There's a lot of interesting numbers in this article, but I find the central premise to be a sad way of looking at games, and it kind of spoils the rest.
A self-examination of his belief that games are ruined by computers being able to play them would have made the article a lot better, but it's just a straw man that's been inserted as if everyone agrees with it.
"Disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about."
Atwood jumped the shark a very long time ago; there was a time when he knew what he was talking about, but his role morphed from being a programmer who blogged about it to being a blogger who talks about programming, with predictable results.
A self-examination of his belief that games are ruined by computers being able to play them would have made the article a lot better, but it's just a straw man that's been inserted as if everyone agrees with it.