The revitalising alternative is to design games (and economic systems) that recharge rather than escalate, emphasise reciprocal care over competition, and centre inclusivity as a strategy, not as a mere afterthought.
Introduction: The False Premises of Zero‑Sum Game Design
Many contemporary games—both literal video games and metaphorical “serious games” used in learning, wellness, corporate performance, sustainability, and civic engagement—are built around two assumptions:
- Everyone wants to “level up.”
- Only winners matter; outcomes must be zero‑sum.
However, a growing body of research, user feedback, and real-world crises shows that these premises are dangerously misleading when applied to finite, closed systems—such as our planet, economy, or social fabric. Neither socialism nor capitalism, framed as global games, has yet delivered sustainability; instead, they rely on continuous extraction or redistribution that erupts in systemic breakdown under stress.
The revitalising alternative is to design games (and economic systems) that recharge rather than escalate, emphasise reciprocal care over competition, and centre inclusivity as a strategy, not as a mere afterthought.
Gamification That Crowds Out Intrinsic Motivation
Gamification typically enchants new users with points, badges, and leaderboards. But as critics warn, these extrinsic carrots often crowd out intrinsic interest.1 Experiments show that when users shift motivation from internal satisfaction to external reward, interest collapses when those rewards vanish (the overjustification effect).[‡crowding]
A recent study mapping educational software found frequent reports of worsened learning, dips in motivation, and even cheating, all triggered by competitive game mechanics.[§crowding] In one high-profile case, a top daily “streak” tracker removed without warning led to plummeting engagement—even among enthusiasts previously committed to hundreds of days of progress.
The flaw is not gamification per se, but zero‑sum gamification: when levelling up is tied to outcompeting or outpacing others, the activity ceases to be enjoyable and becomes merely a treadmill. Many users simply want a restorative rhythm, a safe space to recharge, not to compete.
Games Mirroring Failed Economies
Consider how sociology and political economy treat game metaphors. Communism and capitalism attempt to distribute resources fairly or liberate markets, but both fail to account for finite planetary limits or for social–ecological feedback loops. The economy-as-game model of endless expansion collapses under the weight of diminishing returns, accelerating inequality, and ecological collapse.
The “tragedy of the commons” in ecological science illustrates how rational agents overexploit shared resources (like pasture or fisheries) until everything collapses. Ostrom’s Nobel-winning work demonstrated that only coordinated institutions and mutual restraint—i.e. forms of inclusivity—stop the collapse.
Similarly, evolutionary game theory and multilevel selection models show that, in tight niches, cooperating groups outlive groups built on ruthless competition—even if the competitive group has superior short‑term gain.
In effect, any system that treats every interaction as a win‑lose match is guaranteed to degrade itself if the ground is limited.
Alpha Players as Self‑Destructive Vectors
You requested the article’s red thread: “Alpha aggressive players are a self‑destructive force in a finite system.” Biology supports this: across species, high-ranking individuals pay heavy costs—elevated metabolic rates, suppressed immunity, and chronic stress—and often live shorter lives than their subordinates.
Elitist power structures dominated by narcissistic or psychopathic alpha figures create brittle systems in humans, too. Dr Luke Kemp’s analysis of 400 historical collapses reveals that high inequality and domination by alpha elites—what he calls “Goliaths”—make societies fragile, accelerating breakdown in response to shocks like drought, plague, or economic downturns.
Thus, alpha dominance is not an evolutionary solution, but rather a self-terminating pattern when resources are scarce. Aggressive competitiveness becomes a pathology—not a winning strategy.
Inclusivity: The Evolutionary Design for Survival
Inclusivity is too often dismissed as a charity project or social obligation. But from the perspective of survival, it is precisely what sustains resilience:
- Inclusive fitness theory (Hamilton, West & Gardner) explains altruistic behaviours as enhancing the survival of the wider gene pool—not just the individual.
- Cultural group selection (Richerson & others) shows that groups that build norms, institutions, and cooperation outcompete groups driven by dominance or coercion.
- In modern organisations, inclusive leadership is associated with higher psychological safety, innovation, and retention—especially during times of stress.[∂1][∂2]
Psychological safety, in turn, encourages users or team members to take learning risks, admit mistakes, and collaborate, with core trust being the keystone of resilience.
