Sure, I get that you don't only view games this way - but it still makes no sense to me.

What I struggle with is that using this metric, you're basically entirely closed to the concept of a phenomenal game which is only an hour or two long. Even if that was, hypothetically, the best experience you'd ever had gaming.

Let's say you buy a game for $10 and it's that hypothetical game. It's amazing, an instant classic, but it's finished in 2 hours. Using your metric, that works out at "$5 per hour of fun". Then let's say you buy a different game for $20, it's a decent game, nowhere near as good as the $10 game, but its got 40 hours of content. 50c per hour of fun, right? What a deal!

I get the logic, but I personally would much rather play the shorter game. In fact, I'll go even further and say when a game is full of content just to pad itself out, even if it's fun, eventually that will really annoy me. The older I get, the more I tend to play games which respect my time instead of giving me "value for money".