5 ms·

If you are wealthy, and you enjoy playing a game, why wouldn't you spend 4-6k a month on items? It is no better or worse than spending hundreds of thousands on

If you are wealthy, and you enjoy playing a game, why wouldn't you spend 4-6k a month on items? It is no better or worse than spending hundreds of thousands on cars, yachts, prostitutes, and whatnot. Obviously ripping off your employer to the extent of $4.8m is a bad idea, but if you've earned the money, why not?

kbart 10y ago
Exactly. I, personally, find many things people pay huge amounts of money for plain stupid, but it's their money and their life, just let them do it as long as they don't harm others. How is spending thousands of $ on computer games any worse than buying golden iPhones, diamonds, luxury cars, lottery tickets, rare post stamps or coins etc? The only exceptions when intervention is necessary I can think of: a) a person is underage b) a person is mentally ill (by that I mean serious illness, not "gaming addiction"). We shouldn't be moral police and tell adult people how to live their lives and spend their money.
- candu 10y ago
  One possible counterargument in this particular case: if the game is balanced such that it's effectively pay-to-win (and pay a lot), one person who can afford this level of spending could easily encourage less well-heeled players to spend similar amounts, which in turn could easily harm those players' families. This touches on several related questions, none of which have clear right answers. Who is at "fault" in addiction: the addict, the dealer, or both? If both, in what proportion? Is "gaming addiction" as dangerous / harmful as substance addiction? What constitutes harm to others, and how much harm needs to occur to deserve intervention? (For instance: some argue that the purchase of luxury diamonds causes harm halfway around the world where they're mined, to take one of the "harmless" examples listed above.) In other words: I'd say it's very difficult to make categorical statements about the "rightness" of complete economic freedom to do what you want with your money. We prohibit all kinds of purchases, services, etc. based on prevailing answers to questions like those above, and those prevailing answers inevitably change over time. (They also vary wildly between countries, states, or even cities.)
  - kbart 10y ago
    Ok, let's counter your counter arguments. "one person who can afford this level of spending could easily encourage less well-heeled players to spend similar amounts, which in turn could easily harm those players' families." Not everyone can afford gym, golf course membership, owning race horse etc., but more affluent people still do that, does that encourage other people to spend more as well? Maybe, but a sane man chooses his hobbies according to amount of money he has to spare. "This touches on several related questions, none of which have clear right answers. Who is at "fault" in addiction: the addict, the dealer, or both?" In my opinion, it's the addict. Addiction, first of all, is inability to control ones impulses, urges and overall lack of will to make rational decisions. We should have learned from "war on drugs" that controlling availability of addictives is not a solution and, arguably, makes problem even worse. "What constitutes harm to others, and how much harm needs to occur to deserve intervention?" We have criminal laws to deal with harming others: stealing, robbing, blackmailing etc. and spending legally earned money doesn't fall under any of these. "For instance: some argue that the purchase of luxury diamonds causes harm halfway around the world where they're mined, to take one of the "harmless" examples listed above." This is very specific, out of context problem, but it should be dealt at its roots (the country they are mined) and/or forbidding trading of such goods internationally by treaties (like ivory). Buying diamond itself doesn't hurt anyone directly. To sum up, we shouldn't ban something, just because there's a small group of people that abuse it. We should treat these rare cases when addiction reaches out of control levels just like any other disorder, because such people will find a way into problem anyway.
amalcon 10y ago
This is a profoundly alien mindset to me. Which is not to say that it's wrong, or bad, just very different from how I think. Before spending money, in addition to "Can I afford this?" I also ask myself, "Is this worth it?" I could afford to spend, say, $2k/yr on my skiing hobby. It wouldn't be that hard to do: modern equipment, frequent trips to expensive mountains, things of that nature add up in a hurry. I'd probably enjoy it more that way, and I'd certainly get to do it more often. Instead, I use a decade-old pair of skis that I received as a gift, with a third-hand pair of boots that's literally from the 1980s, and warm outerwear that probably cost a total of $300 in various outlet stores over the past eight years. I go 2-3 weekends a year, to relatively inexpensive mountains, and my amortized annual expenditure comes in at under $500 (including a reasonable price estimate and amortization schedule for the skis). Why? The marginal benefit just isn't worth it. Now, obviously, "worth it" is subjective. Buying a new pair of ski boots for the coming season won't directly impact my retirement or anything like that. Indeed, there isn't a single concrete thing that it would trade off against. When I break it down, though, I decide the work I did for that money is worth more than my benefit from the new boots. In that case, better to hold onto the money in case a better opportunity comes along.
- roel_v 10y ago
  When your income off investments is 100k a month, the threshold for making something 'worth' 6k is very low. So they might have the exact same mindset you have, just a different frame of reference. I'm not wealthy but I'm better off than I was 10 years ago - I certainly spend on things I'd find laughable to spend on back then. Yet my financial thinking hasn't changed, just the marginal utility. I don't know how old you are, but if you're in your 20's and in the same field most of us here are, I suspect you will go through the same process.
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    Exactly. Life is just different with $10k in the bank, vs $800k in the bank.
- usrusr 10y ago
  Similar mindset here, although my cycling habit is much more expensive (but that gear also gets used much more frequently than a low number of weekends per year). My (not) buying decisions can be roughly grouped into two categories: "will the goods be more valuable to me than the freedom to spend that money on something different?" and "can I afford to spend that money not only once, but can I afford to make a habit out of that kind of spending?". Cutting down on a luxury is much harder than never starting.

