Saturday, November 7, 2009
Economy Broke, Unemployed, Underemployed Americans to Spend $1 Billion This Year on "Virtual Goods"
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Fools and their money:
These so-called virtual goods, like a $1 illustration of a Champagne bottle on Facebook or the $2.50 Halloween costume in the online game Sorority Life, are no more than a collection of pixels on a Web page. But it is quickly becoming commonplace for people to spend a few dollars on them to get ahead in an online game or to give a friend a gift on a social network.Analysts estimate that virtual goods could bring in a billion dollars in the United States and around $5 billion worldwide this year.
Share via
1
How's it go? "Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public." It's true, it's true.
3
Um, can someone please remove what that piece of shit just wrote @ 2? Irrelevant AND offensive. Thanks.
4
@1 sort of true. one can be very poor and think the American public is dumb. However if you see no fault in exploiting the stupidity of others, you may make a few sheckles.
5
Agreed. Please remove @2. And on behalf of people who aren't asshole bottom-feeding attention whores I apologize to Dan for this sick fuck's comments.
9
I like to take occasions like this to play games with emphasis and pacing. So you can read that as, "Fuck Dan Savage! And his dead whore of a mother!" or you can read it as emphasizing the dead part -- "Fuck Dan Savage and his DEAD whore of a mother (as distinguished from his live whore of a mother)!" or you can focus on the dead whore part, as in "Fuck Dan Savage and his dead whore of a mother (as distinguished from his other mother who is neither dead, nor a whore)!" Or, finally, you can think of it as being a suggestion in favor of a fee-for-service necrophiliac three-way: "Fuck {Dan Savage and his dead whore of a mother}!"
Of course the original message lacks inflection, because it's all in caps. Which is just one more reason why capslock is never a good idea.
Of course the original message lacks inflection, because it's all in caps. Which is just one more reason why capslock is never a good idea.
10
It's stupid to buy pointless junk. But virtual junk is no worse than physical junk. And easier on the environment.
When people buy antiques or halloween costumes or truck nutz, those objects don't serve any useful purpose in the real world. We buy the antique to collect it or because it's aesthetically pleasing or to show off to our friends. We buy a halloween costume to express ourselves and show off to our friends. We buy truck nutz to express ourselves. Etc, etc.
How is that any different than virtual objects? You can't resell your virtual objects, but I don't think you're going to get much for most of the physical junk you buy. You're going to lose your virtual objects when you stop playing the game, but then again they don't fill up your closet with useless crap.
It's the same with junk food and lottery tickets and cable tv and about 90% of what people buy. We get happiness out of buying things even if they don't directly contribute to our survival. That's not stupid. It may be irrational. It's definitely destroying the environment. But it's not stupid.
When people buy antiques or halloween costumes or truck nutz, those objects don't serve any useful purpose in the real world. We buy the antique to collect it or because it's aesthetically pleasing or to show off to our friends. We buy a halloween costume to express ourselves and show off to our friends. We buy truck nutz to express ourselves. Etc, etc.
How is that any different than virtual objects? You can't resell your virtual objects, but I don't think you're going to get much for most of the physical junk you buy. You're going to lose your virtual objects when you stop playing the game, but then again they don't fill up your closet with useless crap.
It's the same with junk food and lottery tickets and cable tv and about 90% of what people buy. We get happiness out of buying things even if they don't directly contribute to our survival. That's not stupid. It may be irrational. It's definitely destroying the environment. But it's not stupid.
11
I'm totally torn by this. It's free money for the vendors. And you get something ONLY usable in the context of an online environment, some of which you have to pay to use ANYWAY (MMORPGS, for example). So, you're practically renting the thing, and it's not anything but a visualization on your screen. A total waste of money.
But I want a Pandaren Monk pet. http://us.blizzard.com/store/details.xml…. $10.
But I want a Pandaren Monk pet. http://us.blizzard.com/store/details.xml…. $10.
