[somehnacct3757]

Having worked in the games industry on Facebook and mobile games, I don't think your perspective is representative.

Most f2p games are targeting a % mix of whales, dolphins, flounders, guppies. You might shoot for 0.1% whales, 10% dolphins,40% flounders, 50% guppies.

The whales will have an outsized impact on revenue for their count, and you largely can't plan for them to arrive. They're typically (very) wealthy people for whom spending $10,000 on a game is cheaper than the watch on their arm. Game companies absolutely set up a VIP customer service team for these players, this is the experience they expect everywhere in life. It's the difference between them playing your game for 2 months or 6 with a significant revenue impact.

Dolphins will be upper-middle class big spenders. They might try to collect every premium hat in your game, or regularly spend during special events. Again to them dropping $200/month in a game is not a hardship. In fact it's cheaper than most other hobbies they could do with their affluence like golf or skiing.

Next is the flounders, the goal is just to get them to spend at all. There might be some singular obviously valuable purchase in the game such as a season pass. This is basically game subscription services repackaged for the modern day.

The rest don't pay. You keep guppies around in hopes you can graduate them to flounders at some point down the line. In the meantime, they are cannon fodder for your matchmaking queues.

None of these psychographic groupings aim to exploit easily manipulated people. Rather the pay bands expand to match the disposable income of various economic classes. This is the same thing that has happened in other industries for a very long time. Some people rent skis, some bring their own, others hire personal trainers, and some rent the entire ski club for a private event. Go to a concert and some have nosebleed seats, others are front row, some watch from boxes, others pay to meet & greet the band after the show.

[DaveSapien]

Thank you for confirming what I said.

I know I won't convince you one way or the other. I've seen statements eerily similar to yours before, that I feel that it might be a regurgitation from some article or book somewhere.

Note the use of dehumanising terms, literally calling customers animals and 'cannon fodder'.

This is what this (part of the) industry thinks of the people that play their games, cattle.

[somehnacct3757]

You have to call cohorts something. I know a gaming company that went very publicly out of their way to refer to the cohorts as Big Spenders, Hobbyists, etc. It didn't save their company. What you name your buckets doesn't matter.

SaaS companies call customers Users, talks about Activating and Retaining them, put them in Buckets. If this is your bar for dehumanizing then this must be a very frustrating website for you to visit.

Do you not shop at grocery stores? They put the milk and eggs in the back to psychologically manipulate you into walking past other items. And you're stored in their database as nothing but a phone number! So dehumanizing.

[DaveSapien]

No grocery store has my personal details...and yes I also have a big problem with grocery stores employing that tactic against children. Its psychological abuse and I will never, have never, taken a child in these places.

Horrible behaviour is not acceptable because other companies do it. What kind of argument is that?

Calling customers a User, is calling them a human being with a certain behaviour attached (using your app/service).

Naming your customers animals is a reflection of attitudes towards these customers. A hostile attitude I have tackled multiple times and every time I have called out, walked out, or changed the company. Its hard, not for everyone and I cant recommend it. I am just too aware of the tragic social impact of these tactics, and I have to try and not make the world a worse place.