Aren't individual subscription games equally prone to "working by addiction mechanics"? There's a fine line between "hold my interest" and "maximize my 'engagem

Aren't individual subscription games equally prone to "working by addiction mechanics"? There's a fine line between "hold my interest" and "maximize my 'engagement'", and the big subscription-based games (looter-shooters, MMOs) absolutely use "illegitimate" methods to retain their playerbase month after month, by creating endless progression treadmills and gating progression milestones behind daily/weekly limits. Are progression systems "legitimate" at all if they only change the numbers instead of the mechanics? On the other hand, there are the non-subscription games that captivate players for months or years, like Civilization or Street Fighter. These are the Photoshops of gaming - they hold player interest over long spans in "legitimate" ways, yet they would face an enormous backlash if they were to move to the subscription model that they "deserve" for achieving such high longevity without sacrificing product integrity. It seems services like Games Pass discussed in the article best address your gripes over individually purchasing short-lived games better, though it also introduces the issue of games having to compete for limited spots in the subscription service's roster. Games with shorter lifespans can offer a wider pallet of experiences than those designed with longevity in mind, and it would be a shame to abandon them.