on “fishcoin”

Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 14.54.45

i’m going to take a (long) moment to decode the language found on the website fishcoin.co, the home of a coin that will transform the fish industry, whose team’s experience

“facilitating traceable and sustainable seafood trade with institutional buyers allows us to understand the full range of the issues involved as we deploy technologies that will transform the industry.”



Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 14.53.00


fishcoin hype will give us a pool of money reserved for 1) ourselves (‘team members’), 2) advisors (who?), and 3) early contributors. we will decide how the pool of money, converted to tokens — through an unregulated, opaque, mysterious process — is divided up, based on an unspecified (‘ecosystem contingent’) criteria; though if ‘ecosystem’ means ‘monetary contribution’, then that simply means that the more money you put in, the more tokens you get – but, crucially also, they reserve the right to distribute the tokens, as converted to mysteriously from fiat, in whatever ratios they desire. conceivably, you can get less money out, in tokens, than you put in, because ‘team members’ and ‘advisors’ are entitled to a share, dependent on their ‘ecosystemic contribution’ whatever that means.

but then, none of this is true, because the ‘allotment’ of tokens has already been decided. all that stuff above means… nothing?

Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 14.58.52.png


Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 14.53.53.png


a vesting period is ‘the period of time before shares in an employee stock option plan or benefits in a retirement plan are unconditionally owned by an employee‘. that means, tokens will be handed out slowly (linearly) over the 24 month period to employees, to make sure they don’t leave, or whatever. this also means that the central bank at FishCoin gets to hold onto their FishCoins and money for longer (again, unaudited), while joe bloggs gets to trade fish coins freely etc… probably some easily foreseeable problems here since, as the graph shows, 45% of the total tokens are reserved indefinitely for FishCoin use, and the subdivision or necessity therein is somewhat opaque. just who are ‘advisors’, for example, and why on earth would they want to be paid in FishCoin. a publicly facing audit might put investor’s minds at ease as to how money is being used internally.

and there is some further guffery, that literally means nothing to me, even though they are words in the english language (help would be appreciated):

“Marketing will include airdrops and bounties to seed interest and ignite the ecosystem.”

best translation effort:

marketing will be in the form of whoknowswhatthefuck to make people put more money into Big FishCoin TM.

this is their plan, a marketing roadshow (there is no whitepaper as of yet):

Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 14.54.57.png


our team is highly qualified, expert and influential, filled with influential (mentioned twice, tautologically) leaders, who will use their power to market fishcoin. impressive stuff.

and just what is fishcoin?


Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 14.56.31.png


it is hard for everybody to keep track of [something to do with fish, i guess?], because the fish industry is made up of a lot of different, uncoordinated people, who have no unifying tool. obviously, proposing as a solution a centralised regulatory body of some kind is absurd, so, instead, we must turn to the “””decentralised””” “””blockchain”””, which will, guaranteed, unify all currently uncooperative interests. (to what extent any of this true, i do not know – perhaps fisherman already have a proposed way to coordinate).


Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 14.56.36

those supplying fish will be paid in Fish Coins TM when they cooperate with Big Decentralised Fishcoin TM. this will in no way disproportionately benefit the 3 aforementioned (at the start) parties (reminder: early investors, advisors, team members). extra props to the technical term “virtuous cycle”, here. further, Cooperation with Big Decentralised Fishcoin TM will externalise costs to people who buy fish, because they care, above all else, about ‘the quality of their seafood to the consumer’. quite the leap, you might agree.


Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 14.56.41.png

the blockchain is specifically suited to the fish industry because the seafood industry has unique needs, only able to be understood by industry insiders (i.e. “you cannot understand the fish blockchain, mere non fish mortals”). then more guff about how the common plebeian cannot possibly comprehend the usefulness of fishcoin. this paragraph is interesting because it just keeps repeating itself in different ways: doing fish is difficult, and we are experts in solving it.

essentially, we get a lot of ‘what’ and ‘who’, without much ‘how’.

so, to summarise, we have a company that is going to fix all of fish data problems by sticking a blockchain on it, by converting money into fishcoins, that will incentivise everybody to self-submit data because, quote, ‘hotels, restaurants and retailers […] benefit most from [the use of blockchain] as they can use [it] to validate the quality of their seafood to consumers.’

a legitimate enterprise, no doubt.

on “fishcoin”

How EuroTether pumps demand across all exchanges. Since you all keep asking.

  • real coins bought by users using EURT are tradeable to other exchanges, where one is free to get real money in exchange for the coins, and then cash out in real fiat. profits from this can be used to buy more coins, on all exchanges, increasing demand, and leaving a bagholder somewhere with EURT.
  • arbitrage bots, and arbitrage in general, pull all exchanges up as demand lags. it is profitable to buy the cheaper coins (on non-EURT exchanges), and sell them elsewhere (on EURT exchanges), but this also increases demand on the cheaper, non-EURT exchanges for coins. thus, demand increases on all.
  • for a corrupt exchange, it might be possible to credit a real user’s Euro input with EURT, giving the exchange free euro currency to spend, and also said user EURT to spend. this effectively doubles the amount of Euros in play whenever a user swaps Euros for EURT.
  • a corrupt exchange might spend EURT on real coins to then be transferred and cashed out on other exchanges, giving them free real euros to spend as they wish, in addition to the euros deposited in their accounts by users in exchange for EURT.
  • using euros from all the above, a corrupt exchange could amass enough capital to further pump and dump the markets. this would mean that a corrupt exchange could speculate on predictable price movements, guaranteeing profits, that could then be pumped back into various coins.
  • crediting users with EURT on an exchange instead of crediting them with real currency is, i guess, much faster. users who would have been incapacitated waiting, are now able to spend more easily (demand, liquidity increases).
  • crediting a user with EURT instead of euros maintains an exchange’s real fiat reserves, that can then be spent elsewhere or hodld. there is evidence that corrupt exchanges operate on their own exchange, and other exchanges, as recordings held by Bitfinex’ed prove. more euros to spend means more demand for coins, in euros.
  • the above conspires to make the market look very rosy indeed. and people, in the wake of “increased demand” want to get their hands in, and start buying. the fake demand generates real demand, perhaps, and pumps all prices accordingly.

of course this is not sustainable.

since buying and selling of fake assets is going on, demand is actually decreasing as this practice continues (real fiat is being spread thinner and thinner as it is siphoned out the system) — the coins bought with EURT are eventually sold on other exchanges if they are to be “profitable”, in real fiat, i imagine.

what stops this decrease, or implosion, in the short term is real user hype, as people jump on the train to get involved, and further inflate the system with their real fiat.

and, if a pump is hard enough, real users start subsidising the EURT sell offs in other exchanges by putting their real money in. the hype is self-fulfilling.

so, this predicts that demand will spiral downward slowly in pumps and dumps and pumps and dumps, as real fiat leaves the exchanges, and until real money starts going back into the system (perhaps as a result of a pump described above).

all while a corrupt exchange probably slowly siphons the hodlers real fiat out of the system (the strong hands) and leaves a bunch of bag holders in place.