12
i was appalled when i went to "attach a gift" to a birthday message i sent via facebook, and was asked for a credit card number. i couldn't believe they wanted actual money for what was really just an emoticon.
you're telling me that people actually buy these things? wow.
you're telling me that people actually buy these things? wow.
14
Tangentially, @10, ostensibly-straight guys buy truck nutz so they can hold them in their hands and occasionally soap them up/tug them.
When they're ready to go balls-out, so to speak, for a truck dick, they can save themselves a few bucks (for chaw later on) by dropping the rear driveline at the transfer case. It'll look just like an elephant with a hardon.
When they're ready to go balls-out, so to speak, for a truck dick, they can save themselves a few bucks (for chaw later on) by dropping the rear driveline at the transfer case. It'll look just like an elephant with a hardon.
16
I'm with 10. Personally I'm anti- both knick knacks and virtual goods. But to me it seems like any other entertainment purchase if someone wants to spend a couple bucks to earn some pixels. It supports the developers of the program too.
Whatever floats your e-boat.
Whatever floats your e-boat.
18
I'll also second #10. Paying for entertainment and intellectual property in electronic forms is nothing new and certainly nothing that someone who MAKES HIS LIVING AS A WRITER should see as terribly odd. I question the little social networking gift thingies because I have a hard time believing they're fun enough to justify the price, but I've paid small amounts of money for little extra program features in virtual worlds before, programs that, most of the time, are made by talented and hard-working indie freelance artists who are just trying to make it through this shitty recession themselves.
19
Dan,
Indeed, it confirms P. T. Barnum's quote (at least I think so?), "There's a sucker born every minute." Yeah, once a need is created (evidently, virtual or real) you'll have a consumer(s) created as well. Fascinating article.
Indeed, it confirms P. T. Barnum's quote (at least I think so?), "There's a sucker born every minute." Yeah, once a need is created (evidently, virtual or real) you'll have a consumer(s) created as well. Fascinating article.
20
Not that there aren't a lot of frivolous ways to spend your money on the internet ('gifts' on facebook are pretty pointless), but if virtual goods are undesirable because they are transient or useless out of context, there's a lot of real-life goods that suffer the same problem.
I mean, the other day I spent $5 on a pint. Here we are a few days later and I don't have anything to really show for it. Last week I dropped $10 on a ticket to Amelia, which was pretty but boring and unsatisfying. If I'd spent that $5 or $10 on a pink wizard hat for my elf sorcerer in Magic Kingdom of the Fantasy Questland or whatever, I'd still have my silly pink wizard hat.
I think it's pretty short-sighted to say "oh, that's a dumb thing to do with your money" if you don't even participate in the medium in question. If the game/social medium itself has no value to you, it's purely solipsistic to suggest it has no value to anybody. But then, I just knocked stupid and useless gifts on Facebook, so what do I know.
I mean, the other day I spent $5 on a pint. Here we are a few days later and I don't have anything to really show for it. Last week I dropped $10 on a ticket to Amelia, which was pretty but boring and unsatisfying. If I'd spent that $5 or $10 on a pink wizard hat for my elf sorcerer in Magic Kingdom of the Fantasy Questland or whatever, I'd still have my silly pink wizard hat.
I think it's pretty short-sighted to say "oh, that's a dumb thing to do with your money" if you don't even participate in the medium in question. If the game/social medium itself has no value to you, it's purely solipsistic to suggest it has no value to anybody. But then, I just knocked stupid and useless gifts on Facebook, so what do I know.
22
The essence of a market economy is that the value of anything---real or virtual---is what people are willing to pay for it, in money, labour, or other goods. There is no inherent value in _anything_; value is set by desire, which in turn derives from the item's utility for survival and pleasure above and beyond that .
