I think this may be one of the reasons why I've trended away from many internet-connected games as of late. I get the feeling that they're really just Skinner boxes under the hood.
Maybe I'm just a curmudgeoney old man (though I'm only 26), but older games just have this more genuine feel. They play the way they play, and while they often have rough edges, I don't get the same sense that they're trying hard to keep the player engaged. I get this nagging feeling that modern "games as a service" have this relationship with the player where they keep them engaged enough to be sucked in but refuse to have a cathartic conclusion. I've grown to appreciate games that end and say "that's all folks".
I’ve felt the same and I grew up with those older games (I’m 35). There are still some greats coming out but you have to seek them out and filter out a lot of games these days to find them.
If you are interested in game design and more on what makes a great “that’s all folks” game, check out “Theory of Fun” by Raph Koster.
Maybe I'm just a curmudgeoney old man (though I'm only 26), but older games just have this more genuine feel. They play the way they play, and while they often have rough edges, I don't get the same sense that they're trying hard to keep the player engaged. I get this nagging feeling that modern "games as a service" have this relationship with the player where they keep them engaged enough to be sucked in but refuse to have a cathartic conclusion. I've grown to appreciate games that end and say "that's all folks".