I take issue with the idea of considering consider this a "sad" event or assume that people are "falling" for emotional tactics and that they're later "convincing themselves" that the money was well spent. I think if you break down the vast majority of expenditures, you could say this.

* Bought a $500K house over a $400K house, or over a $25K house that was completely livable? Seems like the buyer fell for emotional tactics and peer and/or realtor pressure. Later they convinced themselves the money was well spent.

* Upsold on a new phone? Apple used emotional tactics to compel you to spend that money when you weren't really interested.

In games:

* Spent $200 during the Steam Sale on games you never actually played? How manipulative of Valve.

* Spent $1,000 buying Magic Cards after-market so you could win at a local tournament? It's a psychological sickness that you'll later convince yourself was just you "having fun".

There's a serious problem when people analyze any customer's behavior as being different from their own, and therefore irrational. I do think that there are many companies that trying to take advantage of consumers, but to another commenter's point, there are also many companies doing this responsibly. You could argue that many industries or businesses work on irrational behavior of consumers, but I think it's a slippery slope to categorize it as irrational - it's just behavior. People spend their income on all forms of entertainment good and bad, and frankly I was unhappy a lot of the time buying console games for $60 that never lived up to expectations. At least with free-to-play games I can choose what I'm paying for.