A Man Who’s Spent $70k Playing a Mobile Game | Hacker News Reader

A Man Who’s Spent $70k Playing a Mobile Game

wsj.com

70 pointsowens9964 comments

I didn't read the article (it's a video of a 31-year-old spending $70K), but $70K, even in a year, is not the craziest extreme compared to what whales have reportedly spent over the decade, right?

For example, from this 2014 Recode article:

https://www.recode.net/2014/2/26/11623998/a-long-tail-of-wha...

> At a conference I attended last year, a representative of a gaming company — who declined to be named or interviewed for a story — claimed that his firm had worked with a Japanese game company with one player who spent about $10,000 per month on in-app purchases. The company, he said, had assigned an employee to cater just to that whale, to ensure that she was always satisfied with the game and therefore likely to keep coming back.

Of course, there's also the money spent on PC games, such as Star Citizen. Looks like the biggest spender is $30,000 (though the game hasn't been released yet):

https://www.polygon.com/2015/11/7/9687934/someone-has-spent-...

I think the reason people are so willing to invest in SC is much different than the reason people are spending tons on in app purchases in mobile games.

SC is a game in a genre that has been mostly dead for years (free economy space sim) so when someone buys in they are buying in in hopes of an old genre getting revitalized.

SC is also pushing the boundaries in terms of technology. No loading screens, vast universe that takes days (real time) to cross. 1/4 scale planets. Animations for everything, you turn your head in your ship it turns. You touch a control in your ship your character touches it. Multiplayer throughout the universe, sometimes with thousand of objects all on the physics grid synced up with all players. Basically all items have physical space, rather than just a DB entry somewhere (all on the grid). You literally stack inventory in your ship and secure it.

So with SC you are paying a lot to buy into a super premium space sim. Your purchases go to funding the game. The emphasis is not on the game's quality or on the mechanics itself but instead on taking advantage of your brains wiring and using the game as an outlet to get you to spend money in an addictive fashion.

With mobile games you are buying into a feedback loop which is solely designed to make money off of you. Usually with loot boxes and gambling mechanics.

tl;dr SC is expensive but it's more like an expensive premium good as apposed to a gambling simulator. So they are quite different in what you are getting for the high price.

Addictions generally cost money. If he has the money to waste, its still beats other addictions that can kill you. I used to work with someone whose brother-in-law bet and often lost $10,000 a day in Macau on baccarat when on vacation.

> If he has the money to waste

Money isn't wasted if spent on something that makes the spender happy.

In fact I would argue that's the entire purpose of earning money in the first place!

Ahahahaha... I believe many a burnt out trust fund kid in rehab would agree with you here. Sometimes I wonder how many people would end up dead or in rehab if they didn't have to go to work everyday. Not everyone, but a fair number I'm sure.

I think you're right that too much money that one didn't earn can be a problem.

But certainly money a person earned themselves is theirs to enjoy. I'm spending mine driving around Africa, it's great not to go to work for 2+ years !

These games don't make you happy, they addict you to short term dopamine dumps. The games are engineered to reward spending money.

After quitting WoW, I realized it was a waste of time. During my addiction, I would have used this argument.

I actually found my WoW time to be highly productive: it made me realise you can generally achieve the things you want in life if you focus on them (I went from a total noob to playing competitively in a guild that achieved a few world first kills in about 2 years). It also gave me an iPhone app idea that made me a few hundred grand and took me about two months to develop.

Mind, this was about 10 years ago, during Burning Crusade. If I had to start over, I'd do it all again -- had great fun.

Some if not most remain stuck in the game with no iphone app project. Depends how addicted you get. If you know you can't manage addiction you better avoid it(i.e don't play games that never end)

I played a lot (there were definitely 15+ hour days), but I don't think I was ever really addicted. Just plotting the course and working towards the goal. Once I achieved that, I only played competitively for about 9 months and then quit.

To be honest, as ridiculous as it sounds, I really needed that to boost my self esteem. It has a lot of the same social constructs the real world has from which you can learn. That experience definitely helped me grow from being a socially awkward person to being more sociable and approachable, and having more belief in my own ability (.. even though it was just a game!).

I don't think school would've ever been able to do that.

