A Critique of the Capitalization of Games from the Perspective of Historical Materialism

As an important component of human culture, games have been approached by theorists represented by Johan Huizinga and Friedrich Schiller from a cultural-sociological perspective. Since then, almost all theorists have studied games from this cultural-sociological standpoint. Although in Situationism, games were endowed with a revolutionary romanticism, this notion merely inherited, to some extent, the theoretical legacy of Huizinga's study of games, representing a transcendental idealist epistemology—namely, that games inherently possess a perfect order, and that people need only follow this perfect order to break the competitive money game of capitalism, thereby liberating the workers. From the perspective of historical materialism, the cultural-sociological study of games has inherent defects; merely treating games as a cultural phenomenon cannot directly confront the various new problems arising in the current era of digital capitalism. Furthermore, past discussions on issues such as internet addiction and game addiction have often been arbitrarily attributed to games themselves, while neglecting a more important background: the capitalist relations of production behind games. That is to say, on the one hand, the research perspective on games needs to shift from cultural sociology to the capitalization of games; on the other hand, the critique of games should not proceed solely from games themselves but should be combined with specific historical contexts—namely, within the context of digital capitalism, starting from the special attributes of games as commodities.

游戏作为人类文化的重要组成部分，以赫伊津哈、席勒为代表的理论家们开创了对于游戏研究的文化社会学视角。自此之后，几乎所有的理论家对于游戏的研究都站在了文化社会学的立场。尽管在情境主义那里，游戏被赋予了革命的浪漫主义色彩，但这种观念只不过在某种程度上继承了赫伊津哈的游戏理论遗产，是一种先验的唯心主义认识论，即游戏本身天然具有一种完美的秩序，人们只需依照这种完美秩序便可打破资本主义的竞争性金钱游戏，劳动者即可获得解放。在历史唯物主义看来，游戏的文化社会学研究有其先天缺陷，仅仅将游戏视作一种文化现象更无法直面当下数字资本主义时代所产生的各种新问题。除此之外，过去关于网瘾、游戏沉迷等问题的讨论往往武断地归咎于游戏本身，而忽略了一个更为重要的背景，即游戏背后的资本生产关系。也就是说，一方面，关于游戏的研究视角需要实现从文化社会学到游戏资本化的转向；另一方面，对于游戏的批判也不应仅从游戏本身出发，而应当结合具体的历史情境，即在数字资本主义的背景下，从游戏作为一种商品的特殊属性出发。

Grasping the Birth of the Capitalization of Games through Historical Materialism

以唯物史观把握游戏资本化的诞生

Marx pointed out in *Capital* that "machinery is a means for producing surplus-value," but machinery was not from the outset a means for producing surplus-value, just as games were not from the outset endowed with the attributes of capitalist relations of production. Here, the author divides the development history of modern games into: the era of single-player games, characterized by "simple commodity circulation"; the era of rental games, characterized by "living organic forms participating in the cultivation of the land of games"; the era of consumer games, characterized by the illusion of "lifetime free use" within consumer society; and the era of game capitalism that we are currently facing. One point that needs to be noted is that the above stages in the development history of modern games are not entirely independent of each other; rather, the characteristics of a newer game era encompass, to a certain extent, the characteristics of the older game era.

马克思在《资本论》中指出，“机器是生产剩余价值的手段”，但机器并非从一开始就是生产剩余价值的手段，正如游戏并非从一开始就具有资本主义生产关系属性一样。在这里，笔者将近代游戏的发展史分为以“简单商品流通”为特征的单机游戏时代、以“活的有机形式参与进游戏这片土地的耕耘”为特征的租金游戏时代、在消费社会当中以“终身免费使用”为幻象的消费游戏时代以及现如今我们正在面对的游戏资本主义时代。需要指出的一点是，以上几个阶段的近代游戏的发展史并非是完全相互独立的，而是更新的游戏时代的特征在一定程度上包含旧游戏时代的特征。

"Every commodity can only realize its value in the process of circulation," and game products as commodities are no exception. However, in the era of single-player games, game products as commodities circulated in the market more in the form of "simple commodities." In other words, at this time, the relationship between players and game developers was one of "selling in order to buy"—that is, players exchanged money, the form of expression of exchange value, for the use-value of the game product. When the money in the players' hands transferred into the pockets of the game developers, there was no further relationship between the players and the game developers. This is because a notable feature of the single-player game era was that game developers could not influence the game product after purchase through software updates or other means. The "Famicom" (FC) game console was a representative product of this period; game developers could only continuously release new game cartridges, which had a certain tangible material form, to induce players to purchase again.

