1 free read left. Create a free account for unlimited reading + AI research.
Create free account
In Defense of Short Games - Worth Every Dollar - Extra Credits
Key insights
6 takeaways- 01The industry-wide reliance on a dollar-per-hour metric to determine game value incentivizes developers to artificially inflate playtime, which often dilutes narrative quality and mechanical integrity.
- 02Forcing a game to expand from a concise four-hour experience to a fourteen-hour duration frequently compromises the creator's original vision without providing a superior product.
- 03Short-form games are competitively priced when compared to other entertainment media like cinema or theme parks, which do not face the same pressure to provide extended duration for the cost.
- 04A significant segment of the player base, particularly working professionals, requires shorter and more accessible experiences due to time constraints that make massive, lengthy epics impractical.
- 05The consumer habit of returning short games after completion or relying on Let’s Plays creates a hostile financial environment that discourages the development of brief, high-impact titles.
- 06Shifting consumer focus from quantity to the emotional or artistic impact of a game is necessary to maintain creative diversity and support developers who prioritize quality over length.
Ask AI about this video
Transcript
Over the last few months, I've seen a number of games hit Steam and just get panned. I mean, like obliterated for being short, for being finishable in an evening or a weekend. So, today I would like to take a moment to defend shorter games, even games that are a mere two or three hours long. Because by denying these games, we limit the variety of experiences games can offer. And by demanding that these games be longer, we may actually be demanding that they become worse. Now, let me bring this into another context. Did any of us really want The Hobbit to be three films long? Was it made better by being stretched out into three lengthy parts? And did the added length of the overall experience increase your satisfaction or your enjoyment in watching those films? Look, I love Tolkien and I love The Lord of the Rings movies, but The Hobbit as source material is a fundamentally different kind of story than The Lord of the Rings trilogy. And trying to turn it into the same kind of epic film trilogy that they'd done before weakened the resulting movie experience. It wasn't terrible, but it certainly wasn't an
equal to its predecessor. And personally, I would have gladly paid the same amount of money to watch one great Hobbit film that was just two and a half hours long. I am not exaggerating. If you told me I could get back the seven hours I lost watching that trilogy and instead pay the combined $30 entrance fee of all three of them to see a single two-hour Hobbit movie that was just amazing, I would happily take that option. In fact, sometimes I feel like I should be paying less for longer experiences if all they're going to do is waste my time. This is exactly what we wrestle with in games. Very, very often, the number one complaint I hear from players is that if they're going to pay $15 or $20 for a game, then that game should be a longer experience. But that logic suggests that an experience's value is equal to the number of hours it consumes. That video games are easily quantifiable products where there should be some dollar per hour formula that describes their worth. Even if we ignore that going to the movies often costs $12 for a two-hour experience, or that going to Disneyland costs like $150 for maybe
8 hours, which makes $15 to $20 for a 3-hour game seem like a pretty reasonable price for entertainment in today's market. This reduction of a game's worth to hours played sets a troubling precedent because it assumes that all experiences can be stretched, that any experience which is good for 4 hours would be just as good or better at 14 hours, and that is definitely not true. But more than that, it assumes that the developer is able to make a 14-hour experience which is just as good and satisfying as the 4-hour experience they presented on the exact same budget. Truth is, most games are built on a pretty fixed budget, and it's not like a lot of these developers delivering shorter games are working with a lot of resources to spare. It's also not like most of them could raise a lot more money for their development budget by saying to somebody, "Hey, we want to add 10 hours to the game." Especially if they're having to sell investors on the idea of adding 10 hours to a game without increasing its retail price. Besides, these types of shorter games also allow a whole other audience to experience our medium. There are plenty of people out there who are working
multiple jobs, who simply don't have time to enjoy a 40-hour epic, but they do eagerly look forward to the next great 5-hour game. Why rob that audience of the experiences they most enjoy by berating these developers for making short games? What's more, not only are these developers impacted by negative reviews, but they also have to contend with people watching Let's Plays of their game and then not buying them or returning them on Steam because it's possible to finish the game inside the window of time Steam allows for returns. I might sound crazy saying this, but maybe we should go a step further than not down voting short games simply because they're short. Maybe we should go a step further than not returning a game just because we beat it fast enough that Steam allows us to get our money back. Maybe, not every time, but just once in a while, if you watch a Let's Play of a game and just the second-hand experience of it moved you or made your day, and maybe sometimes buy the game anyway, even though you've seen the whole thing. And if you do, send the developer a note telling them about it, because I guarantee you, amidst all that
sea of criticism they're probably getting for having made a short game, your acknowledgement that their game had an impact on you and that you wanted to support it out of appreciation, regardless of length, will make their day. Because as players and developers, that's what we all want. And yes, while I totally understand the desire to have more of our favorite experiences, too. Unfortunately, not all experiences can be stretched without breaking what makes them so great. And even more unfortunately, very, very few experiences can realistically be stretched on the type of constraints developers work under. And ultimately, since we only get so many truly great experiences each year, let's at least try to support developers when they deliver them, with the hope that in the future they'll be able to deliver even more next time. See you next week.
Summary
The gaming industry frequently undervalues short-form titles, often subjecting them to negative reviews and refund requests based solely on their limited playtime. This trend reflects a flawed consumer assumption that a game’s value is strictly tied to a dollar-per-hour metric. In reality, forcing developers to extend a game’s duration to meet arbitrary length expectations often dilutes the quality of the experience and imposes unsustainable financial burdens on creators working within fixed budgets.
Comparing game length to other entertainment media, such as cinema or theme parks, reveals that short, high-quality experiences are competitively priced. Forcing a narrative or gameplay loop to expand from four hours to fourteen hours rarely results in a superior product and often compromises the integrity of the original vision. Furthermore, the demand for lengthy epics ignores a significant segment of the player base—such as working professionals—who lack the time for massive, time-consuming titles and rely on shorter, more accessible experiences.
The current culture of returning games after completion or relying on Let’s Plays without purchase creates a hostile environment for developers of concise, impactful games. To foster a healthier industry, players should shift their focus from quantity to the quality of the experience. Supporting developers who deliver meaningful, albeit brief, content is essential for maintaining creative diversity. By valuing the emotional or artistic impact of a game over its total playtime, the community can encourage developers to continue producing high-quality, focused experiences that do not sacrifice their narrative or mechanical integrity to satisfy artificial length requirements.
