Yeah. I mean, the game doesn't have to be hundreds of hours long, but there should be some value in it. It's not just that a lot of games are short these days, it's that a lot of them are full price, more than 60 dollars, especially AAA titles, featuring, what, a 4-6 hours singleplayer campaign? That's pathetic. And, to respond to the 3 minute game idea: The problem is that these short titles are usually
not filled with euphoria but with common shooter tropes and repetitive shooting.
You are right that multiplayer gamers may get a lot more fun out of such games, though, but I at least rarely want to do that, so something like Call of Duty has very little value to me.
Even though I have a lot less time these days, I still want to get some value for my buck and, funnily enough, indie titles - especially ones with some procedural generation, like Rogue Legacy, Don't Starve, Binding of Isaac... - are much, much better at this than many major titles.
But at the same time, extending the gameplay time through grinding is not acceptable, true. That's not really filling the game with content, it's filling it with... filler.
My favourite game is Sacrifice, by the way.
