When Does Military Aesthetics Become a Problem in Gaming?
Luckey Palmer has done it again, managing to accidentally cause controversy among a significant portion of the retro gaming community. The recent reaction to ModRetro’s Anduril Edition of the Chromatic has sparked an unusually intense debate over a vague reference their latest console has to military technology. Some see the limited-edition handheld as a harmless collector’s item, while others are deeply uncomfortable with its explicit association with military industrial complex they believe it promotes. What’s interesting isn’t just the product itself — it’s where people are choosing to draw the line, and why. This discussion isn’t about supporting war or military action. It’s about symbolism, conditioning, and the way gaming culture already engages with militarism — often without question. For context Luckey Palmer is the founder and owner of Anduril Industries a military defense research and production company based in the United States that sell autonomous aircraft vehicles, surveilance systems, robotics and other military technology to the military branch of the US government and associated entities.
What Actually Changed With the Anduril Edition?
One important clarification often gets lost in the noise: the Chromatic has always used a magnesium alloy shell. That hasn’t changed ever since the First Edition was released earlier this year. What’s new with the Anduril Edition is the finish and branding, including coatings like Cerakote and titanium nitride — technologies that are widely used in civilian tools, medical instruments, consumer electronics, and yes, sometimes military equipment. ModRetro claims its the same technology used in “Ghost”, Anduril’s flagship autonomous air vehicle (drone). In practical terms, the Anduril Edition doesn’t function differently. It doesn’t simulate combat. It doesn’t introduce violent mechanics. It plays Game Boy cartridges, just like every other Chromatic.
So what is with all the heavy backlash then?
Because this edition makes an explicit association that was previously implicit, and explicit symbolism tends to provoke stronger reactions — even when the underlying reality hasn’t meaningfully changed. The association came from the name and the description on the ModRetro website that created a link in the customer’s mind behind the device and a drone used for military operations sold by Anduril. You can see Luckey Palmer’s fascination for video games and fantasy worlds coming through just by the naming of his company “Anduril” which was inspired by the fictional, legendary sword “Aragorn” from the Lord of Ring Series (meaning “Flames of the West” in that context). This suggests that perhaps Mr. Palmer doesn’t see himself as the villian that a lot of people perceive him as but more of a champion of justice fighting for democracy. But that’s just a thought I had, it may not be true at all.
UPDATE (20.01.2026)
The Anduril Edition ModRetro Chromatic discussed in this article is now sold out, and there’s no indication it will be made available again.
However, the standard edition ModRetro Chromatic is still available directly from ModRetro. It offers the same FPGA-based hardware, real cartridge support, and core functionality — without the limited-edition shell or branding.
ModRetro is also currently offering a Chromatic + Tetris bundle, which includes the console bundled with Tetris, with pricing listed at $354.95 AUD at the time of writing (pricing and availability may change).
A Broader Context: Military Themes Are Already Everywhere in Gaming
This is where the conversation gets uncomfortable as we take a deeper look into what the actual reality of society is, specifically in the sphere of video gaming. Modern gaming culture has long embraced military aesthetics and narratives, often in far more immersive and psychologically impactful ways than a branded piece of hardware ever could. Few franchises illustrate this better than Call of Duty, one of the most commercially successful entertainment properties in history. This behemoth of a franchise (dwarfing ModRetro by a long mile) doesn’t merely reference military technology — it places players directly into repetitive, reflex-driven combat scenarios for hours at a time. The gameplay loop is built around rapid target recognition, immediate trigger response, and reward reinforcement for lethal efficiency.
Now I’m not speculating here at all. Military training has historically relied on similar principles. It’s well documented that early armies struggled with soldiers’ reluctance to fire directly at other human beings. Modern training methods, including silhouette target practice, were developed specifically to condition automatic firing responses rather than conscious moral deliberation. When players spend hundreds of hours in fast-paced deathmatch environments, it’s reasonable to ask whether that kind of conditioning has more psychological weight than a handheld console bearing military-adjacent branding. In any honest comparison and evaluation of these two scenario’s it’s obvious which one is the real cause for concern. And yet, despite this, Call of Duty — and games like it — have rarely been controversial in mainstream gaming discourse.
Simulation vs Symbolism
This contrast raises an interesting but difficult question: Why does symbolism provoke outrage where simulation does not? A military-branded handheld doesn’t train reflexes. It doesn’t rehearse violence. It doesn’t immerse players in scenarios where killing is rewarded. It exists as an object — a piece of hardware with a story attached to it. By comparison, military shooters actively simulate combat in ways that are designed to be engaging, repetitive, and reflexive. Some military organisations have even acknowledged using commercial-style simulations to supplement training environments, blurring the line between entertainment and rehearsal. If the concern is about normalising war, conditioning behaviour, or desensitising players, it’s worth asking which of these has the greater impact. This has been happening as early in video gaming history as the era of the Super Nintendo when the US military developed M.A.C.S a silhouette target-based firing game using a very real looking AR-15 to train and condition the instinctive, reflex-based reaction in soldiers to shoot live ammunition when presented with a human-form in their field of vision. As video gaming technology improved the US military (and likely other world militaries) used video games not unlike Call of Duty to help train soldiers in very same way I just described.
Does Association Equal Endorsement?
Another key assumption in the debate is that buying or owning a product associated with military technology somehow equates to endorsing war. No matter how you look at it that claim is more than just a bit of a stretch. Consumer culture is already full of products that borrow military aesthetics — camouflage designs, “tactical” branding, ruggedised gear — without triggering moral panic. In most cases, people understand that association does not equal endorsement. The Chromatic itself remains a niche FPGA-based retro handheld. Its sales and existence are economically insignificant compared to the scale of modern defence industries. There’s no evidence that buying one meaningfully supports military development or conflict. Which raises another uncomfortable question: Are we responding to real-world impact — or to symbolism that feels easier to object to? Maybe it’s feeling we get of being morally superior to others when we see ourselves as the social justice warriors of our society. It can be a very addictive feeling and raw emotions help to fuel it while discounting any rational arguments from people that we view as being inferior for not having the same opinion as us when we think that we are unequivocally right.
Why This Debate Still Matters
None of this means people are wrong to feel uncomfortable. Discomfort can be a useful signal. But it’s also worth examining why that discomfort surfaces in some contexts and not others. Is it because hardware feels more “real” than software? Because branding feels more direct than gameplay? Or because it’s easier to criticise a niche retro product than a billion-dollar franchise? Maybe it’s to do with our perception of certain individuals who aren’t typical of personalities that we are familiar with in our day to day lives: like the founder and owner of a military defense organisation.
These aren’t questions with simple answers — and that’s precisely why they’re worth discussing. The Anduril Edition Chromatic may not be the most consequential product released this year, but the reaction to it reveals deeper tensions within gaming culture about war, media, and responsibility. So rather than declaring winners and losers in this debate, it might be more productive to ask:
Does military branding on gaming hardware cross a line for you, or does context matter?
Is there a meaningful ethical difference between military aesthetics in hardware versus military simulation in games?
Where do you personally draw that line — and why?
Those answers are likely to be more revealing than the controversy itself.
Relevant Links
- The ModRetro Chromatic Anduril Edition + Porta Pro Bundle [https://modretro.com/products/anduril-chromatic-porta-pro-bundle] An expensive version of the ModRetro Chromatic using the Anduril branding as a gimmick to charge a higher price. Nice looking device with a box that distances itself aesthetically from the school-boy look of the other editions. UPDATE (20.01.2026): Anduril Edition is sold out.
