So basically, Malstrom's saying that (adult) life is mostly focused on commerce and law, but because most people think those are boring (or don't want to admit that they are what much of our day-to-day life is about), they make up and maintain culture. Each culture of a particular thing (art, movies, video games) is ultimately a way for those not interested in commerce and law to pat themselves on the back for wasting their time on non-commerce and non-law activities.
Further, he says that Nintendo's strategy has always (especially with the DS and Wii) been focused on commerce. It's based on expanding the number of customers they have, not adding noteworthy items (games) to gaming culture. Nintendo's strategy lately has been working very well, and the upswell of new customers - ones who aren't steeped in (or likely very familiar with) gaming culture - inadvertently threaten those people who see themselves as members of gaming culture.
So, that's why gaming journalism sucks? A group with decades-old ideas on gaming and its own gaming media feel threatened by encroaching new (or at least different) ideas about gaming? I suppose that makes sense.
(Just a quick question about something earlier in Malstrom's theory: why do so many of us think commerce and law are boring, and why do so many of us seek to avoid them? Are we really wasting our time and turning our backs on what life is about, as Malstrom seems to believe? Is it possible that emphases on commerce and law are, while more practical in our world, deep down just as contrived or forced as emphases on movie products, book products, video game products, etc.? Or is my head just too far up my ass?)