“每一种商品都只能在流通过程中实现它的价值”，游戏产品作为一种商品也不例外。但在单机游戏时代，游戏产品作为一种商品更多以一种“简单商品”的形式在市场中流通。换句话说，此时玩家与游戏厂商之间处在一种“为买而卖”的关系当中，即玩家通过货币这一交换价值的表现形式来换取游戏产品的使用价值。当玩家手中的货币转移到游戏厂商的口袋里时，玩家与游戏厂商便再无其他任何关系。这是因为，单机游戏时代的一个显著特征是，游戏厂商无法通过软件升级等方式对玩家购买后的游戏产品产生任何影响。“FC”游戏机便是这一时期的代表性产品，游戏厂商只能够不断推出新的且以一定有形的物质表现形式的游戏卡引起玩家的再度购买行为。

It is evident that the "one-time" purchase behavior occurring in this era of single-player games with "simple commodity circulation" (W-G-W) was insufficient to satisfy the greed of capital. What followed in the game market was the era of rental games, characterized by "living organic forms participating in the cultivation of the land of games." When Marx analyzed ground-rent, he pointed out that "everything that the tenant farmer pays to the landowner in the form of rent for permission to cultivate the land actually appears as ground-rent." Then, in the era of rental games, the "tenant farmer" is the game player, the "landowner" is the game developer, and the "ground-rent" manifests as the game points or time cards that players must purchase from the game developer to continuously play the game, thereby recharging their playtime. *Westward Journey Online II* and *Fantasy Westward Journey* were representative games of this period. [1]1 *involution* (内卷, *neijuan*): A term popularized in Chinese social discourse to describe a zero-sum, hyper-competitive rat race in which individuals must expend ever-increasing effort just to maintain their position, often associated with education and the workplace. Thus, in the era of rental games, a special phenomenon occurred: players, as an organic form, participated in the lifeless game product, much like a tenant farmer cultivating the land. If a tenant farmer could still hire laborers to work, then in rental games, the player plays both the role of the tenant farmer and the role of the laborer.

显而易见的是，在这种“简单商品流通”（W—G—W）的单机游戏时代所发生的“一次性”的购买行为并不足以满足资本的贪欲。在游戏市场中紧随其后出现的便是“以活的有机形式参与进游戏这片土地的耕耘”为特征的租金游戏时代。马克思对地租进行分析时曾指出，“租地农场主为了获得经营土地的许可而以租金形式支付给土地所有者的一切，实际上都表现为地租”。那么，在租金游戏时代，“租地农场主”便是游戏玩家，“土地所有者”便是游戏厂商，而“地租”则表现为玩家为持续不断地进行游戏而不得不购买游戏厂商出售的游戏点卡，以便对游戏产品进行时长充值。《大话西游2》《梦幻西游》便是这一时期的代表性游戏。由此看来，在租金游戏时代，发生了一种特殊的现象，即玩家作为一种有机形式，就像是租地农场主对土地的耕耘一样，参与进了无生命的游戏产品之中。如果说租地农场主尚且可以雇佣劳动者进行劳动，那么在租金游戏当中，玩家既扮演着租地农场主的角色，同时也扮演着劳动者的角色。

In reality, there are always some players who prefer free games over rental games. Game developers met their needs, giving rise to the era of consumer games, characterized by the illusion of "lifetime free use" within consumer society. The reason this "lifetime free use" is called an illusion is that, in the consumer society revealed by Jean Baudrillard, "the consumer never exists as a subject of desire and enjoyment, but always as an abstract social demand force." In the eyes of capital, this "demand force" constitutes one of the sources of its valorization. That is to say, although some games can indeed be used "free for life," game developers can manufacture various "needs" during the process of players using the game for free. On the surface, these "needs" are indeed the players' "actual" needs, because in the process of playing the game, players face challenges such as time costs and game difficulty. In other words, players can make in-game purchases to avoid tedious monster-grinding and leveling-up, endless quests and instances, and to more easily improve their game character's combat power and rankings by purchasing items. Going further, however, it is difficult for players to realize that these challenges are actually "false needs" manufactured for them by the game developers.