How EuroTether pumps demand across all exchanges. Since you all keep asking.


Bitcoin (2009) is a four star videogame about watching the numbers go up or down. Even if you have not bought it, you can still participate by speculating on whether the number will go up or down on cryptowat.ch.

There are some very committed bitcoin gamers who have “created” their own subculture, mythology around whether the numbers will go up or down, a mythology that consists of, as far as I can tell, four prophecies:

1) that it — the number — will definitely be going up soon, because the technology (‘blockchain’) is good; 2) that it will definitely be going down (but by not that much) soon, because the technology is good, but also flawed (“this is just a correction”); 3) the technology has no bearing on whether it goes up or down because the only thing people care about is the number going up (“sodl”); or 4) actually you should by this other version of bitcoin because it is super magic bitcoin that is better than bitcoin and you can also huff it, and also the guy who made it is an autistic genius who picks his nose, so, even though bitcoin will die, its tech will live on and be in demand (to the moon).

Me, personally, I think the number for everything will go down, because nobody cares about the technology, they only care about the number going up. I am number 3). Why?

Most people who start to play the number game notice that all the numbers for the supposedly different versions go up and down at exactly the same time. There are many explanations for this but the one that makes most sense to me is this: that the market treats all bitcoins (‘crypto’, short for ‘cryptocurrency’) the same, so when demand goes up, it goes up in terms of ‘demand for crypto’ and that is what’s reflected across all coins. All the other explanations are weird and stupid. That is the best one. And an economist told me it, so it must be true, because economics is a science. So we can probably cut out 4).

The second thing people notice is that the market is a load of dishonest shit. This manifests in volatility. There is a lot of fake trading and spoofing and painting the tape and wash trading and fake walls and fake currencies and shitcoins and ICOs (my favourite is bananacoin, that I personally investigated and found to be, you guessed it, complete bullshit), which make the market too volatile for bitcoin to be a store of value (it’s “purpose”, ostensibly) — and since the market cannot be regulated, there will be no remedy to this, regardless of which coin the market eventually decides to hold. Further, there are dedicated players of bitcoin who act together to manipulate the market. They operate in a chatroom called “whalepool” (or whatever), and other networks, in which they plan, when, exactly, to pump and dump bitcoin. This problem can never be fixed because, as I said, there’s no way to regulate this behaviour. Thus, bitcoin will be volatile for as long as people are able to coordinate amongst themselves, and its value is able to be speculated on i.e. forever.

The result is that whenever a transaction is made, say, in exchange for a good, you risk losing or gaining a great (great!) deal from minute to minute, contingent on the whims of a small group of currency holders (‘whales’), or the exchanges, who trade on each other’s exchanges, and also print fake money to spend on bitcoin.

What else? Last year the number went up quite a lot. It went from a small number to a very very big number. That was good for people who like seeing the number go up. Some believed the number would keep going up, forever, and told their grandma to put lots of money into the bitcoins (“invest”)… now poor grandma is losing a lot of money, hitting her grand-kiddlywinks. Oh dear! So, the long-short is this: I don’t think grandmas worldwide are going to be bitcoining again any time soon.

how to buy

And: what most people don’t know, is that the bitcoin number might have been first forced up by a power user on mountain gox, a now-dead exchange, so that they could get out of the game for quite a lot of money, or keep making money from bitcoin, by making the numbers go up or down and then “betting” against that. Hmm. One might infer from this initial jump that, of course, bitcoin is definitely “worth” what it is today for legitimate reasons and is not easy to manipulate whatsoever.

Currently, there is another moutain gox called bitfinex, who it would seem printed a lot of bitcoin money (‘tether’) and then used that money to make bitcoin go higher and higher, and then even higher! Also they lied about co-owning tether, at first. Then a big nob of theirs accidentally admitted it. And then he unadmitted it. And then a twitter person (‘Bitfinex’ed) went and looked at the paradise papers and found, as he suspected, them to be co-owned. Now that’s what I call legitimate! Anyway, they can’t keep printing money (800 million $ at the start of this year, 2.2 billion $ overall) now, because the US government is angry at them with their spectacles pushed right up.

For some reason, concurrent to this lack of new tether printing, the price of crypto is falling. What an unsolvable mystery!

(Also, some speculate bitfinex are shorting bitcoin currently to pump their reserves, and thus back tether.)

Anyway, regardless of the facts above, cheating at bitcoin is, to some people, fair, because it is not illegal (yet), and libertarian ideals are something worth mortgaging your house over.

The bitcoin game is a libertarian’s paradise: it is completely unregulated (as aforementioned), and thus is perfect and self correcting, as Milton Friedman and Ayn Rando imparted into our meek little mortal’s brains.

To ‘butters’ (players of bitcoin), cheating, lying, distorting, is ok, in the free market, because regulations are not freedom: they are regulations.

Instead: freedom is being at the mercy of corrupt, insolvent exchanges; freedom is warming the planet for internet coins; freedom is amassing large amounts of capital that so that you can rig markets, all of which is totally fine and good for bitcoin, because that’s the price of bringing down the useless banks and filthy obsolete fiat currency (as used by the illuminati).

Now. Hmm uhh what was I talking about?

Bitcoin the game is so popular something of a cult has formed around it. This is because bitcoin promises to allow people whose wages have gone down (around 10% in real terms) since Margaret ‘milk snatcher’ Thatcher was queen to get them back so that they might be able to retire without starving to death or freezing to death or not having an NHS to death, an NHS which is failure according to Donald ‘Bigly’ Trump, the leader of the Westernest nation with the worstest healthcare.

