I would argue from another perspective:
Even if the ones not interested don’t need to use those features…it would mean that TR have to put a lot of resources on things that
I’d settle for some youtube videos of him struggling though some really tough workouts. 
Ideally with him screaming at the workout instructions.
I had the same reply in mind, @Rizzi. Resources are always limited and the assignments for them are relevant to the outcome of the service and features. I don’t see enough gain from “game features” in TR to outweigh the loss in areas with more likely payback for customers.
There are numerous other options for games, entertainment, motivation. And many of them can be combined with TR for easy use (as I do with Zwift or NetFlix). I see no reason that TR needs to move into a new direction when it most likely means stagnation to it’s core direction.
Especially relevant if you consider that very direction is what makes TR unique and well placed to satisfy the needs of so many riders with it’s current focus.
Yes every platform has limited resources so if the aim is to increase resources then growing subs is the way to go there and gimmicks, offers etc all have proven methods we’ve seen work well. Gamification for want of a better word is a definite gimmick and looking to role play elements we know those don’t just work, they work too well (hence the EU looking to regulate it). Either way, game elements are addictive.
Personally I’d like to see TR nail AI first, ie. plans that monitor your performance and are constantly changing load to suit the individual - the direction Xert has gone. But ultimately, I’d want that and more interesting ways of performing workload. For me the end game is far from binary.
Perhaps this is all just a footnote in Zwift’s domination some years down the line. Who knows.
Already done. The feature is called “Strava”.
A basic business management question that drives a lot of development decisions is - what is this company selling? If you drill it down, you will find that there’s a fundamental difference between TR and, say, Zwift. TR sells structured training for cyclists. Zwift sells trainer entertainment. If you take the “structured training” starting point, what can TR do to develop?
Notice these directions are completely different from what one would expect from Zwift, but quite natural to TR; they exploit strengths (sport-specific coaching expertise, a plan + calendar interface, and loads of OS + device + protocols integration experience).
Imagine for a second loading your Monday running workout onto your Garmin watch, and getting an audio track sync’d with the workout stepping you through an interval session, and you can get the idea.
I really really hope TR would never gameify their app/product. There’s Zwift for that.
I believe TR has done fine with growing their subscriptions and thus increasing their resources w/out any gamification or gimmicks. The app has had a facelift, bug fixes, and some additional features added over the years, all of which have not changed the core focus of TR which is to make you faster. I don’t believe I have ever heard Nate or Chad say anything about entertaining or distracting you while you ride indoors.
Trying to be all things to all people is a sure way to failure. TR is not everyone’s cup of tea, just like Zwift is not for everyone. Furthermore, TR is not competing w/Zwift. While there is some overlap in the user base, TR and Zwift are not trying to grab the same people.