[adotbacon]

Importantly this is limited to online games. The reuters article doesn't make that clear, but NYT / WSJ articles do [1][2].

Many online games use matchmaking which push you towards a 50% win rate which keeps you more interested than if you were to 'always' win or lose. Depending on the game, you might then spend money or grind time in an attempt to improve the resources available. And in some of those, 3 hours a week necessitates redesigning these games so that they're playable - at least segmenting China's user experience to retain interest. If this regulation can encourage developers to better respect gamers' time and resources, that's a win.

On the other hand, games with longer matches like DotA2/League in their standard modes may run too long to squeeze into an hour. I don't think the experience in those games themselves disrespects the time of users, but the 50% win-rate matchmaking and dream of getting out of 'dumpster tier ELO' can be problematic. On a hot streak or a cold streak? "Let's play til we win/lose."

Single-player games have less pressure and more ability to walk away at mostly anytime (especially these days with quick-save) so you're playing them more on your schedule rather than beholden to the game itself (really the people playing). Multiplayer creates a lot of replayability through the unique decisions other players are making.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/business/media/china-onli... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-sets-new-rules-for-youth-...

[Karunamon]

>Many online games use matchmaking which push you towards a 50% win rate which keeps you more interested than if you were to 'always' win or lose.

Any competitive, skill-based matchmaking system that's tuned to produce the fairest game will strive to produce games where all participants have a statistically equal chance of victory. That includes non-video games.

Why are you spinning this as if it's some dirty, manipulative ploy?

[adotbacon]

Matchmaking alone isn't inherently evil. As you allude to: what's the point playing if you're going to win 100% of the time or lose 100% of the time?

I'm commenting in the context of why China might ban online gaming. If you can learn the strategies that you fight against in a bot in offline play - or exploit the blunders they make - it can still be fun, but there's less variance and more predictability. You'll probably get tired of it sooner than seeing emergent strategies from other players. Until games are built with bots that can effectively mimic the full range of ELO and unique strategies like you get in online play, I think there will be something missing in offline play. Even then, do we derive the same satisfaction from beating a bot?

Partner up matchmaking with engagement tricks like "first win of the day" and other quests that net you some in-game resources like battle passes and you create a sense of FOMO that drains player time (while ensuring active players to keep queues fast). Add in micro-transactions and financial drain can happen too.