Hacker News Reader

Comment by jamesbritt | Hacker News Reader

Yes, we maximize for users who spend over $10k. These users even have names. They're called "whales" in industry parlance. Why wouldn't you want more of them in your game? This is a business afterall.

I thought that term sounded familiar.

http://www.worldfreepoker.com/poker-glossary.html#W

"Whale: A poor player with a lot of money to lose."

I don't want to be creating products for addicts. But what if these users are just rich people who have tons of money to spend off the cuff?

Sure, just like at casinos.

You're right, in a way; there are people with more money than brains who are happy to blow a good chunk of it gambling and are really no worse off for it because they're rich. But, realistically, you and I both know that's never the whole story.

View on HN

Right, which is why I said this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3556270

You and I also know that this isn't a problem inherent to just casual mobile games. It's a chronic problem to the gaming industry as a whole, and its not going to stop people from making entertainment for the millions of users who aren't addicts.

I think his problem (the previous poster) is not that there are addicts who happen to play these games. Sure there are addicts out there and you're not going to stop them.

He is pointing out that, like casinos, these games are specifically targeting these addicts, and these games probably couldn't even exist without the addicts to support them.

>its not going to stop people from making entertainment for the millions of users who aren't addicts.

These games aren't made for the millions of users who aren't addicts. These games are made specifically for addicts.

>Yes, we maximize for users who spend over $10k

It's like the difference between selling alcohol and selling cigarettes. Alcohol is mostly sold to normal people, and percentage of the population abuses it, but virtually every single cigarette made is sold to an addict.

Alcohol manufacturers could exist without addicts, cigarette companies couldn't.

If you make a Farmville type game there's a good chance you are depending on "addicts" to keep you in business.

I'm not declaring casual games to be immoral by the way. I'm just pointing out the difference.

I understand. But who is to say that these big spenders are actually addicts? Is the probability of this type of user being an addict greater than the probability of being plainly rich?

Targeting is your word, not mine. We cohort users by spending activity and learn from them in the same way a Macy's buyer will learn from their most loyal customers. My friend works as a buyer for children's clothes and they make the same business decisions I make about inventory and store layout.

We maximize for users who spend large amounts of money (incidentally none of ours have spent $10k, more like $100) because this and engagement data is the only data we have in determining customer loyalty. So we ask ourselves questions like "If this user found enough value out of this feature to spend $100 on it, we should make more like this".

If someone wants to pay you 10 grand that's his decision. I don't ask for a credit report before I take money from a customer either, so for all I know I've taken money from people who couldn't afford it. I don't think it's your job to predicate every transaction on your customer's financial/emotional health.

However, I do think the closest moral analog to running a casual Farmville type game is running a casino. If you're fine with running a casino, I'm not trying to stop you.

That's a good question. I would think there are more people with serious gaming addictions out there than there are people rich enough to spend more than $10K on a game without it affecting their economy in some negative way.

If you really want to find out if targeting these users to maximise profits is harmful or not, I think it's a good idea to ask these spenders, perhaps have them take a survey. If you don't want that, I'm pretty sure there's research out there on gaming and spending habits that can shed some light on the question.

[Edit: I see that you sell through iTunes connect, and I don't know if Apple permits you to have anonymous user surveys in you app. Even then, I'd guess that you wouldn't risk your highest paying customers reconsidering their gaming habits by asking them uncomfortable questions in a survey. Given that, I would think actively looking for published research papers would be a good idea.]

It's a disturbing feature of modernism that people are hyper-focused on "evidence". Most studies are pretty inconclusive anyway. People know, in their heart of hearts that these games are pointless and exploitative. We don't know what the effects are. In a better culture we would tailor our arguments in accordance to our ethics, not look for excuses to keep profiting off something questionable.

I agree. The point I was trying to make was that his question is not unanswerable, although he makes it out to be. "Who knows, maybe what I'm doing is alright after all?" Studies don't have to be conclusive in order to make him more informed about that.

It's pretty obvious that these games are just elaborate slot machines. Like slot machines, the companies involved simply don't care about the ethical issues. And you're apparently happy to profit off these activities until the evidence sticks to you. Just like the cigarette companies have always been eager to profit off a questionable business due to "lack of evidence". For shame.

Right, it's totally understandable that you would tune mechanics in order to keep the addicts paying.

Don't expect not to get judged when you work for those pushing the envelope in this direction though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com