Comment by tikhonj | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tikhonj | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think the games in question are actually the opposite of that: they are played by millions and millions of people, often for free, but financed by a small, rich minority. It is super aggressive price discrimination, which actually benefits the 99%—we get something cheaper (or even free with F2P games) because other people are willing to pay so much.

In a very real sense, the F2P business model only really works if the game is popular amount non-paying customers—otherwise, what would motivate whales to get into it in the first place? A whale-based system pretty much guarantees a product that's as widely accessible as possible.

Of course, it has its own massive ethical issues; I am no fan of the practice. (Not least because the people spending the most money aren't always the ones who can afford to spend that much!) But it does neatly invert the dynamic and uses the top 1% of spenders to finance something primarily enjoyed by the 99% who spend little to nothing.

> but financed by a small rich minority

I'm not at all convinced of this. Considering that much the properties of the game that land such whales are based on triggering addictive behavior, it seems much more likely that the whales' income profile is similar to that of a lotto ticker purchaser in the US: relatively poor people.

Poor people would hit their limits very fast. Many F2P games make elements that would involve repeated infusions of items that cost $30-$100 a pop over time. A lot of those games have no real upper limit to the power or time savings you can get; there's never a sense of the game being done.

But for a richer person, 3k a year is what they give to their kids for christmas in gifts.

Do you believe that poor people are significantly more susceptible to triggering addictive behavior? I think a simpler explanation for why poor people play the lottery is that they see it as a way out of being poor.

I don't think the argument is to reverse the original statement (the original statement being something like "the top spenders must be wealthy", the reversal being something like "the top spenders must be poor"). Rather, the argument is that knowing there are people spending a lot of money tells you nothing about the income level of those people. They might be someone who's independently wealthy and using money they won't miss, or might be someone who's quite poor who's damaging their life in other ways to obtain the money. The argument is you don't know which from the facts given. All you know is there are people who spend $X on it.

That said, I don't think income level has anything to do with it. There are poorer people who shouldn't waste money to play the lottery or gamble in casinos, but do it anyway. There are also wealthier people who shouldn't waste money to play the markets, or other "casino/lottery for rich people" things, but do it anyway. It's just that our society is mostly oriented to treat the poorer people as compulsive gamblers -- which is treated as a moral failing -- and the wealthier people as "serial investors" or other terms which carry a more positive connotation.

Being poor surpresses rational thinking, making them more vulnerable

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-br...

Perhaps people with addictive tendencies are less likely to become, and stay rich.

It seems much more likely based on what?

Clash of Clans used to have an enormous Arabic contingent with the high-end upgrades.

I once calculated what it took to have a fully upgraded base within a week (New Level 11--if I remember correctly ...) and it was something like over a million dollars.

And there were multiple fully upgraded bases within a week. Now that's a whale. o_O!

I'm not sure about Clash but there are often game mechanics that kick in to heavily multiply your rewards. Spending $X gets you Y in game value but spending $2X gets you 5Y. And then it can compound with follow up offers targeted at the player/whale which may not be generally available.

So I don't doubt your figures but there's probably a "one week whale" trajectory that's built into it to give quick gratification for something like $250,000. Still seems outrageous but they can discount digital goods differently than retailers can.

From a game design perspective, though, it really encourages adding tedious gameplay elements.

Ramin Shokrizade does some wonderful analysis and criticism of F2P models here.

https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/author/RaminShokrizade/91404...

One thing he mentioned is that what those whales do is "buy the server," literally buy the top spots in any competitive aspect through spending so much cash that the ante to get into it excludes everyone else. I think at that level everyone else really doesn't matter; it's a spending contest versus the other whales for status.

What happens is that eventually the ante gets so high that the other whales look for a new game or new server to fight over.

It is almost some sort of 'most dangerous game' situation, where rich people are paying tons of money to be able to destroy regular folks at these games.

Although in reality, I bet the big spenders are not super wealthy. They probably spend way more than they can afford.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com