Lately there has been this weird trend that if a game cost $70 then 25-35 hrs worth of gameplay for the main campaign is ridiculous; do you truly believe that or do you think it's silly

Tbh I find the whole argument hogwash and just another way for weirdos to harass devs

25-35 hours is the perfect sweet spot for me. It won't take me forever to finish a game that length but I also wouldn't be able to finish it overnight.

I love replaying games, so the $70 price tag doesn't bother me too much. Replaying something like Spider-Man on New Game Plus with all your upgrades is so much fun.

And even if I were to spend $70 on a game and only play it once, if I enjoyed my time with it, it was money well spent.

Even 25-35 hours is too long in my opinion, unless it's an open-world RPG. I think the sweet spot is 10-20 hours for most games/genres.

For me, it's more about the quality of my experience. I'd probably be upset if a $70 was only a few hours of gameplay. But barring that, if it's good and I enjoy my time with it, I'm not going to put an exact x dollars = x hours of gameplay number to it. The last game I played all the way to credits was only about 15 hours, but I really enjoyed my time with it, so it felt worth it.

I agree. I don't think price and hours of gameplay need to match at all. I'd rather pay $70 for a great 15-20 hour game that keeps me interested the whole way through than a 70-hour game that's been stretched out with repetitive content just to make it longer. For me, it's whether I enjoyed the experience enough to feel like I got my money's worth.