Another grievance:

Bitcoin, it is said, will go up in value indefinitely, because it has such a revolutionary technology, and that is why you should HODL (this is bitcoin speak for never cashing out; “you don’t lose if you never actualise your losses” so it goes). Also, the same people, though, will tell players, perhaps in the sidebar of the largest bitcoin internet gathering, for example, to invest ‘wisely’ because you cannot possibly know that it will go up certainly (but it definitely will). This is known, to some, as cognitive dissonance. And it goes, a little something, like this:

  1. Only invest what you can afford to lose.
  2. You will not lose because bitcoin is going to the moon and we will all be driving lambos.
  3. Don’t mortgage your house.
  4. Bitcoin will go up and we will be driving lambos to the moon.
  5. It’s your own fault you got rekt for investing more than you could afford.
  6. But also really it is actually going to the moon so you’ll be butthurt with FOMO if you sell now to pay your rent lol.
  7. Buy low, sell high.
  8. This is just a correction, it will shake out the weak hands.
  9. Shut up about tether: it’s just FUD.
  10. Don’t let your emotions dictate your trading! Ignore FUD!
  11. Why can’t I get my money out of Bitfinex!
  12. Next stop: the moon!
  13. So glad I bought in at 9600k again!
  14. Shut up noobs, its not about the money, I’m in this for freedom from the banks.
  15. Illuminati did it.
  16. Can’t believe this is over.
  17. I don’t care, I’m hodling regardless.

(and so on.)

Regardless of all this, To The Moon (2011) is a videogame that is sad. I am awarding it three stars out of four, because it has given me excuse to talk about bitcoin, the superior game.


Chile, 1973

so instead of sleeping i’ve been going over some important (economic) history, declassified today:


UK documents re: US-backed coup d’etat of in Chile, 1973.

On the coup:

“The coup was carried out efficiently and with a cold-blooded, surgical approach untypical of the Chilean character… It is likely that casualties run into the thousands, certainly it has been far from a bloodless coup”

“Mr Davis [US ambassador] said that these [US-Chilean relations] were of course bedevilled by the nationalisation of American copper interests in Chile. The United States government were concerned, not only about the loss to the copper companies, but also about the precedent that the Chilean action would set for the nationalisation of other big American interests throughout the developing world.”

After seizing power, Britain’s ‘long-standing friend’ (Thatcher’s words, 1999) and fascist Augusto Pinochet set about brutalising the population:

“Unfortunately, there is (as you have pointed out to us) a good deal of fact behind the atrocity stories and that alone makes it impossible for us to counter the propaganda… We can do little about the press… but you can assure them [Chileans] that we and our Ministers do understand the facts… and that HMG has taken a bolder line publicly than any other government in Europe about having normal relations with Chile”.

“On number of casualties says reports of many thousands dead can be discounted but that a confidential figure given to the embassy by the armed forces saying 500 is “doubtful” and probably higher. “There are lots of stories of deliberate killings and brutalities, though these are also hard to pin down… There were reports of summary executions of some of those who resisted the Armed Forces, and the large-scale round-up of government supporters and sympathisers, particularly foreigners. Several thousand were held in the football stadium where some received very rough treatment. As a result, there were many frightened people in Santiago and Latin American embassies were soon filled with those seeking asylum”.

Concurrently, a team of (US trained) radical free market economists (the Chicago boys) implemented Milton Friedman’s “reforms” – they included: privatisation, deregulation, smashing of unions, removal of protectionist measures, exposure to foreign capital (speculative trading, investment etc).

As for the results? Thatcher considered it “a remarkable success”. Arnold Harberger – a Chicago school economist, who studied under Friedman – disagreed: in 1976 he published ‘Economic Genocide in Chile. Open Letter to Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger’. (linked below).


We should note, prior to the coup, now declassified documents reveal ‘economic war’ to be Nixon’s intention, ordering the CIA to, in his words, “make the economy scream” in Chile to “prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him” (source below). It is in this context we should consider the joint intelligence committee’s assessment of the pre-coup government in 1971:

“The Allende government has been directing its economic efforts primarily at effecting a redistribution of income. Prices have been held down and wages and salaries have been allowed to increase. Inflationary pressures have built up and business growth and confidence deteriorated”.

“Allende himself is committed to proving that socialism can be brought to Chile in a peaceful and democratic fashion. He and his supporters will doubtless be anxious to prove to Latin America in particular that their chosen method will work… The success or failure in economic terms of the Chilean ‘experiment’ could have considerable significance for developments elsewhere on the continent; and failure, which cannot be ruled out at present, could thoroughly discredit the way of democratic Socialism, following the readily apparent failure of the Cuban revolution in these terms”.


And what to do about it all?

“Meanwhile, the current regime [Pinochet] has infinitely more to offer British interests than the one which preceded it. The new leaders are unequivocally on our side and want to do business, in its widest sense, with us. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will respond”.



Chile, 1973


In the simpler times of Halo 3 — 2007 — we could participate in a videogameic system that had a beginning, middle, and end. This was known as a ‘story’. We would then, following this, perhaps on a night with friends, with beer, attempt to master the competitive implications of the mechanical themes established previously, culminating in (1) high fives or (2) thrown controllers. After a while, we would stop playing the videogame and go do something else.

A decade later it so falls, for financial reasons, that we should be incentivised to continue at the things beyond their natural death — enter the replicate wage.

I’ll briefly describe how it is formulated; how, especially in the hands of corporate interests, it conspires to devalue the gamer’s perception of their agency; and finally, what we should do about it (displacement).

In Destiny 2 — 2017 — we are given a box every so often for participating. If the box does not open instantly, we must visit a hub, in which resides a person (“cryptarch”) who exists to open boxes. When opened, we receive a random item the same colour as the box. Without these items, we cannot progress. These boxes have no capital value outside the system (other than they take time to acquire).

At the twenty hour mark, we are given a white box (“bright engram”), which we then continue to recieve every few hours.

To open a white box, we must visit Eververse Lady (not the cryptarch, though near the cryptarch). When opened, a white box gives us a random smattering of (extremely) unique and conspicuous items. Eververse Lady, in the same breath, and quite conspicuously, also offers us ‘silver‘, at the top right of the screen, in a flashing rectangle: [BUY SILVER]. ‘Silver’ can be exchanged for white boxes. With a (quite effortless) click, we see it costs just under five real pounds for five-hundred ‘silver’. Five-hundred silver buys three white boxes (one box alone costs two hundred silver).