实际上，总有一些玩家更希望有免费的游戏而非租金游戏。游戏厂商满足了他们的需求，这便是在消费社会当中以“终身免费使用”为幻象的消费游戏时代。之所以说这种“终身免费使用”是一种幻象，是因为在鲍德里亚所揭示出的消费社会当中，“消费者从来不是作为欲望和享乐的主体存在，而总是作为抽象的社会需求力而存在”。在资本的眼中，这种“需求力”构成了其增殖的源泉之一。也就是说，尽管一些游戏确实可以“终身免费使用”，但游戏厂商在玩家免费使用的过程当中，可以制造出各种“需要”。从表面上看，这些“需要”的确是玩家的“实际”需要，因为在玩游戏的过程当中，玩家会面临时间成本、游戏难度等所带来的挑战。换句话说，玩家可以进行充值以避免琐碎无味的打怪升级、无休止的任务副本以及通过购买道具以便更容易地提高游戏角色的战斗力及排名。更进一步来看，玩家却很难意识到这些挑战实际上是游戏厂商为其制造出的“虚假需求”。

Through the analysis of the characteristics from the era of single-player games to the era of rental games and then to the era of consumer games, game capitalism emerges clearly. It is undeniable that game capitalism is not something illusory; it is deeply rooted in the real logic of capitalist relations of production. Once, games were a leisure and entertainment activity people engaged in after labor; in Marxist terms, games undoubtedly belong to the sphere of reproduction. But from a macroscopic perspective, capital is constantly absorbing reproduction into production. In game capitalism, capital creates for people a "world of facts essentially different from the daily struggle for existence," which is the "affirmative culture" of the bourgeoisie that Herbert Marcuse once revealed to us. [2]2 *so short-sighted and hidebound* (一叶障目、抱残守缺, *yiyi zhangmu, baocan shouque*): A pair of four-character idioms. The first, literally "a leaf before the eye blocks the view," means being unable to see the whole picture. The second, literally "clinging to the broken and guarding the worn-out," means being stubbornly conservative and refusing to accept new things. To further analyze the capitalization of games, it is necessary to critique it using Marx's political economy.

通过从单机游戏时代到租金游戏时代再到消费游戏时代的特性分析，游戏资本主义呼之欲出。不可否认的是，游戏资本主义不是什么虚无缥缈的东西，它深深植根于资本主义生产关系的现实逻辑。曾经，游戏本是人们在劳动之余所进行的一项休闲娱乐活动，用马克思主义的表达方式来说，游戏无疑属于再生产领域。但从宏观方面来看，资本正不断将再生产吸纳于生产之中。在游戏资本主义中，资本为人们制造出一个“在本质上不同于每日忙于生存斗争的事实世界”，这便是马尔库塞曾向我们揭露的那个资产阶级的“肯定性文化”。为了对游戏资本化更进一步的分析，需要采用马克思的政治经济学对其进行批判。

Initiating a Critique of the Capitalization of Games from the Perspective of Political Economy

从政治经济学视角开启游戏资本化批判

Almost no one would deny that games indeed provide them with spiritual solace, but the contemporary capitalization of games is incorporating this spiritual solace into the scope of capital's valorization. In other words, ever since capitalist relations of production were established in reality, it has been difficult for any field to exist independently of these relations, and the field of games is no exception. Through the above analysis, we have grasped, from Marx's historical materialism, the question of how the capitalization of games came into being. Next, we need to conduct a deeper critique and exposure of game capitalism from the level of political economy. Within the field of games, we observe that the exchange of social capital, the intangible exploitation of artificial intelligence, and the identification with bourgeois ideology constitute several important categories for the political-economic critique of game capitalism.

