Hmm, so your point is that the main reason play games is for entertainment and not to improve a specific skill. But, does it matter? If it was not for games, they wouldn't have improved those skills at all, as they were not actively looking to improve them, or are doing deliberate practices is too boring or intense for some.
> If all they cared about was losing weight, they would exercise and play Table Tennis at the same rate.
They did care about losing weight, but going to the gym or exercising was not something that they did before or were ever planning to do, simply because they didn't consider it to be an enjoyable activity.
My point is, if it was not for VR Table Tennis, they wouldn't have lost that weight. Same with other skills, if it was not for the games that were facilitating the development of certain skills, most likely most would never aquire those skills, which, for the most part have clear real-life applicability and benefits.
I think it's the same like saying tracking steps taken using mobile's device gamification feature has no real-world benefit. Yet, my dad actively started walking more just to reach the daily steps goal. If it was not for that goal, he wouldn't have started walking more.
> Let's say a study came out that showed that RuneScape actually did not improve your real-life trading skills. Do you think that would significantly affect how much people played it?
There are certainly games and gamification features that make it really easy to learn a specific skill. That being said, most people play games because they like it, not to actively improve a skill. In this RuneScape example, no, I wouldn't care about the studies, but while playing the game I would definitely be happy to see me getting better are trading (eg. selling fish next to the fishing spot at a cheap price, or travelling a long way to the bank and sell it at a higher price, or even creating huge stocks of fish and then waiting for a price increase before selling). I think games are really good at making people find new skills and things they are good at, without them actively looking to improve in any way. Once you find a skill that you enjoy (eg. trading), you can go further, outside the gaming world, and actively look to improve that skill or use it in the real world.
> I'm pointing out that games must be fantastically designed because people will choose to sink hours into them regardless of whether they provide practical benefit or not.
People sink hours in anything regardless they provide a practical benefit or not: games, books, netflix, hobbies in general.
There are many different type of games, from those that directly play with your dopamine system and have the dreaded in-app-purchases monetizaton, to those that tell a good story or are highly competitive and make you feel good for defeating others. People have various reasons to play games, and one of them could be the well-designed game loop, but this one is usually the most relevant part in the addictive pay-to-win games mentioned before.