I don't understand the people saying they prefer shorter games. Can't you play the same game for, I dunno, longer? If a game takes you 12 and costs 60, could you play it for 2 weeks instead of one? Or if you do prefer short games, wouldn't you be happier if a game that was 4-5 hours long cost, I dunno, 40 bucks instead of 60? Or is part of your experience contingent on spending the 60 bucks for it?
Well you know how there's long games, intermediate games and short games. Some people like long games, some people like intermediate games and some people like short games. Some people aren't very concerned about the length of a game and get value from it based on other values, such as how much they are entertained by it for example.
I can't explain it much more simply than that.
Personally speaking the length of a game isn't much of a factor in whether I enjoy a game or not. I'm 105 hours into DA:I but that's not why I'm enjoying it and I'm looking forward to trying The Order irrespective of much shitpiling people keep doing with regards to it length based on yheir their YouTube fuelled disapproval.
I personally don't really care what it costs.
I mean if Sony said 'all games are free' from now on I wouldn't be complaining, don't get me wrong.
And I think they should drop their highest RRP in the UK to £39.99 because I think £49.99
feels too expensive to most people because it might make it a bit easier for people on lower incomes etc to buy more games and take chances on stuff they wouldn't try otherwise. I also think it would increase their software sales rather than just hammering their current profits.