Hello, and welcome to our new series that selects interesting things about which we would love someone to create a game.
This is not an opportunity for us to pretend that we are game designers, but an opportunity to celebrate the variety of themes that games can address and the kind of things that seem full of glorious promise of play.
Check out our file & # 39; Someone should make a game about & # 39; for all our pieces so far.
I am ashamed to admit that there is a very small part of me that likes the idea of being a banker. Or at least a good banker. It's a bit like those announcements to join the army: if you ignore all those annoying questions of ethics, there is probably something quite exciting about it, being at the center of the action, doing something that all those normal civilians would not understand, and you too go to ski
Daily commerce, as I understand it (barely), is the most banking thing you can do. In short, it is when you buy and sell shares in the course of a unique and fluctuating day, you always sell everything by the time that day ends and, hopefully, ends with a profit. It is something that anyone can do if they have the money in advance and the right type of investor account. It's also what the influencers of these men's lifestyle on Instagram are supposedly doing, with their slightly tight shirts that cling, a little awkwardly, to their bulky biceps and stop just above their huge wristwatch, with Hands cleverly represented by hammering on a Macbook Pro with graphics on it. Title: stand up and grind.
However, eighty percent of daily traders lose more money than they earn. It is a fool's game, unless you are extraordinarily intelligent and extraordinarily lucky, because by definition it is a game of chance. It is impossible to know, without internal negotiation, if an action is about to rise or fall. You can know what everyone else knows: this market report comes out right now on this day, but you can't know what's in it in advance. You can't even know, for sure, how the stock market would react even if you knew what was about to be announced early. A company could reveal some terrible quarterly results, making it think that the price of the shares in that company would fall, but it could also be about to be taken, causing the shares to rise. It is unlikely that everything will happen on the same day, of course, and there is probably some rule about when those things are announced that makes this a particularly bad example, but the idea is understood.
However, all this becomes interesting when you see where the value of that action comes from, because finance people tend to disagree. Some think that it is completely what is called the "core value," which is the amount of money you can really earn by owning the shares for a long period of time, and that it comes down to the real strength of the business How could I change time, and so on. It is difficult to specify, but at least it comes from the idea that there is a real element of the stock prices that is based on reality, and that eventually, in the long run, they will return to that fundamental price.
The other is called "mark to market", and that is the idea that something is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. In other words: it's about perception. Then, when a company announces those bad results, the share price will fall because other traders think that the share price will fall, so they are also trying to sell theirs. It makes this type of second-order market strange, refractive, once away from real reality, where everyone buys and sells according to whether they believe other people are going to buy or sell, and suddenly you have to think not only of what something Ok but what other people think is worth and if it should fit for that. A bit like trying to figure out if you should vote tactically.
What surprises me about all this, in reality, is that you end up with an entire industry that swells out of nowhere. In the end, it causes bubbles, and by virtue of them, accidents, where people buy because they think that other people buy, without real and underlying value for the thing itself, and everything that is needed for everything to collapse He is someone with a lot of that to sell, deciding that they have had enough. There is an illusion of complexity, which does not mean that the markets themselves are not complex, or that the algorithms and analyzes gathered by the geniuses who work with them are not geniuses. But this type of activity layer is happening, carried out by much more than just those practitioners who are too confident in the daily trade that make up the unfortunate eighty percent, which is completely removed from reality.
It reminds me, bringing this back to the games, from Spec Ops: The Line, or more specifically something that Emma, Oli and Christian said about it in our game podcast of the decade a few weeks ago. There is a layer of that game that is apparently crap: shoot, loot ammunition, reload, advance through the levels. It's all a bit of a song, and enough for many people to give up before it really starts. But what is hiding is a layer of real complexity, real depth, from which you can take absolutely something true and tangible. Spec Ops touched it, without pressing it, in its parable of war. I would like a game that is even more direct: a game with a layer of white and empty noise activity, full of the mistaken belief that what you are doing matters, extends over something completely different and completely deeper.