humble bundles are budget games, which I've already excluded.
mobile games are questionable since not everything is free or a dollar but possible nontheless. Though, those come with ads so yeah eventually you're paying more than that. Otherwise advertisement wouldn't exist.
Netflix is correct though. No doubt.

Not entirely, it'd be more appropriate to compare Netflix to Playstation Now, given you're merely renting with both services. 

well who decides which games are "designed to be replayed over and over again". That's pretty subjective.
By that logic it's impossible to talk about a game's length, since even a full priced game lasting only a minute can be replayed over and over again until you get the 1:1 dollar/hour ratio. If it's the best minute of video game history, I'm sure you wouldn't refuse doing just that.

Wait? Do people actually think about the $/HR ratio when debating an entertainment purchase? Like...will you avoid a game/movie if it doesn't meet a certain ratio?

Games should be as long they each individually need to be. Some games should be long, if it calls for it. Others should be short, if the type of game/gameplay/replay-ability calls for it.

For instance, many old NES platformers, you could blast through (provided you got good enough at them) in under an hour. But that hardly meant they were "bad games", in fact many of them are some of the best games ever made. And their replay value meant you'd fully enjoy blasting through them, time and again. It all depends on the game.

To a point, yes. I don't buy a ton of games, because I am a broke grad student, so when I do, I want that game to last. I'm not going to buy a game like The Order, because it will only last me a few hours and I'll be done with it and I'll be left staring at my wallet thinking "can i really afford to buy another game?". On the other hand, I see a game like Monster Hunter 4. Monster Hunter tri got me almost 200 hours and 4 is much bigger. So for 40$, I am looking at a game I will likely play for over 200 hours and love every second of, vs a $60 game I will get maybe 10 hours out of. I think it would be silly of me to ignore the differential values of the two games.

However, thats not to say I am willing to miss a great experience due to length. If a game is truly great, I will play it, I just wont buy it at full price. I will wait for a  sale or I will wait a few years until the price is low before playing the game.

The most I have spent on a game in the past 2 years was like $20. And that was Tales of Graces F. Which I am still playing with >50 hours in. It's not that hard. Online extends the length of games, dlc helps, etc etc

As long as it needs to be. Filler for the sake of length never made a game better. I prefer a short, very focused experience over a longer, more uneven one. Some games just don't need to be that long. I mean, one of the biggest issues the Sonic franchise faces is that Sonic Team always feels the need to pad out the length with crap like fishing and werehogs, when they would've been much tighter games had they simply focused on Sonic's game play style. This is something that games like Sonic COlors and Generations nearly got right, though they ended up finding their own ways to pad out time, unfortunately.

Well some people value their games differently. You cant be spoiled when you're the one paying imo! That being said a game should at least be 10-20 hours for it to be worth it imo.

The problem with video game industry is even if PS4 sells as PS2, it's still scraps compared to audience that movies and tv series get. So the record breaking revenue of GTA V which sells for 60$ is merely about a single summer blockbuster box-office, and there is 10 of them each year.

And then the relatively big investment required to get into video games creates "gamers", who think that video games is some kind of lifestyle and vocally object to anything that breaks the order of things as they see it.

I actually think now it would be better for industry is Sony/MS concentrated on bringing down prices for PS3/X360 to 100$, giving games the availability of cable tv instead of making "nextgen". From that point it would be possible to experiment with lower game prices, digital-only, etc. Instead we got Call of Duty in full HD and 5 more years of listening how hard and unforgiving the AAA landscape become, before the streaming kicks in.