Roughly, then, two hours of player effort is two hundred silver, which is two pounds. Or, in other words, we are compensated one nominal pound per hour for participation. To be clear: we save six hours, if we pay four pounds seventy nine for five hundred ‘silver’.

Bungie was caught decreasing  (and then further decreasing) the frequency of white boxes. This is functionally — within the game’s economy — the same as increasing the value of capital, except in one crucial regard: the price of capital stays the same (in nominal terms, and in extra-videogame real terms). To make this clearer, for the same expenditure, we can now save more time.

That gamers are annoyed about this development, seems something of a paradox. Can’t they just play more? And if games are fun, isn’t that a good thing?

To “solve” this, I propose that (1) the gamer considers this theft of their time; (2) that compensating them for their time (through incentives) has a devaluing effect on their perception of the inherent value of the actions they perform; And (3) it’s not fair that, considering they all had the same start in the videogame (paid fifty pounds), for some players, through external capital supply, to be able to “spend” less time and yet have nicer things than others.

(That a libertarian or conservative gamer might adopt the third position re: his idealised videogameic system is something of a testament to the lived dissonance of his ideology.)

And, consider that the majority — perhaps all — of gamers, when made conscious of the decreased value of their time, are outraged, and oppose the system doggedly. (There may be hope for socialism yet.)

On December 5th, 2017, Bungie will release Destiny 2’s first expansion. To gain access to the continued relevance of their now spent time, the consumer will need to pay. I suggest not doing that.

Instead, perhaps it’s time to unionise. Not really. I suggest doing literally anything else. Which might include displacing the anger at your replicate struggle against big business with an understanding of the real and actual struggle of those who have no choice, for survival, but to engage with the theft of their value and time.

Anyway, it is certainly interesting to see in a microcosm what happens when big business (capital) is in competition with the gamer for the value of their time — it acts in secret to take it away.

The rest of the game is largely Halo 3, by the way.



Thanks Harry for taking the time to write a comment. I will try to address it in bits!

I think that the view of gamers being a cast-aside subsect of society who have failed to reach the lofty heights of “success” is one held by many, and one that frustrates me. For better or worse, I do think this is slowly starting to shift as those of us that grew up around videogames age and infiltrate the ranks of “elders” en masse.

I agree – I think perhaps I mean something like ‘extremely committed gamers’, or ‘those who define themselves by videogames’ (which neither of us would want to define ourselves as probably). Basically: a distinct subset of reactionaries who consume to the exclusion of all else. Whether or not this represents the average “gamer” is not exactly the point I’m trying to make — and though I agree that referring to ‘the gamer’ is possibly misleading, I do not mean to refer to ‘all those who play videogames’. I’m also keen to point out that I don’t view them as unsuccessful in the absolute, only that they (gamers of the compulsive and reactionary subset) are “unsuccessful”, and that the kind of success we all aspire to under late capitalism is hard to come by. In other words, the kind of gamer that can healthily manage their hobby, is not the gamer that I am referring to (for they do not define themselves as The Gamer or by videogames — they have other hobbies etc).

“The cult of videogames is less magnetic” is an interesting statement. Speaking as an “ex-gamer” from the “other side”, I feel that my life’s plethora of other activities are somewhat distractions from what I would “rather be doing” which is indulging in gaming. To me, playing video games is exactly that, it is a treat that I indulge in when I’ve completed enough of the more tedious activities that seem to have forced themselves into my life. That is of course ridiculous as I’m fully aware that I opted-in to most of these activities, but nevertheless I can’t help but find myself drawn to games when I want to relax. Why else would I pull out a Switch on the tube?

This is a good point, and I agree! Though it perhaps makes my point for me — videogames are an easy form of the success that is so much [edit: WOOPS] harder to achieve elsewhere, which is precisely what makes videogamic systems so tempting to the committed gamer (or extreme gamer).

I don’t think the gamer and the non-gamer are that different. The non-gamer also loses a number of friends from school to university, and from university thereafter. Whilst many more acquaintances are made through this journey, barely any of them could be considered friends. Ironically, the friends that remain are the only ones that share (or shared) in the common pursuit of gaming. Some non-gamers feel just as lonely as the gamers, the only difference being groups of non-friend acquaintances that they are each interacting with.

I also agree with you also on this point. My argument is not that this is not the case for all people, only that it is specifically extra damaging for the committed gamer, whose cultural currency is particularly depreciative (is particularly alienating and unsustainable) — and though I agree that “regular” people are destined to lose friends, similar to the gamer, their stake in society is not through videogames, and it is this personal identity as The Gamer that opens him up to the alienation and damage that results (for he has no extra-videogame safety-net).

The in-game monetisation + false economic systems found within gaming can be described as extensions of the capitalistic “real-world” seeking to extract real-world value out of un-real game worlds. The non-gamer that buys the limited edition adidas tracksuit is a king within certain circles.

Pretty much!

The expenditure of whales on “functionless tat” dumbfounds those that do not see value in the system the whale has bought into. Imagine a virtual world which generates more value through the work done by players in its internal economy than the game generates through monetisation in the real world; a virtual world which lasted for decades rather than until next year’s version is released.

I completely agree again. We are probably slightly talking past each other here. I can understand why the system itself is compelling to the regular consumer — I guess I’m trying to highlight its absurdity. A further problem I have: that the extreme gamer may be coerced by “failure” elsewhere (the system he is the victim of) into seeking his pseudo or performative “gold plated” status. He is impelled into a life of consumption (extreme consumption) and hard labour that gives him only performative status, when similar grinding elsewhere would at least meet his basic social needs (friends, food, health).

Whilst some of these games exist already, they are a couple of exceptions floating in a sea of short-lived money vacuums. Until game worlds that are rich/deep enough to provide people with long lasting meaning and value to their actions become the norm, and the internal work economy of those worlds is significantly stronger than the monetisation of them, the majority will continue to have this disapproving reaction to those that are seen walking around in-game wearing legendary armour. I hope that one day this will happen, and the monetisation of video games will shift towards one of covering the costs of supporting the game in the real world, rather than using them as a tool to generate the “real value” (i.e. the profit in the real world).

