In a stunning revelation that has the entire tech industry frantically updating their LinkedIn profiles to include “lifelong gamer,” recent analysis shows that the $200 billion gaming industry might have already solved most of the problems Silicon Valley pretends to be inventing solutions for. While tech executives were busy pivoting from crypto to metaverse to AI faster than you can say “series C funding,” games have been quietly mastering human engagement since someone first decided that throwing rocks at other rocks was more fun than just looking at rocks.
Before There Was “Engagement Optimization,” There Were Just Dice
Long before a Stanford dropout could raise $50 million on a pitch deck containing nothing but the word “AI” and a stock photo of human robot looking pensively at a laptop, humans were designing intricate systems to capture and maintain attention. They were called “games,” and surprisingly, they didn’t require a single TED Talk to explain their value proposition.
“The gaming industry represents possibly the oldest continuous development of human-computer interaction methodologies in existence,” explained Dr. Eleanor Stevenson, Professor of Computational Anthropology at MIT. “While Silicon Valley congratulates itself for discovering that humans like dopamine hits and variable reward schedules around 2012, game designers have been refining these techniques since someone carved a six-sided die approximately 5,000 years ago.”
Archaeological evidence suggests that board games existed in Egypt around 3500 BCE, making them approximately 5,525 years older than the average Silicon Valley startup, and yet mysteriously more likely to still exist five years from now.
“The fundamental difference,” noted venture capitalist Jonathan Warwick, in a rare moment of self-awareness, “is that games begin with the radical premise of ‘this should be enjoyable to use’ rather than ‘how can we extract maximum value while providing minimum utility?’ It’s a subtle distinction that has eluded most of my portfolio companies.”
NVIDIA’s Origin Story: From “Pew Pew” to Fortune 500
Perhaps no entity better exemplifies gaming’s central role in technological advancement than NVIDIA, the AI chip juggernaut that began as a company focused primarily on making virtual explosions look prettier. While today’s tech luminaries claim to be “building AGI to solve humanity’s grandest challenges,” NVIDIA’s multi-billion-dollar empire grew from the much more honest goal of helping teenagers shoot digital aliens more realistically.
“The entire foundation of modern AI rests on GPUs that were developed to render more realistic blood splatter in Doom,” explained Melanie Chen, former hardware engineer at NVIDIA. “Nobody at the company in 1999 was talking about revolutionizing healthcare or solving climate change. We just wanted to make sure that when you shot a demon with a BFG 9000, its pixelated guts flew across the screen with physics-appropriate viscosity.”
This happy accident of history—that rendering convincing digital gore requires roughly the same computational architecture as training large language models—has led to the ironic outcome that most “revolutionary AI breakthroughs” are running on hardware originally optimized for teabagging defeated opponents in Halo 2.
“If you look at the computational requirements for something like ray tracing in modern games versus the matrix multiplications needed for transformer models in AI, the similarities are striking,” noted Chen. “The difference is that gamers will immediately tell you if your product sucks, whereas AI companies can hide behind terms like ‘ongoing development’ and ‘alignment research’ for years while producing nothing of value.”
The Liberation of Admitting Life Is Kind of Boring
Perhaps the most profound insight gaming offers Silicon Valley is its fundamental honesty about human existence: much of life is routine, repetitive, and occasionally dull—and that’s perfectly fine. While tech companies contort themselves into philosophical pretzels to justify their latest attention-harvesting scheme as “connecting humanity” or “democratizing opportunity,” gaming starts from the refreshingly straightforward premise that sometimes people just want to have fun.
“The gaming industry’s core value proposition hasn’t changed in thousands of years,” observed cultural anthropologist Dr. Anika Patel. “It’s essentially: ‘Life contains significant periods of boredom; here’s something more engaging to do during those times.’ There’s a radical honesty there that you don’t find in a company selling you a social media platform under the guise of ‘building community’ when their actual business model is harvesting your attention and selling it to advertisers.”
This fundamental honesty extends to gaming’s approach to product design. While a typical Silicon Valley app might hide its monetization strategy behind layers of “user experience” euphemisms, games are generally upfront about their purpose: entertainment first, everything else second.
“When Ubisoft makes Assassin’s Creed, they don’t pretend it’s going to solve world hunger or revolutionize education,” said Marcus Winters, veteran game designer. “They say, ‘Here’s a game where you can stab historical figures.’ The clarity is refreshing compared to some productivity app that claims it’s ‘reimagining human potential’ when it’s really just a to-do list with confetti animations.”
The Minimum Viable Entertainment Product
Silicon Valley’s obsession with “minimum viable products”—releasing the barest-bones version of software to “test market fit”—stands in stark contrast to gaming’s commitment to shipping finished products that actually function as advertised.
“In the gaming world, if you ship a broken product, gamers will crucify you online, demand refunds, and possibly create hours of YouTube content documenting every flaw in excruciating detail,” explained industry analyst Patricia Moore. “In Silicon Valley, shipping broken software is called an ‘iterative approach’ and sometimes gets you additional funding. Imagine if Cyberpunk 2077 had been rebranded as ‘agile development’ instead of a disaster—CD Projekt Red could have avoided a lot of trouble by adopting Silicon Valley’s language.”
