mckenzie wark, players – discourse
mckenzie wark, players
2025 · 1,472 wordsthe transaction is infinite, but the transformation (the social inscription of value) is absent.
prompt gamespace → no outside · turn infinite accumulation → payment without settlement · residue payment with no settlement
- prompt
- gamespace → no outside
- turn
- infinite accumulation → payment without settlement
- residue
- payment with no settlement
- scale
- source → 1,472 words
wark also gets to boast her early inspirations that would later draw on her more mature work much like almost everyone else in this cohort, but her text appears more schizophrenic than her peers, for better or worse, as she ends up fighting herself on top of the text in an inability to decide whether its supposed to be a critique of the ideology of play masked by capitalism or the question of the real and how the gamespace and its limits defines the inner structural tendencies, leading to a directionless - albeit refreshing read.
sorry for this. john girrard's work would have been more impressive if he created the digital screen and digital animation in real time, entirely all by himself. now, it's contingent on spaces existing in these ways, i mean, when he places the screens down next to locations, seemingly as if the path is continuing there, but it's simply an illusion, because it doesnt. and even if it didnt, it wouldnt be the same path. we need girrard to open a portal for us, but he's not there yet, he's also by the far the closest we've gotten to that point.
but i say we, as if he's doing it for some wider human public - of course not - this is all simply existing because it can. that's the weird thing about all of this. now all of this seems like a huge ramble, and yeah, i don't know. but why not? this is how i can find myself to interact with what i've seen. yes, it's fascinating. i guess the point is that he's still caught in the representational trap (screen as surface) rather than an ontological break (screen as fold in the real). and now, moving on, games since the point wark wrote what she did no longer are economically-fantastically neoliberal, they in fact have largely moved to showing hierarchical differences. lil yachty, elon musk and drake pay subscriptions to online services that allow them to cheat in games they've already bought, or for someone else to play on their accounts, or to enter higher meta-games (of gambling) and so on. in-game payments help progress you forward, your initial standings just don't matter anymore.
why? because it's all just your game now, your game towards reaching (and never being able to) god. it's all just theological, eclectic, cosmologically vain, its a simulation of infinite accumulation, it's like you're plugged into capital's backside, but even worse since there's no reason now to be. it's not like it comes with the status of having been the one to topple and dominate and oppress the world, since you're in a basement playing an rpg and not getting 5% boosts on ways to execute invisible minorities like actual stemlords. meanwhile, they play the games so that they can learn how to think like capital better, they simulate their ontic phenomenology, you're simulating the slavery of non-participation, and we're all paying for it (literally and figuratively).
on the other hand, the world being a large gameboard with no external world is like, zizek's problem of the real mixed with godels incompleteness problem taken to a broader philosophical point, but it sort of ends before she says anything about that. very mixed passage, schizophrenic. also, games are simply places where designers get to enjoy being allowed to break rules they know they've always wanted to see what was behind them in the real world. but suddenly, they were the ones that had to put the objet petit a behind the wall thats supposed to be held down by the laws of physics but isnt, only to realize its just their own doomed reflection, and in that sense.
so instead of trying to figure out ways that motion doesn't work for us in new and inventive ways that end up just feeling like puzzles instead of revelations after like the third time you do the same thing (which wants to be different but isnt) they decided instead to just rely on cultural hauntology to feed actual cultural-evolutionary assemblages and their relevant processes back to autistic kids in a never ending but constantly downgressing loop, that at some point in the future will mimic the original template of traditional reductive but sensical cognitive testing games, because ultimately, it's between that and simply recreating the social economy all over again, but there's obviously no love in the abstraction of social economy if not for the prospects of the continental definition of aesthetics (sense + experience) so they mostly just turned that into gambling instead.
well i tried to have a nice convo but i guess im kind of rude. not saying this in the sense of as if i'm somehow backstabbing wark, we're kind of both saying the same thing in different ways. to finalize my point though, the aesthetic and political form that corresponds to being trapped in an endless, theological simulation of progress is the surface of the credit card, or in other words, the payment processing idea itself, the idea of sending value virtually. money itself becomes corrupted, it's like it's value slides off of it when some guy turns a cheap nothing-game of an infinite accumulator rpg into his own liquid wealth or stock bonds or like bitcoin or idk, even directly receives the money stashed into a briefcase, because the point is that that's still monopoly money, it's still lego-valued money. because here's the point, the way he interacts with the world, he's discredited from certain libidinal services. sure, he can buy a house, but it's not the same way warren buffet buys one, even if they have the same amount of money.
he just didn't oppress and slaughter enough third world invisibles to really earn his place to be in that position, he just didn't do it, so he gets to buy a virtual house, a reflection of the simulated service of payment-processing. what's the point here? when you play that type of game, you are paying, forever, to him, money of a decoupled, ruptured, no-longer-universal quality. it no longer is the sole proprietor and capturer of capital's deterritorialization, constantly fixing and rebinding the stakes of values. it instead actually goes down. you are stuck in the hotel of infinite processing, you are processing your arrival to the game itself. even if you're not constantly paying, you're playing as if you're constantly paying, until you feel you are, and then the game itself never arrives, and so on.
thats where money itself becomes postponed, it can arrive, but it no longer holds. it can be with you, but you can't do anything with it, even if you can still do everything with it that everyone else can. its not that you just would never think to, or somehow symbolically you're prevented on the level of the social assemblage, but you're just kind of, well, the origin of the money hasnt been reified properly enough, it's half-baked, it needs to boil more to truly show the whole process of alienation. it's like you just wasted someones time, thats all you did. you never managed to truly isolate them from anything, they're still trying to pay you the money you already got from them. is that really the condition where you have the money?
the recursive form of play ("shooting some otha muthafucka") is now, trying to send some money to some otha muthafucka, but the money just never arrives, like in waiting for godot, it's the god of the game, you're not supposed to send or receive, you're on the zero-sum, and in that sense. the transaction is infinite, but the transformation (the social inscription of value) is absent. this is kind of how you get a payment with no settlement (gamespace with no outside) it's not that the world is too full and needs something to connect it to everything on the outside, it's actually kind of very empty, desperately waiting for that outside thing to come in and confirm that the checkout matters, not that the check out has happened. that's what simulating transfers for so long does to you, it destabilizes the matrix of value's value, not of value, the value stays exactly where it needs to be to keep being value.
it is possible, and i unfortunately sympathize with wark here, that the world we accompany, once it crosses the hyperreality threshold, simply doesn't have the sustained architecture to correctly identify what is and isn't a game, which reminds me of nick land's otherwise quite tame definition of intelligence as something along the lines of the ability to gameplay appropriately - viewing the naturalization of a condition of rulesets and their aesthetic composition as fundamental to the constitutive meaning of embodying the lived experience of the world itself - a kind of backwards theological direction that you see wark travelling towards.