the article is really about the gamers and their culture, and even so, it's not really about their culture in general, but about what they sit on.
I am always reminded of wal-e (pixar movie) when reading about this.
From what I concede is an outside perspective, I've never been able to understand what benefit or value there is in that identification for the people who hold to it; all it seems to do is establish them as members of a specific market segment with the aesthetic taste of an insufficiently socialized eleven-year-old boy. That, and its interaction with the industry that exists to exploit it, is something I would expect to see explored in an article purporting to discuss "gamer culture" in the context of its specifically sedentary aspects, but Gordon appears content merely to brush against the opportunity of such incisive analysis on his way to invoke Cronenberg and Hemipepsis - which leads me to wonder if Lewis Gordon wouldn't really rather have been J. G. Ballard. No shame in that, but if so, he's got a lot of work to do.
It's also worth considering that "gamer chairs" aren't just bought and owned by gamers. A lot of folks I work with have used them to furnish the home offices they've had to set up this year thanks to COVID, because they're marketed as being designed for long periods of sitting, and because Herman Miller and Steelcase and so on typically price in the next higher order of magnitude - a significant point for folks with larger families and less disposable income than, I think, a lot of HN participants, myself included. Such a blurring of categories might likewise be part of an analysis produced by someone willing to invest effort in developing a broader view than Gordon seems to have bothered with.
It's a shame, really. There are hints here at a much better article than the one we've actually gotten to read.