no one plays a game to lose all the time, because eventually it stops being fun. If you enjoy a game, but every time you play it you get your ass handed to you, eventually you stop. And eventually over time the game ends up having only the people who meet the skill requirements to be able to have a decent win loss ratio.

You can't be Charlie Brown all the time. Ironically Peanuts is probably one of the original takes on this whole debate; Charlie Brown actually faces a lot of despair over losing. The animated special where he travels to the spelling bee is one of the most painful things I have watched because its so realistic; in the end there really was no answer given to him.

> no one plays a game to lose all the time, because eventually it stops being fun. If you enjoy a game, but every time you play it you get your ass handed to you, eventually you stop.

This isn't true for everybody. There are genres of games dedicated towards extremely challenging mastery where a single win will require hundreds or thousands of losses. Plenty of roguelikes and roguelites like Spelunky and Caves of Qud fall in this category.

and those games quickly stop being fun if you can't secure a win. This is why pure rogue games have given way to roguelikes designed to have meta progression to make it easier to eventually win, or see yourself making progress.

And yes, you stop even those games; eventually you hit a plateau where you see enough and dont advance in skill enough to shelve the game for something much better.