This is what I find a little bit difficult to square ethically, provided my arguments elsewhere — the prospect of being able to commit one’s life to a videogamic system that could promise to absorb upwards of 10 years of the gamer’s life is not better but in fact worse. The promise of lasting social status through cosmetics that requires one to commit their time and money (money in exchange to labour for bits of tat, as I put it pejoratively) risks enslaving The Extreme Gamer with the prospect of not just a virtual system, but a virtual life. The argument here seems to be that the scope of the capitalistic system to which the gamer can commit is, in fact, not comprehensive enough. I find this, given everything else I’ve argued, perhaps totally not cool man.

The inclusion of morality systems and “choose your path” facades, could be seen as poorly executed and insufficient provisions for a gamer that is actually seeking true consequence in games. I do believe that gamers seek meaning in their games but there is a failing to provide that at the moment, and so the whole thing descends into a pit of “well then, I will become the most hated villain in all of Albion”.

Yes! I had exactly that in mind!

I think that true consequence will never be felt by a player until 2 things are present. The first is that the outcomes cannot be scripted. If a decision leads down a forked path (of limited outcomes), then inevitably the outcome will always feel false. There is an argument that only simulated worlds where players are interacting with other unpredictable unscripted players or (currently unavailable) super AI, can actions have consequences that feel real. The second thing that needs to be present is for the player to be invested in the game world and the character. Whilst some games have shown glimmers of this, I think this comes back to the previous point that short-lived game worlds with no real work economy do not provide sufficient value to gamers.

Yes and no! Perhaps “more meaning” is difficult in that we are conflating meaning with time. And though I want to agree that things that last longer are more meaningful, that is not always the case (see, parachuting or something — although I guess those memories will also last a long time; but are those memories what make it valuable…?). I sort of already addressed this earlier, in that I’m not sure how I feel about increasing the scope of the capitalistic system (across time). But, if the medium, as you are arguing, can become less vapid (as I put it) then perhaps there can be an inherent value to the videogameic system outside of the currently exploitative one — they can “ascend” to something else (I hesitate at “art”). If this inherent value comes to exist, and the value is not predatory or financially exploitative, then there is hope for the medium (re: the regular gamer) yet (there certainly is). For the Extreme Gamer, though, I have reservations.

I think that this is what makes pouring ever increasing amounts of time into gaming feel hollow – diving into an alternate world to find purpose and value, but instead finding a scripted interactive experience that gives the illusion of control and value. The irony of this all is that videogames would not be enjoyable to me if I didn’t initially believe the illusions of purpose and control going into them. I think it’s this illusion that makes video games more engrossing than other forms of media. When the illusion breaks down is when I start to stop playing and move on.

Yes! I didn’t consider this. Videogames are definitely illusory — for you, when this illusion breaks down, you stop; for the “extreme gamer” however, the illusion is both there and not there, I am arguing.  I think this all depends if we can agree on what increasing the “value” of the experience is — I would be interested to find out what you think further on this point.

The difference perhaps between the gamer and the non-gamer is that the non-gamer also finds the “real-world” hollow. In struggling to find value and purpose in a capitalist world full of smarmy peacocks that the gamer doesn’t relate to, they turn to alternate worlds in their search. When these worlds fail the gamer, they don’t have their value in the “real-world” to turn back to. The non-gamers may seem like they are running towards capitalist success, but I think a more accurate description would be scrambling to find things that give them purpose and then anchoring themselves to them as quickly as possible.

I like this argument. I think we define capitalistic success differently, but we fundamentally agree on this point — and I am perhaps slightly nastily broad; I don’t nail it down entirely. Capitalistic success is extra those things which you describe. I think the things that we derive “purpose” (as you have defined it) from are necessarily enabled by capital, but they are not capitalistic success. That is, we are running towards capital in the hope that it provides for us the things we want, but those things in and of themselves are not capitalistic success — this is an important distinction for it shifts the blame from capitalist to capital and I am certainly not clear enough on this point. Further this, what I mean is that we are beholden to it (capital) and I mean no ill will to anybody who seeks it out — I am angry at capital, not those of us who operate under it, for being the only force through which we can “have a life” so to speak. To keep banging the drum: capitalistic success is not a personal pejorative, but an indictment of the concept of capital, and — how like an object with sufficient mass — it acquires a gravitational field of its own, pulling us all towards it in an amoral, all consuming blob that we are powerless to resist (both the gamer and non gamer). It seems hardly fair that only a few can derive its benefits.

One day I hope that game worlds will be rich and provide purpose to the masses seeking it. Until then, I will continue to hoard things/beings that rely upon me, so that I can (selfishly?) continue to feel some sense of meaning.

Please see above for my clarification. It is not you who is selfish but capital itself! Much like, I hate to bring him up, especially at the end here, Richard Dawkins, whose book is not about the SELFISH gene (a one gene that is selfish), but the selfish GENE (genes are selfish in their attempt to replicate).



It is of great concern that my life’s constant is videogames. Were the subculture less vapid I would feel otherwise. As it stands, the community at large — “gamers” — are little more than a rag-tag group of cultural dropouts, addicted to diminishing returns as late capitalism erodes what semblance of non-monetary joy they (I hesitate at ‘we’, for reasons that will become apparent) previously derived in isolation from capitalist excesses elsewhere (school). These excesses, as far as I can discern, are: preference for attaining material wealth; external presentation over inner reality (really existing lifereally existing happiness); comparative materialism (“I feel poor.”); petty bureaucracy (infantilisation by higher-ups); targeted advertising in conjunction with self-submitted, coerced data (attention economy); alienation; and work-esteem (“what do you do, and for how much?”).

Post Homo Reaganusindividual capitalistic success (fame, wealth, power, stuff) is necessarily stillborn for the many, for the predicate of capital is capital, and capital is, most likely, in the forever ratcheting hands of the few. Nowhere has this absurdity of riches been more effortlessly distilled than at Grenfell Tower, whose victims, according to new-Thatcherite Theresa May, must pay their way out of future suffering — all in a borough that is not exactly dirt poor itself. Contrast this to the members of parliament, who at the expense of the tax-payer, have self-designated 1.3 million of the Magic Money Tree’s finest to pay for Westminster’s new sprinklers (and one billion to stay in “power” at the behest of women haters). Since – absurdly given this context — we believe ourselves responsible for our destiny (‘can’), we must surely know it is our fault when the proverbial fire strikes, and we should have done differently (‘ought’): “if only you had invested wisely (perhaps with a small loan of a million dollars), you would not have burned to death.” — such attitudes are performatively condemned, of course.

