His argument is fatally flawed due to the premise being completely false. Game Overs are almost non-existing in arcade games, but highly prevelant in non-arcade console games; particularly platformers, like Sonic.
Also, even if he is not old enough to have experienced arcades (writing this from mobile, so I can't view the video to verify his age), Game Overs would not encourage spending, but rather discourage it, as it meant an end to the gaming experience.
If anyone remembers mall arcades, arcades on cruise ships, resorts, etc... The popular games often had a lineup of kids wanting to play, and part of the encouragement was how far the current game was. For example, if you were playimg Terminator 2, and someone was at T-1000, there would always be a lot of kids hanging around for their shot at the polyalloy machine. Many arcade games began easy then became ludicrously hard toward the end to exploit that pinch.
The reason console games had Game Overs is not because of some fictitious Arcade convention, but rather because console games originally were originally roms for the most part - RPGs like Dragon Warrior, and action adventures like Legend of Zelda were among the early exceptions. In addition, they were generally short in content. Some games utilized a password system (like Metroid, and Faxanadu's mantras), but many, like the Super Mario Bros series, had nothing (well, warping). Rather than giving players a short game to finish and put away, they had Game Overs after failing to achieve the goals in a certain number of tries. It's a simple mechanic, and it exists in other games too that aren't video games (let alone arcade) - Pen and Paper RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons, for example; and in the same essence: Monopoly, Risk, and Chess - all of which existing long before the arcade industry.
In short: whether or not Game Overs are a good or bad thing in this game, the argument he makes against them is complete bullshit.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
