[moduspol]

Old games were designed similarly to arcade games, where the "true" goal was to get you to keep inserting coins. Then there was kind of a slow transition away from that, but they still relied heavily on the player spending a lot of time replaying prior levels to get to the harder (final) ones due to the limited amount of content.

IMO it was addictive, but only to certain personality types. Mine is definitely one of them. Others would see a difficulty spike and/or the amount of re-treading they need to do to make progress as a deterrent.

Recent games are more addictive in a way that appeals more widely.

[JamesSwift]

Id disagree that console games were the same as arcade. Arcade often had gimmicks that _required_ more quarters, whereas console encouraged mastery (e.g. learning boss patterns, level layouts, etc). Very few console games would need a game genie to beat, but many arcade games are near impossible with a single quarter.

In reality for certain personalities (myself included) that focus on mastery is actually the addictive bit, and I think its a productive addiction all things considered. Im not addicted to the mind-numbing aspect of playing, I'm addicted to the huge amount of knowledge I need to gain in order to succeed. Its the same reason I was drawn to DOTA and Magic later in life.

[moduspol]

A single quarter? Perhaps, though every arcade had a few wizards that, through mastery of the game and its mechanics, could play for much longer on much less money. I couldn't tell you how many were literally impossible on a single play, though I don't see the distinction as particularly important. In both cases, the idea is clearly to have the player continuously retrying, getting more and more skilled, and going further and further. They both absolutely encouraged mastery.