Considering pc and console games have variable lengths, this is the most flimsy argument I've heard in a long time. You have absolutely no solid basis in saying that console games are merely for quick fixes and PC games are for long durations at a time. I can understand the research and technology funding towards making PC games work across a spectrum of hardware both past and present, but length has nothing to do with platform, nor cost.
I think Tek is looking at the trend rather than a black and white how-things-are. PC gamers expect much more out of a game in terms of longevity, this doesn't mean that there aren't quick half hour in-and-out games on the PC anymore than there aren't games on consoles that are out now and will be getting played in years to come (GTA IV is ar pretty recent example).
On the absolute surface of it length is irrelevant, it is about where the game will be a year from release, if you have just relased a game with 10-20 hours worth of singleplayer content... then it could be the best game in the world... but a year from then it will be forgotten, a nice memory for gamers looking back over their collection. Multiplayer is where games translate to potentially decade spanning life cycles, which is why you see a lot of the now most successful FPS games released being nothing but a multiplayer game, they are a shot in the dark, even if based on a prior success. You have may have made a game that people will want to play for years and will have a large player base to support it, or player numbers will dwindle from day #1, it may never truely die but only a handful of people will ever experience it. Then with your larger communities you have more of a chance of people whom are knowledgeable of coding / modelling / texturing etc coming together to create mods, which will only further drive that games community.
Half-Life is probably the best example of this, do you think if nobody had decided to pick up an SDK and go and make counter-strike and all the other amazing mods from HL that steam would exist? I'm sure Half life 2 would have but it wouldn't have been a fraction of what people anticipated, as whilst a lot were looking forward to the SP a good proportion were also thinking "I can't wait for [insert mod] to move to this engine". It's Longevity has translated to what is now a half dozen individual products, each having a sizeable amount of players, with more games on the horizon expecting to be smashes.
So Crysis? peoples critique of its storyline isn't relevant... what matters is that whilst it was a good game, the developers never gave the PC crowd a reason to play it beyond that few hours of singleplayer. I happen to like its multiplayer, but at the same time all I can see is how not much thought went into it... you have an engine capable of having vast conflicts play out over very large areas using air / land and sea vehicles. This didn't even have to be super suit orientated, there were US vs NK battles occuring simultaneous to the main story line, that the multiplayer could have covered nicely. The multiplayer however was a clear after thought, my two meager ideas for it alone are a drop in the ocean to what they could have done with it if they had wanted to, and if they had of? i'm sure Crysis could easily have taken off in the MP scene, the community it would have created and the array of mods that could have been spawned are all now never to be. It is a shame for us as gamers and them as developers, it would have provided us with an amazing experience and would only have driven their sales over a much much longer period of time.