I would agree with that, but it's still a viewpoint that sits with the winning side and not the losing sidce. You acknowlage that it is indeed an issue, but you cannot agree with it being one to care for. The cycle will continue ad infinitum the more we focus on the winning side and wanting nothing to dow ith the losing one.
Games really do need the option for surrendering, because 1) it still gives the other side the victory they sought after and 2) it allows the losing side to give in on their decision as well as being able to find another match that bit faster.
The idea of bowing out after the match is well and truly done doesn't exactly do much, it's just forcing the loser through the mud after the victory has been announced, which is what I said before as not being the kind of thing a loser looks forward to, especially if they've lost multiple times in a row.
The thing is, I've lost and won in plenty of games for a long time, the difference is that I know what it feels like to lose and I know what it feels like for those that lash out when they lose multiple times in a row and I'd love for them to have the option to surrender, rather than telling them "no you're going to let me bash you in and like it", because that only benefits me and it in no way benefits them, so it's hardly being fair if all I'm doing is caring for just the winning team.
The way you deal with loss is different to others, you have to accept that everyone has a different view on losing and ways to deal with it. The option for surrender is not a bad option to have, after all it gives both sides a benefit rather than one side alone.
Yes, it is indeed a good idea. That would help in many games.
Gameplay > Graphics
Substance > Style
Art Direction > Realism