“Finite games are played by known players. They have fixed rules. And there is an agreed-upon objective that, when reached, ends the game.”

In this quote, Simon Sinek defines the nature of finite games. He differentiates finite games from infinite games, as competitive events—like contests and debates—are finite games.

“Infinite games, in contrast, are played by known and unknown players. There are no exact or agreed-upon rules […] Infinite games have infinite time horizons.”

As opposed to finite games, infinite games are not played to win, but played to keep playing. To Sinek, business, relationships, and life itself are infinite games. The rules of infinite games differ from those of finite games because players need to focus on sustainability. 

“The United States operated as if the game were finite instead of fighting against a player that was playing with the right mindset for the Infinite Game they were actually in. While America was fighting to ‘win,’ the North Vietnamese were fighting for their lives.”

Sinek uses this quote to attempt to explain a key difference between finite and infinite games. He compares the American forces to the North Vietnamese forces during the Vietnam War and how the latter played with an infinite mindset, resulting in their victory. This is an example of Sinek providing historical comparisons to illustrate his theories, even if they aren’t clear-cut.