The article does have a point, though: The dominant rewards system of games has changed. Games were once designed primarily to be challenging and only secondar

The article does have a point, though: The dominant rewards system of games has changed. Games were once designed primarily to be challenging and only secondarily to be completed -- essentially equating difficulty with fun. Today, games are designed primarily to be completed and only secondarily to be challenging -- equating completion with fun. Of course, it's a matter of opinion which design is actually more fun. This is why today we have difficulty levels, completion percents, unlockables, collectibles, achievements, etc.: to allow players that value completion to complete the game, but also to allow those that value difficulty to find a challenge. While these design elements are a good compromise between the two extremes, the author is correct that they diminish the value of the game's nominal completion and that they tend to reward time spent in the game over skill. We can partly blame economics for the rise of these game mechanics: Games that have a reputation of being "too hard" rarely do well. Likewise, if a player has completed a game, he is more likely to buy its sequel than if he is still struggling with the original... The sooner players complete a game, the sooner they can buy another.