(Personally, that's my problem with an unconstrained, free, market: I think a culture is based upon valorising assumptions which should not be open to market effects----for example, I should not be able to sell my ability to make moral judgements regardless of how much anyone else would be willing to pay for it. Less prolix: the problem with a market in which anything can be bought is that everything ends up for sale.)
So I'm with the others who hold this practice less harmful to the environment whilst at least equally stupid to buying most physical goods. In fact, making 'a decent, First World, middle-class, life' mean much more consumption of data-based goods and less of physical goods seems to be the only way of getting it to everyone on Earth who wants it (and they generally do) without drowning in our own waste-products or seriously lowering everyone's expectations (a bad thing, because people who feel their lives to be a little luxurious act as if they had rights, much harder to oppress them than the poor).
In any event, nanofacturing, 3-D printing, and whatever other smarter manufacturing techniques come down the pike will make the distinction less and less meaningful.
(Personally, that's my problem with an unconstrained, free, market: I think a culture is based upon valorising assumptions which should not be open to market effects----for example, I should not be able to sell my ability to make moral judgements regardless of how much anyone else would be willing to pay for it. Less prolix: the problem with a market in which anything can be bought is that everything ends up for sale.)
So I'm with the others who hold this practice less harmful to the environment whilst at least equally stupid to buying most physical goods. In fact, making 'a decent, First World, middle-class, life' mean much more consumption of data-based goods and less of physical goods seems to be the only way of getting it to everyone on Earth who wants it (and they generally do) without drowning in our own waste-products or seriously lowering everyone's expectations (a bad thing, because people who feel their lives to be a little luxurious act as if they had rights, much harder to oppress them than the poor).
In any event, nanofacturing, 3-D printing, and whatever other smarter manufacturing techniques come down the pike will make the distinction less and less meaningful.
23
@11 .. that is really neat!
I played WoW during the beta and for about eight months after .. how complicated and insane the game has gotten since then really blows my mind. I want to get back into it but its just too much for me.
They need to come out with 'lil WoW or something ... that doesn't require 30/hrs a week of playtime and I'd start playing again.
I played WoW during the beta and for about eight months after .. how complicated and insane the game has gotten since then really blows my mind. I want to get back into it but its just too much for me.
They need to come out with 'lil WoW or something ... that doesn't require 30/hrs a week of playtime and I'd start playing again.
24
Back when I was living on a shoestring, I would occasionally get the urge to spend money. I only bought stuff I needed, but the feeling that I had money and I could spend it was somehow necessary.
I know these folk aren't buying anything of value, but they're not spending much, either, at least not individually. Sometimes when you're ground down by lack of money, a symbolic frivolity can restore quite a lot of self-esteem.
Just sayin.
I know these folk aren't buying anything of value, but they're not spending much, either, at least not individually. Sometimes when you're ground down by lack of money, a symbolic frivolity can restore quite a lot of self-esteem.
Just sayin.
26
If spending a few dollars on an emoticon makes someone happy, whose business is it? Theirs, and no one elses.
I love movies and I buy my share of DVDs (and then some). Most of my friends know they can always hit me up for movie night or borrow something they haven't seen, but not a week goes by without someone making some comment about how dumb it is to "waste money" on movies. I usually counter with something about how I don't go to Starbucks before work to the tune of $5 every day, and I don't stop at the bar on my way home (an additional $5-$10). They enjoy their coffee drink, I enjoy movies, and some dumbass enjoys paying $3 for a digital gewgaw.
I love movies and I buy my share of DVDs (and then some). Most of my friends know they can always hit me up for movie night or borrow something they haven't seen, but not a week goes by without someone making some comment about how dumb it is to "waste money" on movies. I usually counter with something about how I don't go to Starbucks before work to the tune of $5 every day, and I don't stop at the bar on my way home (an additional $5-$10). They enjoy their coffee drink, I enjoy movies, and some dumbass enjoys paying $3 for a digital gewgaw.