To build on that a bit, I think one of the main issues with comparing one's own experiences with others' is that each person's brain is wired differently, so how one perceives, internalizes, and reacts to an experience is not necessarily how someone else does. I think it's the same kind of thing that makes one person like a food that another person hates, or that causes one person to like thriller movies while another doesn't. In the same way, I think one person can spend a lot of time and money on an activity responsibly and positively, while another person has a higher chance of succumbing to deleterious interactions that become habit or addiction. However, the fact that some people can enjoy a game responsibly doesn't really excuse the game maker from taking advantage of those who can't.

>However, the fact that some people can enjoy a game responsibly doesn't really excuse the game maker from taking advantage of those who can't.

I agree with what you're trying to say, but not with this statement in particular. I think it is possible to create a lovely game that unfortunately ropes in an addict as a side effect, but that isn't what the industry is about right now.

Game development conferences have been strewn full of talks specifically aimed at exploiting human psychology to generate additional profit - triple A games are designed around addictive loops constructed to provide maximum addiction and resource extraction for a minimum of game assets. I recall one slide in particular that measured the amount of profit per MAU and listed different game mechanics (PvP adds 10 cents per MAU, adding a fake rate-limit to your game adds 15 cents per MAU, cosmetics adds 7 cents per MAU, applying negative effects to your friends for your non-participation adds 13 cents per MAU, etc.) within a year, almost every large mobile game offering contained ALL of the mechanics on the list - and now their prevalence has leaked into other markets as well.

Accordingly, I'd say it isn't justifiable to build intentionally exploitative addictive systems just because some people can moderate their designed negative effects.

> I agree with what you're trying to say, but not with this statement in particular. I think it is possible to create a lovely game that unfortunately ropes in an addict as a side effect, but that isn't what the industry is about right now.

I don't think you're actually disagreeing. Taking advantage, as I put it, implies intent. To incidentally benefit from the consequences of an unfortunate side effect is not equivalent to taking advantage of the effect.

> Accordingly, I'd say it isn't justifiable to build intentionally exploitative addictive systems just because some people can moderate their designed negative effects.

This is the same statement in different words. "Exploit" is probably a more direct word to characterize the sentiment.

Generalizations are never a good idea. The vast majority of people can handle these types of games/gambling and some can even make the best of it. People tend to want to villainize it because some <1% of users abuse it in a way that harms their life, while most people just do it for fun.

People like to ban and stigmatize these types of things, but I'm curious if it's possible to bake some protections into it. Kind of like how bars stop giving you drinks if you look drunk.

For example: stop a user with "you're spending money too rapidly (maybe some small sub-text/link about gaming addiction)" with a temporary 1-2hr block to force them to break out of their impulsive loop and question their actions, but are free to continue after that time.

It might make financial sense as it may keep the user spending money for a longer time period, without destroying their finances or making it become such a problem they have to stop altogether.

> it made me realise you can generally achieve the things you want in life if you focus on them

I'd be cautious here; video games are designed, artificial worlds where difficulty level is carefully controlled by the maker. They are designed to give you sense of accomplishment and empowerment, so they cannot be too difficult, whereas real world accomplishments can be brutally difficult to achieve.

I think you're totally right. At the same time, GP is onto something (paraphrasing with some liberty) "with the right dedication, (almost) anything can be achieved." In my experience, this attitude of seemingly unfounded optimism can give a big boost in real achievement as well.

In terms of $12 a month WoW is a super cheap way to spend your time.

Ignoring opportunity cost, of course.

If you're comparing the cost effectiveness of entertainment then a high opportunity cost of an especially efficient choice is arguably just an additional bonus.

Happiness is subjective, and if short term dopamine dumps make one happy, then one should spend (not waste) as much money as they please seeking that out.

The original Guildwars would warn you if you played the game too long and tell you to go outside and take a break.

Feeding an addiction doesn’t lead to happiness, it staves off withdrawel. Happiness is a positive thing, not the absence of a negative thing. Addictions also tend to lead to other addictions, since the underlying “circuitry” is the same, in the same way that strong belief in one conspiracy theory is the biggest risk factor for believing in others.

> Feeding an addiction doesn’t lead to happiness.

That's a matter of opinion. You are not an arbiter of the human condition.

One of my friends runs a game shop. He told me a wealthy surgeon would come in weekly and buy $5,000 worth of baseball cards - either as singles, boxes of unopened packs, or whatnot. I remarked that the surgeon must really enjoy the hobby. He replied that the surgeon looked exceptionally distraught every time he made a purchase, but did so regardless.

It's just anecdata, but being able to support an addiction doesn't mean you have control over it, nor that you're happy about having it.

Speaking of which, it's time for me to get off HN and do some real work.