Importantly, inclusivity redistributes influence, not resources by force—it invites all to contribute, values every voice, and recognises diverse forms of competence. Instead of relying on fragile leadership, an inclusive group becomes self-correcting and adaptive.
Designing Games for Recharging, Not Crushing
What does all this mean for game design—literally or metaphorically?
Non‑Zero‑Sum Mechanics
- Use cooperative milestones: players work together to restore shared ecosystems, manage circular resources (e.g., water table, forest regrowth), in ripple cycles rather than linear escalation.
- Replace leaderboards with shared progress meters or mutual high scores: everybody benefits when any single player hits a restorative milestone.
Inclusive Affordances, Not Hierarchical Rewards
- Create roles for passive engagement or “recharge” modes, such as mindfulness breaks, environmental restoration roles, and co-care leadership.
- Avoid point systems that incentivise domination; instead, reward helpfulness, repairing damage, and enabling others.
Circular‑Economy Analogies
Games can mirror circular economy principles: resources flow back through recycling, reinvestment, and sharing. Reward cycles are not linear negentropy.
Inclusive Onboarding
Treat entry not as a hierarchical audition but as an open-access community: multiple entry points reflect different motivations—some players want achievement, others want communal building.
Community Norms as Governance
Player governance should evolve akin to Ostrom’s rules: shared norms, transparent decision-making, and rotating leadership help prevent alpha capture.
Conclusion: Inclusivity Is Not a Soft Option, It Is Survival
To return to your requested red thread: in closed, finite systems (such as a planet, an economy, or social networks), alpha aggressors inevitably exhaust themselves and destabilise the system. Inclusivity is not a soft accommodation—it is the only structural principle that ensures collective survival.
Designing games (literal or systemic) around collaborative recharging, rotating strengths, and diverse motivations is not a weakness—it is the cunning logic of resilience. Every user, citizen, or team member is not a “less fit individual” but a potential architect of repair, and our systems must be designed to leverage that.
Because when the alpha actors overwhelm the system and exhaust its resources, the whole civilisation falters. But a society built on inclusive reciprocity can weather shocks—not because it rewards alpha strength, but because it channels distributed care, adaptability, and mutual restoration.
Sidebar: Key Scholarly References
- Gamification pitfalls: Many studies show badges, streaks & external rewards worsen motivation or fragment attention; intrinsic interest often collapses when rewards are removed.1
- Dominance costs: In birds, mammals, and humans, high-ranking individuals experience chronic stress and higher mortality, thereby undermining group well-being.
- Societal collapse risk: Luke Kemp’s Goliath’s Curse identifies inequality and alpha dominance as core drivers of civilizational fragility.
- Inclusive leadership research: Several longitudinal studies confirm that inclusive leadership boosts psychological safety and innovation—especially during times of change.[∂1][∂2]
- Evolutionary biology: Inclusive fitness theory and group selection explain how cooperative strategies outlast competitive single-advantage when niches are tight.
Footnotes
- See Deci, Koestner & Ryan meta‑analysis (1999) and contemporary mappings of gamification’s negative effects.
- Stress‑related costs of alpha rank in baboons and great tits are detailed in modern dominance hierarchy research.
- Kemp, Luke, 2025, ‘Self‑termination is most likely’: the history and future of societal collapse, where elite domination and dark‑triad rule precede major breakdowns.
- Science of the tragedy of the commons and Ostrom’s findings on community resilience.
- Multilevel (cultural group) selection models show that cooperation outcompetes dominance strategies under stressed conditions.
Inclusive fitness theory explains the evolutionary payoff of altruism through shared genes.
Zeng et al. (2020) show inclusive leadership → psychological safety → proactive problem‑solving.
Li et al. (2022) multi‑level analysis of inclusive leadership → team psychological safety
Author’s Note
Artificial intelligence has been used in the organization and structuring of original ideas and research connections throughout this work. Every argument, insight, and conclusion originates from the author’s own analysis; AI tools were applied solely to assist in synthesis, clarity, and coherence.
Leave a Reply