The Epic Mansion Minecraft's Creator Just Bought With His Microsoft Money

OhEsEcks said:
It's an absolute waste of 70 mill on an overly pretentious and gaudy home in a hive of scum and villainy. 70 million would get you huge tracts of land and a completely unique one off build elsewhere in the US which would be a lot more private and remote. Can't think of anything more retarded than paying 70 million to live in LA.
Click to expand...

The megaupload guy did it right.
 
LA? i dont think i would spend so much on something that is going to be destroyed by a massive earthquake soon :p
 
AtreuS said:
LA? i dont think i would spend so much on something that is going to be destroyed by a massive earthquake soon :p
Click to expand...

But you can watch it all go down the pan from you great night time view sipping cocktails with all your hand maidens. :p
 
Its quite a horrible house isn't it. Very very bizarre how much people will spend on a horribly designed and kitted out house simply because its in a prime location. I genuinely wouldn't pay more than 1m for that place even if I was worth hundreds.
 
Looks gaudy as hell, what is it with big houses that it seems all they can do is add more bathrooms and bedrooms to them? Are you going to need to take a dump in a different toilet every day or something? It doesn't even look close to $70 millions's worth.
 
Cosimo said:
What a ghastly interior.
Click to expand...

No doubt. And 65 million to live in London? Just as retarded as 70 million to live in LA. 6 and a half million will get you a country house in Shropshire.

I honestly can't fathom having that amount of money and then choosing to blow a large chunk of it just to live in London or LA or New York. They're OK to visit. But dealing with them on a day to day basis....
 
OhEsEcks said:
No doubt. And 65 million to live in London? Just as retarded as 70 million to live in LA. 6 and a half million will get you a country house in Shropshire.

I honestly can't fathom having that amount of money and then choosing to blow a large chunk of it just to live in London or LA or New York. They're OK to visit. But dealing with them on a day to day basis....
Click to expand...

You have hit the nail on the head but went right over it at the same time.

Location, location, location. Properties in cities costs more. No argument that you can get a nicer house, cheaper house elsewhere but it is not London, New York or LA. Whether your personal preference they are a better place to visit than live is irrelevant. The property prices in these cities are just higher.

P.s. Was that house used in a scene in Mullholland Drive?
 
Last edited:
Personally I think Shropshire is a much nicer location than London. Still wouldn't pay 65 million to live in Shropshire though even if that was the price.
 
With money comes good looking gold diggers I guess.

Meh, I'd of been more modest and then bought a lot of smaller properties and started my little empire off :D
 
OhEsEcks said:
No doubt. And 65 million to live in London? Just as retarded as 70 million to live in LA. 6 and a half million will get you a country house in Shropshire.

I honestly can't fathom having that amount of money and then choosing to blow a large chunk of it just to live in London or LA or New York. They're OK to visit. But dealing with them on a day to day basis....
Click to expand...

A large chunk of $2.5 billion dollars?

Lol, $75 million is nothing.
 
When you've got nothing, 75 million is a large chunk of something. Even if I had 10 billion dollars, I wouldn't pay more than 10 million to live anywhere.
 
But you said you can't fathom having that much money and blowing a large chunk of it.

Yes $75 million to me is a gigantic amount of money, but i doubt it is to a billionaire
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom