And Disney is shelling out at least a half billion (an earn-out provision could bring the price tag closer to three-quarters of a billion) for Playdom, the company behind, among other things, Sorority Life (4.4 million Facebook MAU), a game in which, as The New York Times dryly notes, "players shop, party and go to the spa" -- and buy virtual goods, like digital outfits for $2.50.
In other words, if your house has been foreclosed, you've lost your job and you can't even swing T.J. Maxx anymore, well, as Sorority Life coos, "the Hamptons Summer outfit is the perfect addition to your summer wardrobe!" The totally fake, nonexistent Hamptons Summer outfit, that is.
AdAge columnist does not understand virtual goods nor social games. I have to quote @vilile at length here:
'[T]he position according to which spending real money on virtual goods is insane because the goods “do not really exist” is untenable. Despite their name, virtual goods are “real” in the ontological sense that they exist in the same reality as other goods. They have a physical manifestation, often a visual form, which can be experienced by many people. They also make their presence felt through other mechanisms. Virtual goods are not figments of imagination, although they can give rise to a strong emotional or dream component in the mind of a consumer, in the same way that many brands and consumer goods seek to do.' - (p.75 at his doctoral dissertation: http://info.tse.fi/julkaisut/vk/Ae11_2009.pdf)