几乎没有人会否认游戏的确给他们带来了精神慰藉，但当代游戏资本化却正将这种精神慰藉纳入资本增殖的范畴内。换句话说，自从资本主义的生产关系在现实中建立起来之后，就很难有哪个领域可以脱离这种生产关系而独立存在，游戏领域也不例外。经过上述分析，我们从马克思的历史唯物主义把握了游戏资本化何以诞生的问题，进而我们需要从政治经济学的层面对游戏资本主义进行更深入的批判与揭露。在游戏领域之中，我们观察到社会资本的交换、人工智能的无形剥削以及对资产阶级意识形态的认同，构成了游戏资本主义政治经济学批判的几个重要范畴。

First, the capitalization of games sees the infinite potential of social capital and absorbs this organic social capital as an object for its own self-valorization. Social capital is originally a resource that individuals obtain within social relations, manifested as a certain prestige, wealth, power, social networks, and so on. However, under the conditions of game capitalism, game companies, by launching various activities, force players to absorb their personal social capital into the activities of capital valorization through forwarding, collecting likes, providing assistance, and so on. On the one hand, game companies can use this method to expand the influence and scale of their products — in other words, to increase the number of players in order to sustain the game's vitality and the continuous valorization of capital. On the other hand, this is a "fair" exchange between the player and the game company. On the surface, the player obtains game items or completes game tasks without losing anything, but in reality the player tacitly permits game capital to valorize itself through their social capital. The game company realizes the valorization of its capital in reality, while the player merely obtains a pile of symbols with no actual value in the virtual world.

其一，游戏资本化看到了社会资本的无限潜力，并将这种有机的社会资本吸纳为自身增殖的对象。社会资本原本是个人在社会关系当中获得的某种资源，它体现为某种声望、财富以及权力、社会网络等。但在游戏资本主义的背景下，游戏厂商通过推出各种活动，迫使玩家通过转发、集赞、助力等方式将玩家个人的社会资本吸纳进其资本增殖的活动中。一方面，游戏厂商可以通过这种方式扩大产品的影响力和规模，换句话说，增加玩家数量以维持游戏生命力与资本的持续增殖；另一方面，这是玩家同游戏厂商进行的一次“公平”交换，表面上看，玩家在没有损失什么东西的条件下便获得了游戏道具、完成了游戏任务，但玩家实则默许了游戏资本通过他们的社会资本进行增殖。游戏厂商在现实中实现了其资本的增殖，而玩家却只不过在虚拟的世界里获得了一堆毫无实际价值的符号。

Second, the capitalization of games realizes a certain intangible exploitation of value through artificial intelligence. Interestingly, if the machines that exist in material form in reality could still provoke attacks from Luddites, then the "non-human" artificial intelligence within games eliminates this tangible manifestation of the material through a virtual "humanized" image. This is because within games, whether it is the AI bots participating in player-versus-player matches, the fixed NPC characters, or the monster bosses in AAA titles, they all bear a strong resemblance to the digital body operated by the player. If NPC characters and monster bosses can still be regarded as objects, then the AI bots added to games such as FPS and MOBA titles participate in the player's gaming activities in a manner that is even more difficult to identify. These AI bots can collect data information more covertly through interaction with players and by learning from players' operations. This can both promote the further development of artificial intelligence and enable game companies to monetize the collected data.

其二，游戏资本化通过人工智能实现了某种无形的价值剥削。有趣的是，如果说现实中以物质形式存在的机器尚且会引起卢德分子的攻击，那么游戏当中“非人”的人工智能则以虚拟的“人化”形象消除了这种物质的有形表现。因为在游戏当中，无论是参与进玩家对战的AI人机，还是固定的NPC角色，抑或在3A大作当中的怪物BOSS，都与玩家所操作的那个数字身体具有很强的相似之处。如果说NPC角色和怪物BOSS尚且可以视作一种客体，那么在FPS、MOBA等游戏当中加入的AI人机则以一种更加难以识别的方式参与进玩家的游戏活动之中。这些AI人机可以通过与玩家之间的互动、学习玩家的操作更隐蔽地收集数据信息，这样既可以促进人工智能的进一步发展，也可以使游戏厂商将收集到的数据进行变现。

Third, the ideology of capitalism, by means of the content settings of the game products themselves, causes players to gradually lose their critical power over the reality of capital. As early as the Enlightenment movement of the 17th and 18th centuries, the bourgeoisie, by means of the power of reason, almost completed the disenchantment of religious mythology. Ironically, the bourgeoisie of today has become a new manufacturer of myths, hoping to turn the propertyless laborers into their believers. The difference between games and other fields lies in the fact that the former can create an almost real virtual world through images, sound, and other means. That is to say, players can build their own empires in games such as *Minecraft*, *Manor Lords*, and *Palworld*, realizing dreams that cannot be realized in reality. This in fact cultivates a large number of vulgar proletarians who, apart from thinking within the framework constructed by the bourgeoisie, possess no other critical thought, and who, apart from activities closely related to money such as consumption, shopping, and gaming, have no other entertainment options available to them.

