It's a perfectly valid argument especially in context of the comment I was responding to: a gamer today complain about an ~8 hour game costs too much @ $60. Yet in times past, you'd still have 8 hour games that actually cost more.
Value proposition is inherently subjective, I'm not sure why we're generalizing on behalf of every other consumer in the market but I'll play for one more post. I'd also argue that there is definitely an argument to be made that consumers are paying just as much if not when you factor in other revenue streams that the industry employs now like DLC. A lot of gamers are new, did you even consider that? Many of them weren't around long ago, there are whole new generations of people who weren't paying $90 for an SNES game or whatever you're referring to. While quantity has grown in terms of game offerings it doesn't necessarily mean quality has too, the Ghost Recon franchise is a great example of that.
There are some great games I feel like I've had for bargains at $60 and there are some real turds that I feel weren't worth $20, let alone the $60 I paid. Whether we have it better in the context of the past is one of those things that will be different for everyone I guess. I certainly wouldn't call people spoiled because they're unhappy about game length as it really depends on the title in question.
So yes, I think gamers today are spoiled. If you have an issue with that, tough cookies; it's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
Generally not a great idea to say "you can't change my mind" in what was otherwise a reasonable discussion but fair enough
Watching: The Last Dance