kbart 10y ago

Exactly. I, personally, find many things people pay huge amounts of money for plain stupid, but it's their money and their life, just let them do it as long as they don't harm others. How is spending thousands of $ on computer games any worse than buying golden iPhones, diamonds, luxury cars, lottery tickets, rare post stamps or coins etc? The only exceptions when intervention is necessary I can think of: a) a person is underage b) a person is mentally ill (by that I mean serious illness, not "gaming addiction"). We shouldn't be moral police and tell adult people how to live their lives and spend their money.

candu 10y ago
One possible counterargument in this particular case: if the game is balanced such that it's effectively pay-to-win (and pay a lot), one person who can afford this level of spending could easily encourage less well-heeled players to spend similar amounts, which in turn could easily harm those players' families. This touches on several related questions, none of which have clear right answers. Who is at "fault" in addiction: the addict, the dealer, or both? If both, in what proportion? Is "gaming addiction" as dangerous / harmful as substance addiction? What constitutes harm to others, and how much harm needs to occur to deserve intervention? (For instance: some argue that the purchase of luxury diamonds causes harm halfway around the world where they're mined, to take one of the "harmless" examples listed above.) In other words: I'd say it's very difficult to make categorical statements about the "rightness" of complete economic freedom to do what you want with your money. We prohibit all kinds of purchases, services, etc. based on prevailing answers to questions like those above, and those prevailing answers inevitably change over time. (They also vary wildly between countries, states, or even cities.)
- kbart 10y ago
  Ok, let's counter your counter arguments. "one person who can afford this level of spending could easily encourage less well-heeled players to spend similar amounts, which in turn could easily harm those players' families." Not everyone can afford gym, golf course membership, owning race horse etc., but more affluent people still do that, does that encourage other people to spend more as well? Maybe, but a sane man chooses his hobbies according to amount of money he has to spare. "This touches on several related questions, none of which have clear right answers. Who is at "fault" in addiction: the addict, the dealer, or both?" In my opinion, it's the addict. Addiction, first of all, is inability to control ones impulses, urges and overall lack of will to make rational decisions. We should have learned from "war on drugs" that controlling availability of addictives is not a solution and, arguably, makes problem even worse. "What constitutes harm to others, and how much harm needs to occur to deserve intervention?" We have criminal laws to deal with harming others: stealing, robbing, blackmailing etc. and spending legally earned money doesn't fall under any of these. "For instance: some argue that the purchase of luxury diamonds causes harm halfway around the world where they're mined, to take one of the "harmless" examples listed above." This is very specific, out of context problem, but it should be dealt at its roots (the country they are mined) and/or forbidding trading of such goods internationally by treaties (like ivory). Buying diamond itself doesn't hurt anyone directly. To sum up, we shouldn't ban something, just because there's a small group of people that abuse it. We should treat these rare cases when addiction reaches out of control levels just like any other disorder, because such people will find a way into problem anyway.

amalcon 10y ago

This is a profoundly alien mindset to me. Which is not to say that it's wrong, or bad, just very different from how I think. Before spending money, in addition to "Can I afford this?" I also ask myself, "Is this worth it?" I could afford to spend, say, $2k/yr on my skiing hobby. It wouldn't be that hard to do: modern equipment, frequent trips to expensive mountains, things of that nature add up in a hurry. I'd probably enjoy it more that way, and I'd certainly get to do it more often. Instead, I use a decade-old pair of skis that I received as a gift, with a third-hand pair of boots that's literally from the 1980s, and warm outerwear that probably cost a total of $300 in various outlet stores over the past eight years. I go 2-3 weekends a year, to relatively inexpensive mountains, and my amortized annual expenditure comes in at under $500 (including a reasonable price estimate and amortization schedule for the skis). Why? The marginal benefit just isn't worth it. Now, obviously, "worth it" is subjective. Buying a new pair of ski boots for the coming season won't directly impact my retirement or anything like that. Indeed, there isn't a single concrete thing that it would trade off against. When I break it down, though, I decide the work I did for that money is worth more than my benefit from the new boots. In that case, better to hold onto the money in case a better opportunity comes along.

roel_v 10y ago
When your income off investments is 100k a month, the threshold for making something 'worth' 6k is very low. So they might have the exact same mindset you have, just a different frame of reference. I'm not wealthy but I'm better off than I was 10 years ago - I certainly spend on things I'd find laughable to spend on back then. Yet my financial thinking hasn't changed, just the marginal utility. I don't know how old you are, but if you're in your 20's and in the same field most of us here are, I suspect you will go through the same process.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  Exactly. Life is just different with $10k in the bank, vs $800k in the bank.
usrusr 10y ago
Similar mindset here, although my cycling habit is much more expensive (but that gear also gets used much more frequently than a low number of weekends per year). My (not) buying decisions can be roughly grouped into two categories: "will the goods be more valuable to me than the freedom to spend that money on something different?" and "can I afford to spend that money not only once, but can I afford to make a habit out of that kind of spending?". Cutting down on a luxury is much harder than never starting.