I think what Kasper meant was that devs should make a decision and stick with it.
Although I don't agree - games like XCOM show that you have have both options and they simply play very differently (bold vs cautious) and are fun in their own ways.
You mean like "Holodeck safety system failure" while battling an army of virtual Klingons?

Yep, that's why I considered it a fair point, and why I implied that forcing permadeath on people instead of having the choice, is bad for a small company that relies so heavily on game sales.

I think that is best left to the realm of fiction.

(I read a book where that could happen in a fictional MMO, but that was only an issue for a player gaining superuser privileges.)

I wasn't being serious dt. :P

Well it really depends on the game. Don't Starve for instance simply would be boring as hell of you could save/reload. Same goes for FTL. Those games are built around "Game Over, try again.". But of course this means those games are not for everyone (which goes for every other genre too in a way, but some are more mainstream than others).

I think for me the biggest problems is losing the progress of many hours and repetition. So tolerable permadeath games should be a) short and b) sufficiently different every time.

Well, if the game is built around it in respect towards the player's progress and time, much like Heroes of Hammerwatch and Tangle deep both of which are games that I love playing, (Hell, even the Darkest Dungeon has permenent progress that respects the player's time!) then it's much easier to swallow rather than boring restarts, then that point is well taken.

I believe in a gamer's choice, so I suppose that's why I support modes for most gamers and it takes some serious game development skills to pull it off well! *(Cough-Larian studio's-Divinity OS series-cough!)

I can see where some would love to have that adreanaline rush-high-stakes gaming experience, but elite gamers are by their very nature in the minority after all, so more power to them, but its hard to build a company around niche title in such an over-saturated industry.

Sounds like a terrible concept to me! It's bad enough that some games don't have a free save system. Like I have nothing better to do than to play the same part over and over again.

But games like Don't Starve and FTL have been pretty successful so the "niche" doesn't seem too small. And there will be less successful products "jumping on the band wagon" regardless what product sells well. Just look at all the "$Anything simulator" stuff that hit the shelves a few years ago or all the mobile games trying to become the next Bejeweled or Angry Birds.

As for Darkest Dungeon... can you actually "lose" - like "Game Over" in that game? I mean you can have all your heroes die and have to rebuild a new strong party, but you keep all the upgrades to your settlement and stuff, no? (I have never played it myself - but a friend of mine is a huge fan of that game).

Yeah, it could be a fad and fads do sell-well, until the maket over-saturates to the point of gamer burn-out, much like zombies, at least for me anyways! Yep, you keep all progress in DD but yeah, in short I'm a best-of-both worlds kind of guy after all!

Permadeath in roguelikes? That's just fine. Permadeath in a 60 hour long RPG? Sadistic, but an interesting challenge.

Best answer. XD

I also play games to relax and do not have the time to play the same part of a game over and over again. I do not mind permadeath as an option for people who like it. But for me a game which takes a longer time to complete and enforces permadeath is most likely a no-go.
More generally I enjoy games the most which have a wide range of difficulty settings as I seldom have found a game which was too easy for me. ;P