I am not about to say that videogames are some bohemian counter-cultural refuge from the above described geohell. In fact, I am suspicious that they are a distillation of The Man’s core tenets: breed hogs; get more hogs (buy the hoggest machine, coming next year!). Videogaming is (contingent on failure to integrate into a system of ever decreasing probabilities of integration) a subsidiary, supplementary replicate capitalism for those unable or unwanting of (but usually rejected by) capitalist excess.

The White Male Gamer is the archetypal (and perhaps foremost) consumer of videogames in the west (I specify for it is my field). And it is here we might consider his relationship to the above described. Could his attitude — namely, rampant consumption conjoined with hostility to any and all criticism of the (“his”) medium (especially from women) — be not the product of some divinely imbued assholeishness, but something else?

Consider that the contemporary social commentary to which the White Male Gamer is exposed (mainly through rightist youtube content, and his no doubt overbearing parents) is primarily at pains to point out his position as one of Most Potential Success (highest privilege, available capital; isolation from “adversity”); following this, will he not feel a greater burden with regards to his eventual lacking position (final destination), and dismiss the probability of the aforementioned (and indoctrinated) likely success as necessarily false? (For he knows his status, and It Is Not Good). An ounce of empathy, here, enlightens us as to the internal frisson that is the self proclaimed struggle of the White Male Gamer (or at least, those who unironically and proudly identify as such). I offer that a sensitivity to the gamer’s self-knowledge of doubly earned low status may be the driving force behind his reactionary movements — and that they spew forth in a seemingly alien nature (dressing up as a frog; wearing shit hats; studying the blade; et cetera.) is testament to the fact that they are wholly outsiders (perceived and felt).

Let us pause to carve out a definition from the above.

1) The Gamer has an enabling capital supply (for example, parental or state-driven), vis. duh.

2) The Gamer is rejected (willingly or otherwise) of late capitalist excess (power, possessions, elite schooling).

3) Due to the above rejection, the gamer has little or no extra-videogame contact, especially with women (perhaps as a result of all boys school, or through self-imposed exile as a result of painful peer-group or familial rejections).

Here we can infer then that feminist critique a la Sarkeesian is not, as the rest of the sane world sees it, harmless (and constructive), but instead, a very attack on the gamer’s existential essence – who are we to deny the moral sanctity of their final crutch in a world that hates them so?

I am friends with many ex-gamers. I would say, intuitively, that a good number “quit” not on purpose. Most got jobs, girlfriends, a dog, university, or some combination thereof. That is to say: the factors that conspire to pull the gamer from his sphere are those akin to societal success; and, conversely, any relapse is a reaction to fissures in the aforementioned: relationship troubles, depression, anxiety, redundancy, and so on. It’s perhaps possible to infer that from the lofty heights of societal “success”, the cult of videogames is less magnetic. I remember, specifically, a friend at the age of sixteen declaring that his videogaming was inversely proportional to his social life, which contains within an interesting sub-claim: that videogames are not a social life, or, at least, that the two are ontologically incompatible. Ironically, this was coming from a friend I gained through videogames. Were it not for our cooperative Halo 3 endeavours, we would perhaps not be as good friends today as we might have been. Whatever the case, it is interesting to sit here and cast looks around the wreckage — though, what I will say, is that videogames do, discernibly, provide us with a social life in the sense that they are cultural currency, but — and this is crucial — this currency is unsustainable, as it is inherently depreciative, and, as a common language, relies on those of us without extra-videogame commitments to be sustained. The gamer loses a subset of friends from school to university, for example, and then a further subset when of that subset those who remain acquire partners. And on and on regressively (dogs to children to death). Perhaps in this way videogames are self-selecting and self-reinforcing for those inclined to emotional distress: without their friends, on whom they are vampirically dependent to sustain the cultural currency of their pathology (I am disinclined to refer to videogames as a hobby), their alienation increases (unless they can find a reliable method of generating a rolling friend stock; itself a transactional and depressing prospect).

This inevitable emotional distress and resultant anhedonia is highly desirable for the beneficiaries of late capitalism, as it successfully redistributes what meagre income the gamer might have to a select few. Let us consider the basement dwelling gamer archetype — he is, in essence, a parasite: he does not work (often stated as “lazy”); he uses either the state or his parents to fund his consumption; he does not go outside; he gets fat, consumes unhealthy food; he has no aspirations; he does not learn; he does not read; he stagnates mentally; and so on. And yet, he is highly motivated in some regards. He might spend some one-thousand hours pouring over some particularity or other of some videogame’s system. He may have overwhelming and esoteric knowledge with regards to the opportunity cost of certain minutiae within a videogame’s subsystems. He may create forum posts detailing the relative merits of this or that thing within a videogame. He may be well respected amongst his peers. He may feel completely and utterly alone. It is in this context that we might be able to sense a misdirection of talents and capabilities. Clearly, somewhere lurking within the gamer, is the capacity to work or do mindblowing, soul-destroying shit (when looked at from the outside in). Why this is not directed to themselves, but instead the system that they partake in, remains something of a mystery.

Perhaps it is that they choose the system, willingly become its slave, and necessarily succeed. Videogames, after all, have a vested interest in a lacking fail state, and must therefore — if they are to be successful — cushion their users of any potential failure, or at least make it so sweet as to convert it from pain to pleasure (Hume’s Dark Souls). It is interesting to note that for the international tyrannies who pump the funds into these softwares, their fail state is the loss of the gamer’s attention — specifically, having him leave the house and demand a life better than one of amoral and pointless consumption.

The art form (deception) is now fully subsumed by large-scale transnational private tyrannies (unless one is to distribute software independently, a near impossible task without running up against some Microsoft, Valve, or Paypal tax), each of whom are interested not in the medium itself, but their shareholders; indeed, to be “indie” is not the moniker it once was, as large corporations increasingly incorporate talent into their all consuming blob (as witnessed at E3 where they throw awkwardly to The Indies). An interesting exception is perhaps the wealthiest company (per person), Valve, which is beholden only unto itself (and, of course, capital). It is, however, not a structural aberration in that it has a near infinite source of income as a result of an extremely powerful (transnational) monopoly (all of PC gaming), and its owners and beneficiaries are afforded the luxury of infinite control: what amounts to a tax on all transactions through their (self-declared) ‘service’ (Steam), which must have a near one-hundred percent adoption rate among PC gamers. In an attempt to emulate this (really existing ingenuity), or more likely, circumvent The Steam Tax in search of larger slices of pie, rival tyrannies have produced their own versions — ‘clients’ — such as Origin and Uplay, much to the irritation of the community. Nonetheless, Steam (Valve) et al are rogue states, operating outside of the law with regards to consumer rights (Steam only fairly recently implemented a (not comprehensive enough) refund policy in the U.K.); especially problematic is under-aged gambling. It is also perhaps not a coincidence that Steam no longer develops videogame software.

