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.
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".