A game being short does not equal it being less valuable.
I’ve seen people use this line of reasoning before and there a problem with it. This is like saying a plate with a small steak, sprig of parsley, and some colourful drizzle is somehow worth more money than a combo meal at Carls Jr (which isn’t an inexpensive place, either).
As far as I am concerned, and doubtless others, thereis a clear difference in value between a game that lasts days and a game that lasts hours. It’s a simple enough concept. What costs more, a 5 piece chicken nugget or a 20 piece?
I will say that depending on the game, replay value, and other factors that indeed $20 for a shortish product is not unreasonable. However, this is not going to be true for all games. Also, somewhat related to the bit I’m about to quote below, most of the short games I’m talking about aren’t AAA nor do they have the same production costs.
I think you’ve misunderstood the original sentence up there. He didn’t say “short games are MORE valuable than long ones” or even that short games were better. He just said that a game being shorter doesn’t necessarily lower its value, and I agree. I put probably 4 or 5 hours into Backbreaker 2: Vengeance, a somewhat bland iOS game, but that game was infinitely less valuable than Proteus, which took a half-hour to play the first time, or Thirty Flights of Loving, which took only 15 minutes. A short game can be as valuable or more valuable than a long one. And in the same vein, a cheap or free game can be more valuable than an expensive one.