Speaking strictly from my literal experience of pay-to-win video games, they are never, ever, as successful as "pay-to-play" games (where you purchase the game, or pay a monthly subscription to play). Pay-to-win games quickly relegate themselves to niche markets of idiots (who get sucked in) and children whose parents don't pay attention (and who don't know any better).
Take any AAA video game, or even any mid-level videogame out there, and I would say that they're probably pay-to-play, which is capitalism at its finest.
do parents teach pay to play to children? now this situation would be difficult to fathom for me, or say nuclear families where favoritism doesn't start to creep up. but yeah: what if tinder assumed a parental(ish) perspective on the social reality of their services. tinder is a subtier of match.com, is/are it/they not? so first of all, let's assume that users pay their time in order to even consider or visit the site (before an account can even be registered, say). so that's an erstwhile variable in the pay to play scenario. then there is the expectated outcome of user experience. marriage? self esteem? making FWB? I assume there is a rich spiderweb of attributification that transpires as the digital tokens are ante'd and downloaded.
then there's the whole economics!! IF I successfully achieved a real "date" (a actual date, implying the actuality of the potential for domestic partnership with another user on tinder), then "how long will the date be" "how much am I willing to pay on my date (meal, transport, ...)" and then "what % is match.com umbrella scvs corp share in its responsibility for 'making it happen for you'?"
finally, since this matching and dating stuff as a social precondition applied most appreciably for 18-21(24?) year olds, the time a human individual can make these type of choices, then maybe it's better to do this as a society. to say, hey if you don't make money you shouldn't be going on dates or trying to marry someone (because according to this hypothetical culture those both cost money). there's a greater value of someone is giving that payment out his/her own income, both personally and to the tinder network (women should get paid to tinder and men should pay to tinder? another conversation.) between 18-24 people have to make the hard choice. so that hard choice is like hey, am I gonna use video games or chatbots and think of there's too many people in the world anyway? and that's where tinder comes in in this new era of AI, they affirm their status and strengthen their egoes in order to go down a different track in society thru having to pay
That "Tinder high-end membership" is just one more case of what I called "A (self-inflicted) terrible thing" here https://mfioretti.substack.com/p/thoughts-and-tips-on-the-state-of
game theory - but no fun...
Speaking strictly from my literal experience of pay-to-win video games, they are never, ever, as successful as "pay-to-play" games (where you purchase the game, or pay a monthly subscription to play). Pay-to-win games quickly relegate themselves to niche markets of idiots (who get sucked in) and children whose parents don't pay attention (and who don't know any better).
Take any AAA video game, or even any mid-level videogame out there, and I would say that they're probably pay-to-play, which is capitalism at its finest.
do parents teach pay to play to children? now this situation would be difficult to fathom for me, or say nuclear families where favoritism doesn't start to creep up. but yeah: what if tinder assumed a parental(ish) perspective on the social reality of their services. tinder is a subtier of match.com, is/are it/they not? so first of all, let's assume that users pay their time in order to even consider or visit the site (before an account can even be registered, say). so that's an erstwhile variable in the pay to play scenario. then there is the expectated outcome of user experience. marriage? self esteem? making FWB? I assume there is a rich spiderweb of attributification that transpires as the digital tokens are ante'd and downloaded.
then there's the whole economics!! IF I successfully achieved a real "date" (a actual date, implying the actuality of the potential for domestic partnership with another user on tinder), then "how long will the date be" "how much am I willing to pay on my date (meal, transport, ...)" and then "what % is match.com umbrella scvs corp share in its responsibility for 'making it happen for you'?"
finally, since this matching and dating stuff as a social precondition applied most appreciably for 18-21(24?) year olds, the time a human individual can make these type of choices, then maybe it's better to do this as a society. to say, hey if you don't make money you shouldn't be going on dates or trying to marry someone (because according to this hypothetical culture those both cost money). there's a greater value of someone is giving that payment out his/her own income, both personally and to the tinder network (women should get paid to tinder and men should pay to tinder? another conversation.) between 18-24 people have to make the hard choice. so that hard choice is like hey, am I gonna use video games or chatbots and think of there's too many people in the world anyway? and that's where tinder comes in in this new era of AI, they affirm their status and strengthen their egoes in order to go down a different track in society thru having to pay