have less time for big games so instead of wasting 100 dollars on an big game i will buy an small 20 dollars 4-8 hour experience every 1-2 weeks. 

thats what the gaming industry should price there games. Have an full range depending on the the lenght of content. 

Which would result in artificially inflated game lengths like the kinds of games we are trying to avoid already.

I hate artificially inflated game lengths.

You know what's great? Muramasa: the Demon Blade.

You know what's not great? Having to level up to level 90 to get the "true" ending.

You know when you beat the game? At about level 45.

Oh I have no problem with the length of Uncharted, GOW and Infamous, those are actually good example of well executed games. Uncharted for example has a plethora of things to explore or unlock after you finish the game, same for GOW while infamous merit a second play through to explore its moral mechanic, people who don't have the time to explore these things can finish the game in a single play-through and feel satisfied with their 8-10 hrs spent, while fans and completionist have more incentive to play through the game other than trophy.

What I dislike are game that has no reason to include a multiplayer component (but do so anyways) or rely solely on the (crappy) multiplayer component to carry it into 'value' rather than 'ripp-off'. A good example of this would be Kane & Lynch 2, which has a shitty 5 hr single player game that even had the audacity to stripped down features present from the first game. By itself it would have been a very poor effort indeed, but because they added some equally poorly executed multiplayer gameplay, reviewer went as high as 8 and 9 on something that should NOTbe endorsed.

i agree with CGI on this, and this is the first time i agreed with him in a LONG time...

Gamers that are long get boring, infact i get bored of most games within the first 30 minutes. I never beat black ops because it was just boring.

Opinions will vary depending upon the playing and spending habits of the individual. So there will never be any sort of agreement in that respect.

If you buy maybe 6 games a year or even less, which is typical for the average player, buying a game that allows you to see the end credits roll after one weekend's worth of play probably isn't the best choice, assuming that average player games on a weekly basis, even if it's only for a few hours per week.

From the perspective of the player with limited funds, who games on a regular basis (as much as every day, over 10 hours a week), it makes even less sense to spend their budget on something they can't stretch over a lengthy period of time. In this repect, games that require grinding (MMORPGs, any online game with an XP system, etc.) or have a thriving online component are the clear "value" titles.

But, from the perspective of the player who has a greater budget for games (can buy any or most releases they want to play) and habitually buys games at a regular rate (anywhere from one per week/more to 1 per month) and doesn't play games as though it were their part time job (or full time job in rare cases), they can pretty clearly afford to pick up titles that can be finished in less than a week without much thought; they'll be playing a new game in a week or two regardless.

Personally, I have a hard time playing games that demand too much of my time because I know I will NEVER see the end credits roll unless a game is so fantastic that I am literally willing to monopolize all my gaming hours for weeks with a single game. This never happens for more than a month. Typically, it's much less.

I prefer an experience that will at mininum, allow me to experience the main portions of a game without making it a part time job over a weekend. If that experience is memorable enough, it's likely I'll be playing through at least one more time, or at least revisiting sections of that game via save points later in time, much like favorite movie.

That whole "dollars per entertainment hour value" mindset is pretty irrelevant to me. It would take an extreme example (paying $60 for a game I finished in 5 hours on the first pass with no reason to ever play again) to make me regret a purchase. Even then, I would almost rather buy the game that was a short experience, yet good enough to merit finishing, than a "great value" with "infinite replayability" that I wouldn't play for even ten hours anyway.

No... NO... and more NO....

6 hours isn't sufficient when games aren't artifically lengthened and 6 hours is just getting started, its that it is 6 hours and often split up between 3 games that would make an 18 hour game, which was the standard for last gen and you got it all in one package.

Some of the best games are indeed not that long but most of the ones you beat in that short time span are also all about replaying them and that was the very concept of a game... a story based game that has one set story and no different ways to play though it... and it's only 6 hours?  No that's not worth 60 dollars by any means.  Which is why I'm more fine with paying for fighting games on PS3 and 360 when they're 60 before other games on PS3 and 360 cause often times there's no reply value at all, they want me to buy the next game, there's a tacked on crappy online multiplayer, and they don't give me local multiplayer... 

I don't care how anyone tries to justify it, the only way it's justified is when the game is designed to be something you play over and over like Nine Hours Nine Persons Nine Doors.

I'm ok with developers making 6 -10 hour games...

...as long as developers are ok with me waiting until the game is in the $10 - 20 dollar range before I buy it.