Earlier quoted context omitted.
> someone who exists until he can produce for someone else, who effectively own him You're falsely equating ownership with exchange. He can do stuff for people, who can do stuff for him. He can choose who to do things for, and who does things for him. That's the opposite of slavery.
Allow me to depict a small game: living on trains means needing trains with nigh services, what you do if your train is canceled? You pay with a credit card, what to do if a train is canceled for bad weather and you have no working internet connection? You work on a giant platform what you do if a day that platform, who store essentially your digital life since you just have a laptop, decide to ban you for some reaso…
You're describing instead a world in which everything isn't available for free, and so you have to make choices on how the resources you receive are deployed.
And sorry - I couldn't make out what the game was from your text. I don't think it particularly helps either way. It's easy to construct a game that misses an important component of reality.