One need only spend five minutes in a Videogame Office to see that ingenuity (“market research”) constitutes collating the existing product and asking, how may we best replicate this, so that the consumer might not notice? Yes, it is possible to draw up charts, collate various mechanics, and cross-reference with metacritic scores (review aggregates), and more importantly sales data — though, this does nothing to explain the success of New Ideas to corporate interests, and only confounds when a product of sufficient corporate mimicry fails. There are also lingering questions with regards to the ongoing monetisation of videogames, when compared to other mediums. Increasingly, it is asked: how can we best monetise the user per hour of play? It seems a reasonable line of argument. A film costs ten pounds and lasts two hours. A videogame between ten and one-hundred pounds (with or without added content), and lasts upwards of one thousand hours (Street Fighter IV). Increasingly, the answer to the Revenue Stream Problem is either to 1) cut up the product and resell parts of it at a later date; 2) sell “consumables” (items that provide temporary “bonuses”) — often the incentive here is to reduce time spent at the mercy of a predatory videogameic system; and 3) market the game as an ongoing service and charge accordingly, either through downloadable content, monthly subscriptions, or cosmetic items. These cosmetic items are often probability contingent, and lead to the problematic exploitation of those who are vulnerable to gambling addiction or the lure of replicate high status (these victims are known as ‘whales’ in sociopathic circles), with users betting their real money on the probability of an item appearing in-game (the list of guilty parties is endless), or just forking out extreme lumps in order to blood-stoneishly role play as high status — all the above culminates in something like The Sims Social.

Cosmetics are of endless fascination to any of us concerned with videogames as a substitute for capitalistic success for the conventionally unsuccessful, in that they — videogameic items — are a replicate conspicuous consumption. They are commonly publicly adorned in hub worlds, lobbies. Unlike real life, though, it is often assumed by those of us extra-videogame, that a player wielding high status items is, in fact, a kissless virgin who spends their life grinding (“slaving”) in their basement (citation forthcoming), or, who has spent too much money within the system and thus is a dunce for having done so, especially considering they could have bought something real instead. They are, in reality, a symbol of low status. Further this, the videogameic item often serves no other purpose than to look “good” — it is performatively high status — and is without function. Consider that, IRL, A King’s crown conspicuously denotes he is King, and can make Kingly decisions. Conversely, in a videogame, a King’s Crown is ‘Item No. #467 Blue King’s Crown’, and serves only to remind us of the owner’s commitment to the system which birthed it — he is certainly not a king in any conventional sense. Perhaps there is a collective want, a tacit suspension of disbelief by those privy to any videogameic cosmetic system: “if we all believe; it is true”. Indeed, I am not disputing that cosmetics are highly sought after or “valuable”. There are also rare cosmetic items, acquired through arduous, incessant and mindless work, hundreds of hours of hard toil, or sometimes pure luck, that gamers concurrently disavow and seek. Further, forking out is often the prerequisite for participation (World of Warcraft subscriptions). We (rational outsiders) are here no doubt confounded — though is there anything more capitalist than paying to mindlessly toil in exchange for functionless tat that will ultimately be rendered obsolete.

Aside from cosmetics and the like, there is a fouth way, that proves profitable, but does not increase or project increasing profitability, and thus is of little interest to large corporations (EA, Activision Blizzard, Ubisoft) beholden to shareholders (short term gains). CD Projekt Red comes to mind with their Witcher series; and also Monster Hunter, that — despite Capcom’s corporate ownership — seems to be content singling out a particular market, and then taking a good slice once every few years. This rewards all involved; the creators, for manufacturing their niche, and fans, who enjoy updates infrequent enough to encourage (genuine) excitement and deter fatigue.

We might conclude this portion slightly ill at ease. I have established, I hope, that The Gamer is beholden to two predatory capitalistic systems. The first is doctrinal, in that an individual’s beliefs with regards to their relative successes and failures lead them to consumption of videogames in lieu of conventional capitalistic success (as defined at the outset), and these beliefs are necessarily impossible to reconcile with the system as failure is probable. Second, to compensate, The Gamer then seeks a subsidiary, replicate capitalistic success (videogamic system, which are, in essence, manufactured capitalistic success), which is itself beholden to predatory transnational tyrannies, whose incentives align with short term profits to the cost of the consumer (exploitation).

Modern videogamic systems are primarily designed to incorporate a selfish agent in control of an avatar at the (fictional, and often mathematical) centre of a universe (game-state) — all calculations within the engine (universe) are player centric (be it his mouse cursor, button presses or his avatar). This replicates, more or less, one’s sense of self. It also replicates the level of control that we intuit. When this perceived control bears failure in real life, the potential for one to become a gamer increases (this is the case that I’m concerned with). We need not delve here into a discussion of free will (‘control’; whatever) only to say that we generally feel that we have it, and yet it is debatable what the process of actually having it entails. Regardless, videogames afford us far greater control than real, lived experiences, as within the system is a guaranteed end state (it is predictably deterministic) and potential outcomes are often explicitly stated on screen (do x; get y).

There are varying degrees of interaction, agency within videogameic systems. I would argue that the simple overarching theme is one of expected dependable certainty, communicated from the designer to the gamer. And where the former fails, the latter provides. By way of example, let us consider the choice architecture of the science-fiction role playing game Mass Effect, in which a player is permitted to make decisions regarding the fate of certain characters through dialogue choices (and sometimes in-game behaviours) — it is marketed as a “choose your own adventure” style game. Comically, in its system, “good” dialogue is presented explicitly for selection as blue (“paragon”) and “bad” as red (“renegade”). Similarly binary systems exist elsewhere, for example in Fable 2, Fallout 3 and many moderner videogames — though, it is increasingly unfashionable to present morality as such (the systems may in all actuality still be binary). In the wild, Mass Effect’s choice architecture is illuminating of the gamer’s attitude to control, in that — (as deduced from my own lived history, from actual history, and contemporary commentary) — two outcomes are unacceptable. 1) that of causal unpredictability (a favourite character died when you sent them to “safety”, as you did not know it was in fact dangerous.); and 2) when the decision selected does not result in difference (for example, everybody dies in the end, regardless of your behaviour).

