Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Isn't creating an addictively fun game the goal? Addictively fun , yes. That is, the addiction is supposed to come from the fun you're having. Contrast that with the games criticized in the article - they have some fun aspects as a cover, but they're optimized for pure addictiveness through psychological trickery - which, as the article notes, often involves making them less fun. The difference in the relationship…
It's hard to argue with the results. If it was less fun then fewer people would be playing them.
I'm necroposting, but this is aggressively missing the point. The problem described in the article is that many games advertise fun, but provide addiction. You can have tons of addicted players not really having fun, or putting in disproportionate effort relative to the fun.