This article seems to ignore the fact the point of a game isn't about reaching the end, its almost by definition about the journey. Just because someone didn't

This article seems to ignore the fact the point of a game isn't about reaching the end, its almost by definition about the journey. Just because someone didn't tick that particular checkbox it doesn't mean that there was too much in the game, just that they didn't tick that checkbox. Unless the game is single player only and very tightly on rails, completion is really dumb metric of game quality. Even when it is one of those games, is it a bad thing if a game contained enough content to deliver a satisfying enough experience that someone is full before then end? And still has more to go back to if they get hungry again? A game can have an unnecessarily padded length that turns a player off, but thats a separate issue. That case is an issue of level design and game quality, which are not measurable only by completion rates. I know games are software Skinner Boxes, but if they actually care about player experience, they're optimizing towards the single goal of completion a surprising amount. On this issue they don't, it's the business side thats driving the look at length and completion rates. They care about being able to sell more titles. This article is a showing where the industry (as far as the AAA space) is going, shorter games. Less in a single package means more sales. If completion rates are low, someone who wants more of game X can just go back to the software they have on the shelf. If the game is designed for a high level of completion, it drives DLC sales. A lower average time per title means that it will be sooner that the next title is bought.