>>719778223
Do ALL newer games, as in every single one without any exceptions, have more content than ALL older games? No? Then I'd rethink the point you're making.
Are you trying to point out that a ubisoft AC game with hundreds of hours in boring collectibles deserves the price increase as opposed to an older game with less collectibles simply because of numerical increase in ""content""?
Even though some old Harvest Moon games (for example) easily trumps newer collect-a-thons in supposed hours of content? If you've been playing games for a while, I'm sure you will be able to note atleast one or two older franchises with way more content than some concurrent games.

Your assumption is simply categorically wrong. Not to mention that you open up a quite weird topic in how one would rate "content" objectively, because I can guarantee that (You) don't enjoy every hour of gameplay for every game the same way.