其三，资本主义的意识形态借助于游戏产品本身的内容设定，使玩家逐渐丧失对资本现实的批判力量。早在17—18世纪的启蒙运动中，资产阶级借助理性的力量几乎完成了对宗教神话的祛魅。讽刺的是，如今的资产阶级成为了新的神话制造者，希冀将一无所有的劳动者转变为他们的信徒。游戏与其他领域的不同之处在于，前者可以通过画面、音响等方式营造出一个近乎真实的虚拟世界。也就是说，玩家可以在《我的世界》《庄园领主》《幻兽帕鲁》等游戏当中建造属于自己的帝国，实现在现实当中无法实现的梦想。这实则培养了一大批庸俗的无产阶级，他们除了在资产阶级所构建的框架之内思考问，别无其他批判性的思维，他们除了消费、购物、游戏等与金钱密切相关的活动之外，别无其他可供娱乐的选择。

Moving toward a critique of the capitalization of games is a turn we must realize in the face of the various problems brought about by games today. Whether it is the cultural-sociological study of games or the critique of games themselves, both have neglected the capitalist relations of production hidden behind games. Admittedly, games bring people infinite experience and imagination, allowing them to temporarily forget problems in the real world related to involution [1]1 *involution* (内卷, *neijuan*): A term popularized in Chinese social discourse to describe a zero-sum, hyper-competitive rat race in which individuals must expend ever-increasing effort just to maintain their position, often associated with education and the workplace., promotions and salary increases, interpersonal relationships, and so on. However, game capitalism is using this very situation to achieve its goal of self-valorization. Through the exploration of the birth of game capitalism by means of historical materialism and the critique of the capitalization of games by means of political economy, it is not difficult for us to discover that the concept of the capitalization of games possesses its historicity and actuality. In fact, the game world is not a purely virtual world; to a large extent it originates from reality, and moreover, people's various activities in the game world will also act upon the real world. It cannot be denied that games are becoming a way of life for the new generation of young people. We can no longer be so short-sighted and hidebound [2]2 *so short-sighted and hidebound* (一叶障目、抱残守缺, *yiyi zhangmu, baocan shouque*): A pair of four-character idioms. The first, literally "a leaf before the eye blocks the view," means being unable to see the whole picture. The second, literally "clinging to the broken and guarding the worn-out," means being stubbornly conservative and refusing to accept new things. as to stubbornly believe that it is games themselves that cause teenagers' addiction and obsession; rather, we need to understand this issue from a deeper level, that is, from the perspective of the capitalization of games.

走向游戏资本化批判，是我们当下面对游戏所带来的各种问题必须实现的一种转向。无论是游戏的文化社会学研究，还是针对游戏本身的批判，都忽视了隐藏在游戏背后的资本主义生产关系。诚然，游戏带给了人们无限的体验与想象，使他们可以在游戏之中暂时忘却现实世界中有关内卷、升职加薪、人际关系等问题，但游戏资本主义正在借助这种状况，实现自我增殖的目标。通过唯物史观对游戏资本主义诞生的探析以及借助于政治经济学对游戏资本化的批判，我们不难发现游戏资本化这一概念具有其历史性与现实性。事实上，游戏世界并非纯粹虚拟的世界，在很大程度上它来源于现实，并且，人们在游戏世界当中的各种活动还会作用于现实世界。不容否认的是，游戏正在成为新一代年轻人的生存方式，我们再不能一叶障目、抱残守缺，固执地认为是游戏本身引发了青少年的上瘾、沉迷，而需要从更深层次的角度，即游戏资本化的角度去理解这一问题。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