If you have a very limited time in which to play a game, it's helpful to know that you'll be able to finish in a moderate amount of time.
Those 60-plus hour games everyone claims to miss from years ago? They can stay in the past for all I care. They have their place in the industry, and I'd argue they're out there for anyone who wants to look, but when I sit down and play one of them I do so with the uneasy knowledge that I'm not going to finish. I'll often note in reviews when a short length is noted, usually as a negative. I don't care that reviewers sometimes look down on that fact, I just appreciate that the data point is in there. My evidence is anecdotal, but there seem to be plenty of gamers who love to spend $20 or under on short, four hour or less narrative games. You can play them in one sitting, you get the rush of finishing a game, and get to experience an entire story that you can be pretty sure you'll finish. In my mind, it's a positive.
So, you want a game company to spend tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to build a game for you that lasts a mere amount of hours so you can feel like you watched a TV movie afterward. I mean, you can't be bothered with anything longer than that as you need your "entertainment" to neatly finish itself in the standard allotted viewing time.
Don't play PC games. Seriously, pick up that console and purchase all the arcade games you can handle. You sir are not a PC gamer, you are a person who likes to be "entertained" and finds the whole PC thing a "hoot" so you can achieve such. Either go back to the console games you came from, or fucking piss off and die. You are the cancer to the industry. No, really... FUCK OFF AND DIE!