The first is essentially the question “how was I supposed to know that would happen when I did x?”. IRL, a good response at least entertains the infinite void: consider “how was I supposed to know the cat was hiding in the washing machine?”. You might respond “you should have checked for the cat”, but the fact is you didn’t check, and that still leaves you asking why it was that you did not check, which prompted the question in the first place. In a videogame, conversely, there is a tangible designer, and that designer has power to dictate the rules, and in this sense there is only one possibility: that which has been determined by the designer (and either he told you, or he didn’t). Perhaps, then, it is the designer’s responsibility not to generate red herrings. In other words, if everything the gamer perceives tells him one thing, and then that proves to be a lie (misdirection), then he is entitled to feeling betrayed. That the entirety of fiction is a misdirection is something of an irony lost here. The answer to “how was I supposed to know?” is, for the gamer, “you should have told me!”. This bears no correlation to lived experience. How can one expect to be told, exactly, the potential consequences of their actions — who might we ask to explain, a priori, these available potentials. Often, regardless of our best efforts, good intentions have bad consequences. Though I do not deny this gap in knowledge is frustrating — be it in videogame form or lived experience — it is interesting to note the gamer’s demand for predictable consequences in absolute moral terms.

The second asks “if the same thing happens anyway, whats the point of engaging?” This is perhaps harder to answer, for it is a bad question — might we just wheel out an accusation that the gamer is a lazy sophist?

Years ago, in another life, I lauded the videogame The Walking Dead for failing to provide the gamer with any conventionally meaningful decisions (consequence) towards its end – the protagonist was destined to die, regardless of whether I chose to amputate his arm. I argued, that because of this futility, was I afforded a greater truth: reflection. Similarly, in lesser moments (with lower stakes) I chose between whether to say “oh shit” or “damn” which, although seemingly inconsequential, were pure acts of role play. Perhaps we can dismiss the second question, for the game is not asking “what do you want to happen” it is asking you to pause and reflect (how are you feeling?). Is the situation bad enough to warrant an “oh shit” or is it only a “damn”? Instead of thinking that the choice between whether or not to amputate an arm to stop the spread of a deadly disease is only valuable in terms of its consequence, might we do better to remember who is making that decision, and for what reasons?

That’s me. Regardless, what is certain, historically speaking, is that the gamer is consequentialist. By this I mean that he will demand heads roll if it is shown, objectively, that he does not matter.

Is there any greater irony than a player who seeks control, yet also wants to be dictated exactly what the content and consequence of each and every decision will be, thus causing him to enact a framework or model when making “decisions”, without bringing any critical thought to bear on the decisions themselves, for example, enacting the Good Model, or the Bad Model, or the model that gets them x reward. I link to the Mass Effect morality guide again above, purely because it is a fascinating artefact of gamer culture. It is both pure and tragic.

The above describes how videogamic “choice” systems relate to the gamer. Where life is vague and messy, filled with uncontrollable and inevitable failures, videogames should instead be concrete and consequential. And when they fail on this point, they are not just “bad” videogames — they are a betrayal.

Extreme consumption of videogameic systems results from the disconnect between the gamer’s intuition that something of his experience is increasingly hollow — as observed in the anhedonia of those who are in its throes — and the denial that that is the case in his continuation at the videogameic systems; and though it is understandable that he seeks permanent relief from the tide of capitalistically induced emotional distress, the solution is not the same but more. He cannot ignore that what he does feels hollow (it is not real capitalistic success, only a substitute), and yet turns to increased videogame consumption to further quiet his mind.

What sustains this dissonance? I suggest a lazy nihilism: “though it feels as though I am hollow, that is true of all things, therefore, regardless of experience, it will feel hollow, so I might as well continue playing videogames.”

Consider that, though he claims to believe all actions to be hollow in the absolute, he behaves as though that is not the case: he is motivated to perform actions in videogames. It would be rather odd to act at all if he did not believe in any kind of causal effect, or at least, in a spectrum of hollowness along which he places actions within videogames above actions extra-videogame — remember, his claim is that all actions are equally hollow. All I am saying is that he does not act as though this is the case. If you are unconvinced, try to remove his videogameic supply, and watch him embrace hypocrisy.

Whatever of this, I am inclined to agree with his sentiment, however. I put it to you at the start of this essay that, as I have described it, what constitutes success in late, selfish capitalism is necessarily impossible for the many, for it requires as a prerequisite for one to have already amassed large swathes of capital — all this, in the shadow of Dear Leaders, who are, by all reasonable accounts, fucking clueless. What is this if not a hollowing prospect? And is the success that he (subconsciously) so aspires to also not empty, vapid? Faced with such overwhelming, insurmountable odds, the gamer responds the only way he knows how: compulsive consumption.

That this consumption causes him to mentally stagnate, and isolate himself from the intellectual world (“I don’t read; it bores me”) is a happy accident for the perpetuation of his struggle. The videogameic system offers him nothing challenging, and certainly will not present him a mirror in which to analyse his preconceptions as to what, exactly, has caused him to feel a failure, which is, I state again, a failure that is highly probable. Regardless, he is not a failure; he has been failed.

I have argued that videogames are reactionarily magnetic; that is to say, there is a distinct subset of humans who become susceptible to videogameic systems — gamers — in response to capitalistic rejection. I have also described aspects of the pathology as laborious (“doing mindblowing shit”) — and that this is partly compensated for by perceived absolute control and consequence (centrality, power), though I have also attempted to shine some light on how this is probably not control or consequence in practice. Knowing this, and further, that they are living an increasingly dissonant fiction, the (eventually) “extreme” gamer becomes pathological in his consumption, which compounds his already burgeoning anhedonia and emotional distress as it obfuscates what he knows: that he is a failure. (‘He knows his status, and It Is Not Good’).

To remedy this, the gamer must examine his doctrine or face permanent misery. This is no quiet ultimatum: the gamer must reject his selfish capitalism.