The perfect game is one where you get an exact dopamine hit where the average consumer is willing to pay maximal additional money to get another dopamine hit. A pay2win or pay2progress system that makes people incredibly engaged while playing it, but ultimately incredibly meaningless.

That is, objectively, the "perfect" game, for corporations to create. A wire going directly into the pleasure center of the brain, that shoots a chemical electrical straight into the skull.

But that's not what "gamers" want. Gamers complained when Fire Emblem didn't have Lunatic difficulties. Gamers cried when Aerith died. Gamers beat SC2 without losing a single unit.

Gamers want stories. Whether that story is an emergent story grown from their own gameplay, or a story told to them through the game, gamers want a tale they can tell to other gamers. Pay2Winners just want a dopamine hit, like drug addicts. One of these is much more profitable than the other, and easier to create. And that's the one the AIs will make.

Maybe. There’s definitely a sweet spot where devs will have the like ideal game loop mapped out, but the problem with “ai” is that the stats will lead everyone to the same place and ultimately the same game. If someone sticks with it they could eventually model out what players would find appealing immediately following that sort of singularity period, but I feel like the market would just naturally reject the like ai genre or whatever we want to call it before we reach that point. “Human” designed would become the selling point.