I m seeing an increase of games using permadeath.

I appreciate it.
On the other hand I play games to relax.
Forcing permadeath is a potential obstacle to my enjoyment.

Should the games have permdeath as option and not forced?

Life has permadeath. If you can relax in life, you should be able to relax in a game with permadeath.

I'm not a fan of permadeath so far (I've been avoiding that mechanic for the most part) but I suppose there are games where it fits in just fine. For example, Tower of Guns is such a game where 'lives' or save slots wouldn't make the game better.

One thing I've encountered in a couple other titles is that death means repeating at least the first couple hours again. And again. And again. For a game that might take many hours to make it through to the end. For those, a save option would be nice, especially games in which one frequently encounters a random death that has little to do with the player learning to play the game better.

Might be ok if it's optional, for total hardcore players, but I would never play a game where it's mandatory. I don't want to deal with the inevitable frustration and seems like an even greater waste of time than gaming is anyway.

Oy, no thanks.

I'm too old to start over.

Eh. I only like permadeath if the entire game flow is built around it.

Dwarf Fortress, Nethack, Rogue, etc.

I guess it's increasing because the market is full to the brim with roguelikes/lites nowadays and yes i do like it in games if given the option as long as the game isn't poorly designed and the game allows you to take no damage if possible through skill and training.

Last thing i want are games that forces damage on you in certain parts and is unavoidable especially in perma death games.

what about the poor schlubs like myself who suck at gaming?

not my thing i'll play
there is a game that require cash to play again, looking how greedy that is to get

Encountering resistance and opposition forces a sharpening of skills and increase in abilities. I can think of no better resistance for a gamer than the risk of losing it all and having to start over again. Forced permadeath? Only if the dev thinks it applies to their game somehow. Optional? Absolutely.

Besides, if gaming can be used as a teaching tool, then we certainly shouldn't be handing out blue ribbons to everyone who signs up. Some people become millionaires, some people get eaten by wolves. This is game. This is life.

Don't you mean "eaten by a grue"?

Grue was stricken from the monster pronoun guide. There was too much grue-splaining going on and some lawsuits were threatened. Hell, I'm risking it just using wolves. Might get PETA turning their heads my way.

Nowadays, with so many games seemingly embracing permadeath, it feels like it's just a short-hand term for, "...we don't have the time or talent to properly balance our game or optimize it for different difficulty levels, so we'll just make it punishingly hard and make you lose all of your stuff every time you die."

Yeah, I'm bitter.

Edit: I'll add that I don't necessarily mind permadeath, as long as the game is designed in such as way as to respect your time and effort by either (a) having gameplay runs last for a length of time that is just long enough to make starting over from square one palatable (like with FTL), or (b) providing players with a sense of meaningful progression outside of the standard gameplay loop to make the grinding and repetition feel worthwhile.