The word game can be extremely broad. Life is complex enough that an individual can select their own rules and conditions. There is no activity involving choice and constraints that I can unsee as being fundamentally a game.
That people are worth helping and not hurting, regardless of whether one "wins" is what's missing.
In this article, such actions are worth doing only because they're means to winning, not (say) because you actually value other people, their thoughts, and feelings. The impression one gets is that to the author they're just pawns in his game, and if he could "win" by trampling all over them he would.
This impression is strengthened by the reductionistic, instrumentalist analogies (like the mind being a computer program) sprinkled throughout the article. If people are merely computer programs and life is just a bunch of games that you're trying to win, why be nice to them? Oh, it's because if you're not they might not let you play.
Sure, the author is saying "pay attention to yourself and things will change" that's a "selfish" viewpoint, but if your take away is that the author is "evil" because of it, I think is a stretch. I think he's using "winning" as a proxy here for "being fulfilled".
