[chc]

I'll assume you're talking strictly about leisure activities, since obviously there are business services worth way more than that.

You might be right about some cases, but I think you're painting with too broad a brush. Some people just have more money than things to do with it. If I have thousands of dollars in spending cash every month, what's necessarily "weak" about spending that much on stuff I want in a game? I do think it would be more admirable to donate the money to charity or something, but if you're spending it on frivolity, I don't see what's wrong with spending thousands in one place rather than lots of different places. Do you feel the same way about other expensive items, like cars and plane tickets and high fashion? (I really do know a guy who buys cars in much the same way that people buy virtual hats.)

I once dated a girl who was shocked that I would rather spend $20 more to get something than drive an extra half an hour. I wouldn't have gotten paid for that half an hour, so it's not like I actually made money by not doing it — I simply valued that slice of my life more than $20 minus the cost of gas. I don't think that's necessarily a broken value system. $20 wasn't worth as much to me as it was to her.

[JoeAltmaier]

I'm sure there are folks like those you describe. There are also many addictive personalities in the world, spending the grocery money on a farmville threshing machine.

I aslso suspect Zinga isn't at all concerned with the difference, makes no effort to distinguish, and for the larger part is preying on the sick and weak.

[chc]

I agree that Zynga disproportionately targets that demographic, and it is a shame. I just don't think it's fair to equate Zynga with any game that has a pricing model that scales.

[JoeAltmaier]

If the 'scaling' depends on 'whales' (read: suckers) then yes, its fair. In fact, the article makes it clear the model only works because of whales.