27
When I find something that entertains me and I decide that the gains in my entertainment are worth supporting the further development of the game I don't consider myself a fool for that. Now, they might be talking about this because facebook has thrown their hat into the ring, which have really exploded the market. I have no idea why people would give games like that money, but for what it's worth they must be doing something entertaining. Hollywood wish they had that kind of power.
28
#26. There are people in your life who feel comfortable commenting on how you spend your money? And you keep them in your life?
29
Those of you that are deriding the value of virtual goods are forgetting that ALL value is contextual. You remind me the folks who used to get all weirded out by paper money or, worse yet, paper money that isn't backed up by real gold in a vault somewhere.
A $100 dollar bill is only more valuable than the paper it's written on because we invest it with that value. In the same way, "virtual" goods have real value because we invest it with that value.
After all, if something entertains one or makes one happy, does that not have value? Isn't that value "real"? I mean, I can understand how some of you might question the rationality of deriving enjoyment from some of these things. I think that is a fair argument. But irrational and "stupid" are two very different things.
Also, some of these virtual goods are actually extremely efficient forms of entertainment. Most MMOs charge a subscription fee in the $10-15 range per month. In said month, an individual can derive a tremendous amount of entertainment value from that. By contrast, it's easy to spend $10-15 going to a movie in the theater alone and only get entertained for two hours. You can spend $10-15 on one drink in a lot of clubs. It seems to me that for someone who is strapped for cash, an MMO is a VERY efficient way to spend your money.
In general, I'm a lot more concerned about the amount of money that un/underemployed folks spend on "real" luxury goods than on virtual goods.
A $100 dollar bill is only more valuable than the paper it's written on because we invest it with that value. In the same way, "virtual" goods have real value because we invest it with that value.
After all, if something entertains one or makes one happy, does that not have value? Isn't that value "real"? I mean, I can understand how some of you might question the rationality of deriving enjoyment from some of these things. I think that is a fair argument. But irrational and "stupid" are two very different things.
Also, some of these virtual goods are actually extremely efficient forms of entertainment. Most MMOs charge a subscription fee in the $10-15 range per month. In said month, an individual can derive a tremendous amount of entertainment value from that. By contrast, it's easy to spend $10-15 going to a movie in the theater alone and only get entertained for two hours. You can spend $10-15 on one drink in a lot of clubs. It seems to me that for someone who is strapped for cash, an MMO is a VERY efficient way to spend your money.
In general, I'm a lot more concerned about the amount of money that un/underemployed folks spend on "real" luxury goods than on virtual goods.
30
"Analysts estimate that virtual goods could bring in a billion dollars in the United States and around $5 billion worldwide this year."
According to Wikipedia, the U.S. has roughly 5% of the world's population, yet it accounts for 20% of this spending? Perhaps we need to boost our education budget.
According to Wikipedia, the U.S. has roughly 5% of the world's population, yet it accounts for 20% of this spending? Perhaps we need to boost our education budget.
31
24 - Very true. If you're familiar with Second Life, that universe (which is free to play) has a "micro" virtual economy where $1 is something like $.15 or something of the like. I bought several hundred of these 'dollars' in there a couple of weeks ago spending out of the useless $7 or so I still had my paycheck, then bought my avatar shoes, hairstyles, clothes, jewelry, even a musical instrument with some pretty sophisticated programming. Darn if it didn't feel almost as good as buying the real things - they'll probably last longer, too!
32
@30: Tell me this isn't news to you? The US per capita numbers on a lot of things are way out of proportion to the rest of the world. Most of the people on this ball of rock are too busy surviving to buy emoticons.
33
@30: Tell me this isn't news to you? The US per capita numbers on a lot of things are way out of proportion to the rest of the world. Most of the people on this ball of rock are too busy surviving to buy emoticons.
In an effort to keep Slog's discourse respectful and on topic, commenting on this post is
now
available only to registered commenters.
Comments (33) RSS