AI subscriptions, golf costs and creative income compared.
Spending ¥15,000 every month on AI sounds like an expensive hobby. At ¥30,000, your wallet may call an emergency meeting.
Then the subscriber checks golf prices and says, “Golf is expensive!”
Have you looked at your own AI bill?
The apparent contradiction is “Expensive! (Actually cheap.)” The subscription is pricey compared with casual entertainment. Compared with paying people to build websites, apps or articles, it can look affordable. And if a creation earns money, the balance changes again.
Spending tiers are not national averages
A January 2026 survey of 1,000 Japanese adults in their twenties reported ¥16,596 in average monthly spending outside living expenses, including leisure and hobbies[1]. This includes multiple activities and all respondents, not a typical AI bill or golf budget.
To compare a single hobby, imagine these illustrative monthly tiers: E, ¥0–1,000 for walking and libraries; D, ¥1,000–3,000 for books and streaming; C, ¥3,000–8,000 for a ¥3,000 AI budget or games; B, ¥8,000–15,000 for lessons and sports; A, ¥15,000–30,000 for a ¥15,000 AI budget or frequent golf; and S, above ¥30,000 for equipment-intensive hobbies or premium AI use.
These are editorial budget bands, not measured spending averages or a ranking of enjoyment. The three AI figures—¥3,000, ¥15,000 and ¥30,000—are examples, not official prices of any particular service.
Golf's second bill arrives after booking
An October 16, 2026 collection of advertised prices at 1,907 Japanese golf courses found ¥9,990 as the median cheapest weekend or holiday offer[2]. That is not the average amount golfers actually paid.
Two rounds at that price would be ¥19,980 before transport, food, practice sessions, balls or clubs. A golf course has one feature software doesn't: you can't download the entire course to your desk.
Golf does return something valuable: exercise, fresh air and time with friends. A driving-range habit can cost much less than playing full rounds. It's silly to mark golf down just because it doesn't produce a website.
AI can buy playtime and a finished product
At ¥3,000, ¥15,000 and ¥30,000 per month, annual spending is ¥36,000, ¥180,000 and ¥360,000. Assuming 120 hours of use in a month, that's ¥25, ¥125 and ¥250 per hour. The assumption says nothing about actual service limits.
If separate creation tools cost another ¥16,000–30,000 monthly, the combined monthly ranges become ¥19,000–33,000, ¥31,000–45,000 and ¥46,000–60,000. If AI is already included in the quoted tool budget, do not add it twice.
The attraction for someone who likes making things is that time spent experimenting can leave behind a game, article or application. Hiring a human developer or editor often means paying for scoping, production and revisions separately.
But AI is not a professional who automatically accepts responsibility for the result. Someone still needs to check, correct and run the work. Avoided hypothetical outsourcing cost isn't money deposited into your bank account.
Does revenue refund the subscription?
With a ¥15,000 monthly AI fee, subtracting that fee from revenue alone gives: revenue ¥0 → −¥15,000; ¥5,000 → −¥10,000; ¥15,000 → zero; ¥30,000 → +¥15,000.
That is not net profit. Hosting, payment fees, promotion, other tools, taxes and human time still matter. Plenty of creative projects never earn anything.
An upgrade costing ¥15,000 more each month only makes financial sense if the extra capacity delivers sufficient additional work or time savings. As a hobby, enjoyment may be enough without profit. As a business, check the full costs.
Golf can return fitness and friendships; creating with AI might return a finished product and income. Different hobbies, different rewards.
Expensive! (Cheap.) Sadly, invoices don't accept heart emojis as payment.
