In this book we have traced a wide range of apparently counterplay practices, ways of playing games that work against a broad matrix of expectations, rules, and laws and that ultimately counter the “configurations, processes, rhythms, spaces, and structures” of video games (Apperley 2010, 103). We have touched on the ambiguity of incendiary user-generated content and seen a range of outputs that appear to have been created as a casual expression of vulgarity (Sporn), an intentionally offensive and provocative statement (the 9/11 LittleBigPlanet level), highly inflammatory and problematic content (the Neo-Nazi car), and then the confusing, celebratory, but inadvertently transgressive combinations of intellectual property (LBPdius). This has shown us that counterplay manifests itself diffusely, highlights its subjective nature, and transgresses the hail-and-response model, as well as the problems associated with attributing meaning to an act without access to the protagonist. We have seen the identification of counterplay depends primarily on an observer, a victim, and the public, rather than the protagonist, and there is wide disagreement over what constitutes counterplay among players.