The contrast becomes even starker when examining how each industry responds to user feedback. Game developers face immediate, often brutally honest feedback from players, while tech companies can hide behind metrics and “user education” when their products confuse or frustrate users.
“When gamers hate something, you know immediately and in vivid, profanity-laden detail,” said veteran game developer Thomas Chang. “When users hate a new feature in a productivity app, the company just publishes a blog post explaining why users are wrong for not appreciating their genius, then moves the buttons around and calls it a ‘design refresh’ six months later.”
From Fun to Financialization: Silicon Valley’s Gaming Invasion
Despite gaming’s success at creating products people actually enjoy using, Silicon Valley couldn’t resist the urge to “disrupt” the industry by introducing its favorite innovation: extracting more money while providing less value.
“The introduction of micro-transactions, loot boxes, and ‘games-as-a-service’ models represents Silicon Valley thinking infecting gaming,” lamented gaming historian Eduardo Vasquez. “They looked at an industry that had a perfect business model—make something fun, charge money for it, repeat—and said, ‘But what if instead we made the game less fun and charged money to make it normal again?'”
This Silicon Valley-ification of gaming has led to the bizarre scenario where players now routinely pay full price for games that are deliberately designed to be frustrating unless you spend additional money—a business model that would be considered insane in any other industry.
“Imagine buying a car, and then discovering that driving above 30 mph requires purchasing a ‘speed boost,’ or that the radio only plays one song unless you buy a ‘music pack,'” said consumer advocate Jennifer Wu. “That’s essentially what’s happened to many games, and somehow the industry has normalized it.”
Internal documents leaked from a major game publisher revealed the extent of this thinking. A strategy presentation titled “Engagement Optimization and Monetization Pathways” included the directive to “identify core gameplay loops players enjoy most, then create artificial friction in these loops that can be removed through strategic monetization.”
When asked to comment on this approach, the publisher’s spokesperson stated, “We’re creating player choice and offering customized experiences for different player types,” which industry experts have translated as “we’re seeing how much we can charge for things that used to be free before players revolt.”
The Self-Defeating Cycle of Over-Monetization
The irony of Silicon Valley’s approach to gaming is that by focusing relentlessly on monetization, tech companies risk destroying the very qualities that make games successful in the first place.
“It’s like finding a goose that lays golden eggs and deciding the optimal strategy is to perform invasive surgery on the goose to increase gold production,” explained economist Dr. Marcus Friedlander. “You might get a short-term increase in gold output, but eventually you end up with a dead goose.”
This analogy proved particularly apt when examining user retention data from games before and after implementing aggressive monetization strategies. One popular mobile game saw initial revenue spike 300% after introducing a complex “energy” system that limited free play, but player retention dropped 70% over the following six months.
“The spreadsheet-driven approach to game design fundamentally misunderstands why people play games,” said user experience researcher Sophia Kang. “People don’t play because they want to engage with your monetization strategy. They play because the game is fun. The moment you make monetization the priority over fun, you’ve created something that’s no longer primarily a game—it’s primarily a store with game elements.”
Gaming Will Outlast Us All (Including This Particular Bubble)
Despite Silicon Valley’s best efforts to extract every possible penny from gaming, industry observers note that games themselves will likely outlast any particular monetization trend. As evidence, they point to the thriving indie game scene, the resurgence of tabletop gaming, and the continued popularity of classic games that focus on fun rather than financial engineering.
“Games in some form have existed in every human civilization we’ve ever discovered,” noted cultural historian Dr. James Morrison. “Silicon Valley has existed for about 70 years, and completely reinvents itself approximately every 18 months. If I were betting on which would still be around in 500 years, I know where I’d put my money.”
This resilience stems from gaming’s connection to fundamental human desires for play, competition, mastery, and escape—needs that existed long before smartphones and will persist long after whatever Silicon Valley is hyping this week has been forgotten.
“The next time you see a tech CEO claiming to have invented some revolutionary new paradigm for ‘human engagement,’ ask yourself if they’ve actually just reinvented a concept from a 1990s arcade game with more invasive tracking,” suggested Dr. Morrison. “Chances are, what they’re describing as innovation, game designers would consider obvious, dated, or in many cases, something they tried and abandoned decades ago because it made games less fun.”
As Silicon Valley continues its frantic search for the next paradigm shift, perhaps the most revolutionary act would be to look backward instead of forward—to recognize that in gaming’s 5,000-year history of keeping humans entertained, there might be more wisdom than in all of Sand Hill Road’s investment theses combined.
What games do you think have best resisted Silicon Valley’s monetization mania? Have you abandoned games you once loved because of aggressive microtransactions or pay-to-win mechanics? Or have you found refuge in indie games that still prioritize fun over financial engineering? Share your gaming experiences and observations in the comments!
DONATE TO TECHONION: No Microtransactions Required
Support our journalism with a donation to TechOnion, where we promise never to make you pay extra to unlock the “actual journalism” feature or purchase the “articles without aggressive pop-ups” DLC. Unlike modern gaming companies, we won’t sell you this article for $4.99 and then charge you another $19.99 for the “coherent conclusion expansion pack.” Your contribution helps ensure we can continue bringing you unfiltered tech commentary without implementing a “premium energy system” that limits you to reading three paragraphs per day unless you watch ads for mobile games that ironically embody everything we just criticized.