So the medicine became an additional anchor trying to sink you?

The traditional quote being by W.C. Fields:

“I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol and wild women. The other half I wasted.”

He says he plays every waking hour of the day unless he's "sleeping, driving, or taking a bath". I think he's wasting a bit more than just money.

Yeah, wasting his bath time, since he could be playing then, too.

I had a mobile game I spent nearly this much on before my wife persuaded me, with some help from my experience with addiction, that it was exactly this. A year or so later I still get a little adrenaline rush if I happen to look at the clock and it's exactly 2pm which means I'm running late for an important event in the game. Sucks.

> with some help from my experience with addiction

Is there a spectrum to addiction? A dopamine response is a dopamine response, at what point would an activity be classified as an addiction outside the hyperbole of "affects your job/relationship/eating/etc"

The old definition of addiction required physical dependency. Alcohol and opioids give this. Other stuff not so much. Stopping alcohol if you have a physical dependence cannbe fatal, so that's one big way it's different to a gambling addiction.

The new definition (preoccupation; seeking; increased "dose"; continuing when you know it's casing harm) is useful because it allows earlier intervention and covers a wider range of things that damage people.

Honestly I think I'd rather OD than have people find out I was spending this much money on a mobile game

To the point..

The guy mentions "I did stocks and futures". If the guy is a (retail) trader, and he's half good at it then he could be making $5k per day, and in that lense, 70k is peanuts.

There are so many things we don't know about this story, that's a WSJ clickbait :)

70k / $5k = two weeks of wages. This is not peanuts; think about how much you make in a month and setting fire to half of that.

Over what time period? Lots of people probably spend 2 weeks of wages per year on entertainment of some kind.

I would go as far as to say that any expensive hobby would take 2 weeks of someone's yearly salary. This could be music (listening or making), golf, photography, painting, Blurays... Tons of things.

He also implies he lives with his parents, since he says he cleans for them when they ask.

The article says: >For this video, The Wall Street Journal met 31-year-old Daigo, who dedicates most of his time—and financial resources—to “Fate/Grand Order.”

Thus, it explicitly says he spends "most of his financial resources" on the game. For anyone to spend > 50% of their financial resources on a video game is clearly indicative of an addiction.

In the late 2000s I worked at a gamepublisher in Europe and was friends with the monetization guy. It was a really shitty asian mmorpg badly supported, bad gameplay it was ass. Still there were hundreds of whales spending over 20k a month. The whole micro transaction business is way older and way meaner than everyone thinks.

Archive snapshot http://archive.is/LqLw2

edit: This is not much of an article, it's more of a video. From the description:

> For this video, The Wall Street Journal met 31-year-old Daigo, who dedicates most of his time—and financial resources—to “Fate/Grand Order.”

> The gamer, who declined to give his last name, says he has already spent more than $70,000 collecting rare “FGO” characters... and has no regrets.

Random rewards for money should be regulated as gambling.

The american version of the card game in question, FGO, follows a similar schedule to the japanese version, but delayed by two years. The japanese players are tossed all kinds of special banners. Having a better sense of what's coming helps curb some knee-jerk spending, but I guess it depends on personality. You can also use another player's character through a support slot, which helps some.

Lotta comments talking about waste of time, waste of money.
You can have your own preferences for what you would spend your money and your time on without trying to force your preferences on others.
I could be making a lot more money than I do, but I would rather waste my time on hanging out with my kids.
Don't be so quick to judge what other people waste their resources on.

Time spent "reading HN" is definitely more wasteful than "hanging out with [your] kids"

maybe - what if you're hanging out with your kids smoking blunts? What if you find an article on hn that completely changes how you do software dev and your productivity increases 20% from that point out? Definitely is a strong word.

Maybe to you it is. To me it would depend on the content I'm reading on HN or the activities (or lack thereof) while hanging out with my kids.

I don't know why you've been down voted. But I agree with you - I'll make less money and spend time with my family.

Dunno. Doesn't matter. I just think it's a bit weird that so many people care what others waste time on. We all have our things that we like to do that don't make a lot of sense to other groups of people.
Edit: See, even I am doing it there, thinking it's weird that other people waste time on caring about what other people waste time on. If you want to waste time on trying to convince people that they should be more productive, and that makes you happy, then go for it!
Live and let live.

Yep. Not just time but money! It's their money and they can do wtf they want with it. I choose to drive a shitty Skoda so I can spend money on what I think is more important, than which car I drive. Others can drive their 100-200k cars if they want, and I won't criticize them for their purchases (which are incidentally much less costly than the 70k this guy spent on an app).

