I've never really considered myself much of a gamer, so before starting to read this chapter I expected to feel out of my depth. However, I understood most of the examples (except Starcraft) and thought they were quite beautiful (especially Save the Date). Reading about Ludus vs. Paida also made me realize that perhaps I simply fall more on the Paida end of the spectrum in terms of my interests. Similar to how I refuse to watch horror or sad movies because I consider films an escape from everyday life, perhaps because I also feel that everyday life is too competitive, I shy away from the strife towards goals aspect of Ludus gaming.
Another aspect of play I've considered more as my design interests have shifted from human centered design to more speculative practices, is questioning who gets to engage in the act of play. Is it only those that are privileged who are able to separate out a protected space in their lives to engage in play? With children, play seems almost like a righteous inherent act but as we get older where does the level of acceptableness or our "right" to play fall. Where does play fall on Maslow's hierarchy of needs?
Lastly many of the later principles in game/play design (6.21-6.23) seem extremely effective in terms of onboarding new users. But putting on my more introspective hat, I can also see how those principles could be quickly turned and have been used by many companies for more utilitarian purposes of capitalism (Facebook) that do not benefit the end "player". Kunwoo's lecture touched on these unartful games as a means of profit. Are there counteracting principles that may balance out the addictive feedback of loop of play?