35 ms·
When I was in school for Wildlife Management, we learned pretty much the same thing about hunting. More money gets made by, outfitting companies, tour guides an
by grawprog 9y ago
When I was in school for Wildlife Management, we learned pretty much the same thing about hunting. More money gets made by, outfitting companies, tour guides and local communities by having a lottery style big game hunt than an open season. It attracts a few people who are willing to spend upwards of $20000 just to shoot one animal as opposed to many hunters coming in and not spending as much overall. It also tends to be better for the survival of the population as a whole though it does tend to lead to an overall weakening of the population though as only the biggest and strongest animals, that should be breeding, get removed.
- jnmandal 9y agoI think you are taking the metaphor a little bit too literally. :)
- lloydde 9y agoI came to the article to find out how whale watching tour companies were making most of their money from a few customers. This likely comes from growing up in the pacific north West of North America. It wasn’t until Zynga was mentioned that I caught on.
- carlob 9y agoExactly the same here, I wouldn't have clicked if I knew there were no actual whales involved.
- grawprog 9y agoI don't understand I think that's my highest rated comment on HN. I gotta admit I wrote it before I actually read the article. I really thought it was going to be about whale watching. I've been trying to figure out if there's some kind of brilliant metaphor in that comment but honestly I can't see one now that I've actually read it.
- watwut 9y agoGame industry calls people who spend a lot of money on games "whales". I guess it is because whales are supposed to have a lot of meat. None of people who use it knows a lot about biology and whale is likely the only big animal that can be eaten they know.
- Joe-Z 9y agoThe metaphor is more about how types of fish are distributed in the vast 'sea' of gamers. Most of them are small fish, so they don't pay anything or very little for your game. There's also the term dolphins, for people that pay medium-sized amounts or regularly and then whales for people that pour big amounts of money into your game (and like the headline mentions, these can be ridiculous sums).
- grawprog 9y agoI understand the metaphor in the article. I just don't understand why my comment that actually has nothing at all to do with the article just keeps on getting upvotes. The article makes sense, my comment after reading it makes none. I thought maybe I'd lucked out and came up with something that somehow was actually related in someway but no it's really not applicable. It really confused me at first when I read down and people were talking about the economy and 99%vs1% below in an article I thought was about literal whales.
- seeekr 9y agoHere's how your comment made sense to me even though I had read the article and understood that it's not talking about literal "whales": You mention few customers bringing in the major share of the revenue, and that's exactly what the article linked is about.
- watwut 9y agoI found it hilarious. And it mostly matches the article which is funny. I read a lot about games and whales, but your comment contained something new and refreshing.
- marincounty 9y ago1. "It also tends to be better for the survival of the population as a whole though it does tend to lead to an overall weakening of the population though as only the biggest and strongest animals, that should be breeding, get removed." Where did you pull this from? Man has already greatly interfered with any Mother Nature theory. 2. Yes--you're probally right on the hunters who pay to kill--a rich human is the only species I know of who hunts because they love killing, and they probally do pay. It's something I've never understood about the wealthy; Why can't they just give without a payoff.
- spynxic 9y ago> ..though it does tend to lead to an overall weakening of the population though as only the biggest and strongest animals, that should be breeding, get removed. This is true only if it is presumed that the hunter is absolutely proficient. I mention this because it would be reasonable to assume, based on "survival of the fittest" ideology, that an in-proficient selection-by-omission process would play a role in breeding more evasive and/or fiercer competitors.
- emodendroket 9y agoThey don't have to be absolutely proficient if you've got enough of them.