srekel

Are you concerned that it will incentivize making games longer so that gamers stay longer in them and thus those developers getting more of the share? Or that it will penalize shorter experiences. For example, two of my favorite indie games is To the Moon and RimWorld. One takes 4 hours to complete and the other I've played for more than 100 hours so far. But RimWorld is not 25x better and I don't think it'd be fair to give that much more money to it.

I think it's a fairly well known fact that when authors get paid per page, the length of the books generally go up, so it's not a totally baseless concern I feel.

Can I find this lecture online somewhere?

Different strokes for different folks. I mean, I like long games too, having put in thousands of hours into several multiplayer games.

But time is a limited resource for me that I value very much, and I really dislike when games don't respect my time. Ark is a game that comes to mind that I quit playing because the grind was so excessive. (I would have probably liked it more if I played it at a higher speed setting, but... I didn't think about that at the time).

I don't want developers to want to feel like they should extend the length of their game just to make more money. It should be just as long as it needs to be. I have a long enough backlog that if I complete one game, I have 10 more waiting to be played. Twenty Flights of Loving is just 20 minutes long or something like that, but it was worth the money for me because there's nothing else quite like it.

Personally Limbo was worth it to me because it was a good focused experience.

But it's already happening - games artificially extending their playtime by means of grind are not uncommon. How can you distinguish between that and "gaming Jump's system"? It's a sliding scale.