How long should a video game be, exactly? It’s an endlessly-debated topic that got more attention recently when dozens of game developers weighed in with their thoughts. The consensus opinion seems to be that dozens of hours of gameplay are not, in and of themselves, a requirement for a good game, and thus one deserving of your money. Many developers argued that shorter and smaller games like Braid, Portal and Limbo prove you can offer a wholly satisfying gaming experience within the span of only a few hours.

Curiously, Hello Games’ Sean Murray, one of the developers behind PlayStation Network (PSN) downloadable hit Joe Danger, was one of the few that disagreed, arguing that games can indeed feel too short if they’re not designed correctly. To Murray, games are “much more than a beginning, middle and end. It’s about experiences: Learning new skills, exploring, challenges and competition. The longer those last, the deeper the experience.”

The main sticking point in Murray’s argument, as he admits, is that most players don’t bother to finish games of even moderate length. Fun fact: Only 10 percent of Joe Danger owners managed to finish the game, according to Murray, taking an average 20 hours to do so. It’s not just action-oriented arcade titles that players quit early, either — statistics from Valve show less than half of Half Life 2: Episode 2 players finished the game’s final map.

All of which begs a couple of important questions. If a majority of players won’t take the time to finish one of the most critically-acclaimed story-based games of this generation, what will they bother to finish? Furthermore, why should developers take the time and effort to add extra content to their games if only a minority of players are ever going to enjoy that content?

Well, for one, those that do complete the game are likely to be your most loyal customers. They’re the ones that are going to be getting the word out about your game on message boards, and browbeating their friends into buying the game for themselves. For another, the minority that finish the games are the ones most likely to be in the market for downloadable content or in-game items.

Theoretically, if the game was shorter, more people would be able to finish it and become potential DLC-buying evangelists. Yet if the game is too short, these players might not feel they got enough value for their initial purchase, and therefore be less likely to become true fans of your game or your company.

It’s a tricky balancing act, and perhaps one that can be solved by clever design. Many of the best-received games have a main story that comes to a satisfying conclusion quickly while also include plenty of interesting, optional gameplay features and elements for those that just don’t want the experience to end. Sandbox games like the Just Cause and Crackdown series spring to mind, but the same principle can be applied to practically any genre, provided you right-size the amount of content so it’s appropriate to the price demanded of players, and game experiences are crafted in such a way that the player has the option to play for as little or long as they want in each session.

By designing a game so it feels “complete” for both gamers with time to spare and those with no time to waste, perhaps developers can wriggle their way out of the myth that there’s a perfect length their game should be. In short, the right length for today’s video games doesn’t exist: Game designers are much better off providing players with the option to enjoy titles in short bursts, yet also building enough depth into titles that those so inclined can invest more time and effort if so desired.