Hacker News Reader

Comment by globular-toast | Hacker News Reader

I don't even get why people spend money on this stuff. You're just paying an idiot tax because you're a sucker for marketing. Someone who waits, say, 5 years before getting something like this will get more enjoyment out of it at a fraction of the price. Or it will just turn out to be a silly gimmick and they'll save the time and money entirely. Stuff like 3D TVs come to mind. The "patient gamers" subreddit seems to agree with this thinking. You basically just delay your game of choice by a few years. Makes absolutely no difference to you except you save money and perhaps skip some disappointing titles.

View on HN

You would think that on Hacker News, people would understand that being excited about new experimental tech isn't the same as being an idiot.

You're allowed to like tech even is it's not yet practical or even when it clearly will never be.

Who doesn't like tech? This isn't some special HN thing and my point isn't really about tech but about delayed gratification in general.

I don't think I made my point clear. If tech is now cheap and useful, it has become boring. If you wait 5 years, it's not delayed gratification because you won't experience the fun of playing with new tech, because it's not new anymore.

The whole gratification part comes from playing with the bleeding edge. It comes with dreaming of what this tech could become.

It's newn to you. I don't really understand why the knowledge that someone, somewhere has something shinier and newer would make you unhappy.

I shouldn't complain, though. Early adopters are like investors who don't receive any equity. They pay for the R&D etc that people like me later get to benefit from.

> Someone who waits, say, 5 years before getting something like this will get more enjoyment out of it at a fraction of the price.

Probably not more enjoyment, unless you pretend the early buyer can never upgrade ever.

> The "patient gamers" subreddit seems to agree with this thinking. You basically just delay your game of choice by a few years. Makes absolutely no difference to you except you save money and perhaps skip some disappointing titles.

It makes no difference if you almost never talk about the game with anyone and want almost no multiplayer out of it either. That fits some games but definitely not others.

I'm not really sure you're getting it about that last bit : For instance I have spent some free hours in the last few days catching up on a game that I haven't played in nearly a decade, originally released in 1999. Right now I'm staring at a multiplayer lobby with nearly a thousand people (and this is only of the servers, though likely the most popular one).

And if the game in question doesn't interest anyone after X years... there are probably good reasons for that ? Why would you first start playing and discussing it then ?

The multiplayer problem is that you're jumping in with 99% people that are extremely experienced, nobody else near your level. It's not a dealbreaker but it definitely changes things.

The discussion problem is that nobody you know is exploring the game. There's no collaborative learning and sharing and theorycrafting. Even if they played it they might not remember the story well after five years.

Wrong again - using my example, when I was looking at that chat, there were two people in the last few hours asking for other new players to play with them.

(And also one much more experienced player complaining that "nobody is reading the rules", and getting pushback about some "mandatory" rule that I guess some very experienced players are used to, but "we are not all as good at the game as you, bud".)

And this doesn't even take into account motivating your family/friends to play with you, there was one dad+son looking for tech support and at least one another dad+son game going on.

My theory is that those able to do delayed gratification are happier. Or it could be that being happier makes delayed gratification easier. Not sure, but either way there is a link.

In specific terms an early adopter risks disappointment and at best gets an early version of a product. Subsequent upgrades provide marginal enjoyment and often feel more like obligations than anything. The late adopter comes in when they know they need/want the product and they go from zero to a much later, more capable version of the product. And then get to enjoy just as many real quality of life improvements, they're delayed but the frequency can be the same. Plus they save a whole load of money.

> My theory is that those able to do delayed gratification are happier. Or it could be that being happier makes delayed gratification easier. Not sure, but either way there is a link.

In that case, someone that is easily able to delay but chooses not to might be happiest of all?

> Subsequent upgrades provide marginal enjoyment and often feel more like obligations than anything.

Uh huh...

I don't know, I don't find your argument at all convincing that this person gets less enjoyment considering they get to have the same product at the end.

Maybe they have less of a first day wow factor if they touch many intermediate versions, but that fades fast. But even that is a maybe because by splitting up advances you can give each one more focus.

Learning how to walk is way better than crawling, but you're not going to have more total enjoyment by waiting and going nowhere in the mean time.

> Plus they save a whole load of money.

Obviously they save money, but the interesting part of your claim was that they both save money and get more enjoyment.

Numerous studies in psychology suggest that the ability to delay gratification is indeed linked to better outcomes in life, including higher academic achievement, better health, and more profound personal satisfaction.

Instant gratification is largely simple decisions by simple people.

Right but the point is it's the ability to delay, not the act of delaying. For the act to be valuable, you need an external reason for it. You don't delay for the sake of delaying.

I’m a “wait for the 2.0 or 3.0” person, but I’m grateful to the people who dive in for the 1.0. They’re the people who provide the feedback that helps make the 2.0 better.

Why wait 5 years when you can wait 10?

Even better. If you're happy for those 10 years then that's a good life. That's all there is to it really. Realistically there is going to be some balance between living a totally simple, low tech life and wasting money on the hedonic treadmill. It might be 10 years for some things (like cars) but perhaps much shorter for others, like going from dial up internet to broadband.

Yes. It’s crazy people Just don’t wait 5 years.

I assume You are being deliberately ridiculous?

I intentionally wait years for a lot of things I want. Price aside, there are plenty of other benefits if the potential downsides (waiting, missing any social aspects, etc) aren't a big deal to you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com