People should not propose a law to stop that guy from wasting money, but people should be allowed to have an opinion about what is wasteful and what not, and allowed to speak out their opnions.

I agree 100%

Let's have a look at WSJ's comments. Just for fun.
"You need to get out and walk, and get a job. You have too much time on your hands..." ---- "Bet Daigo is a supporter of Universal Income." ---- "Pathetic." ---- "I bet the girls are just lining up for this guy." ---- "These folks should be pitied, not celebrated. Shame on the WSJ for giving him airtime." ---- "I bet the girls are just lining up for this guy." ---- "1. He isn't a man if he spends most of his time playing a video game. 2. If this is our future generation... we are all screwed. 3. Where did he steal the 70k?" ---- "The guy's brain is just going to be oatmeal in 10 years..." ---- "Guy's lucky my parents aren't his. He'd be out on the street so fast his butt would be burning from road rash."
And people are puzzled by the hikikomori phenomenon in Japanese society. I think hikikomori exist in any nation/society where self-important "humans" react to another individual human being's life choices like this.
Ironically, these "humans" probably think the completion of daily sudoku puzzles, perhaps the occasional game of something well-regarded like chess, and just doing their jobs, will preserve the integrity of their precious brains. These video game addicts are doing the same thing with "rare characters" i.e. solving puzzles etc.
The automatic assumption that the man is unemployed and leeching his parents' money is also amusing. I have met some of these "whales" that play gacha video games. Many of them have well-paid jobs and simply choose to divert their money towards what may seem to many to be a frivolous and silly, even ephemeral thing like the acquisition of video game characters.
I'm not saying this guy has got it figured out, he's probably neurotic on some level, but these comments are symptomatic of a society that will cause people to go in these directions of neurotic escapism. They're also demonstrative of a society that is itself scared or unwilling to acknowledge the existence of problems that drive people to such extremes, and indicates at a rotten core and an emptiness to the people who are so quick to cast judgement.
There were comments about how the money has been wasted and the man will wake up later in his life and regret everything. What do these people think they will do with their savings, assets and so on? Do they think that they can buy their way into an eternal afterlife? I don't think these people have acknowledged the possibility that when they're dead, that's it, and all the wealth they accumulated is meaningless when you're in the ground.
I'm not defending this person's behaviour. I'm not a video game addict or mentally ill (I smoke, but I don't see myself in this guy, so I don't think I'm biased). I just think there's a problem in any discourse where there isn't a single person playing Devil's Advocate, and I think it's hilarious that the people leaving such comments are so utterly blind to the fact that their attitudes are precisely the reasons why many people end up mentally ill.

Paywalled.
> To Read the Full Story > Subscribe > Sign In

This should get around the paywall https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https...

Firefox add-on that fakes the referrer when accessing the WSJ and the FT in order to remove the paywall. Five lines of code.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/read-ft-wsj/

I don't like downloading random extensions, and Mozilla makes it hard to view the source of this extension. What's the trick to avoiding the paywall? Use Facebook as a referer?

Correct.
If domain is WSJ or FT, set referer="facebook.com".
That's it.
EDIT: BTW in case you don't know, Firefox add-on extension .xpi is actually just a zip in disguise. Rename it to .zip and open it as normal. You can then investigate the source. But I agree that it would be neat if the addons.mozilla.org allowed to see this directly on their page. Although on the other hand, this loses usefulness for larger addons.

Can you explain why there's no paywall when the referer is facebook? (I don't use facebook)

Because WSJ (and other sites) filter access based on the referer header. They've made a business decision to allow access to people following links from Facebook, likely in the hopes that the readers will find the article useful and be more inclined to subscribe. They also benefit from the views such links generate.

Facebook de-ranks publishers that have paywalls. Since these publishers want Facebook traffic, they don't show paywalls for people that come from Facebook. One way to implement this is by looking at the referer.

But Mozilla doesn't let me download the files directly. I copied the XPI link and tried to download it with curl, but got an empty file.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
People usually post workarounds. There's one elsewhere in the thread.

A gun isn't fair in a knife fight. Certain technologies allow bullying. I think math is one such technology. Non intuitiveness of exponential growth is one that many debtors don't understand. A sense of knowing how society/money works is another, it allows seeing the value of money in being able to get stability and freedom rather than just say new shoes or TV's.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com