I think they enjoy playing by instinct rather than evaluating the entire position. Personally, I am not at that level and would time out by move 4.
Why do people play 1 minute game?
I dont understand the difference between a 3 min game and the 2/1games
If they're guaranteed to last exactly 60 moves, then they're the same

All I know is the faster the game is, the worse I play. Maybe if I were 20 or 30 years younger it might be different.

Because ...
... they are adrenaline junkies.
or
... they suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder.
or
... anything past 10 minutes old is regarded as ancient history.
or
... they never read Botvinnik's warning that (hyper) speed chess is detrimental for your serious game.
or
... they don't take chess seriously as part art, part science, seeing it only as sport.
or
... their hand is more developed than their brain.
or
... they were just born with a screw lose.
.
.
.
Okay, okay, before all the hate mail starts pouring in ...
or
... they like to have fun.
For me, this kind of chess is equivalent to hitting yourself in the thumb with a hammer just to see what it feels like. If that's your idea of fun, be my guest. It's probably why I like movies that are character studies and don't care about most action films.

To kaynight and Tomichong:
Oh, but there is a 30 second and 15 second option, or at least I proposed one in some thread months ago. To keep with the same metaphor as Bullet, 30 second chess should be A-Bomb and the 15 second variety H-bomb. To make it even more anxiety ridden, the pieces should be armed accordingly. Pre-moves could be called pre-explosions, and naturally the game ends with a bang, so to speak.
Come on, jump on board if you're bored with chess and want your game to really glow ... ahhh, I mean flow. It's a once in a lifetime experience.

Just for fun but saying that people tend to get a lot angrier when they lose than other time controls for some reason.
Because they are hopped up, so to speak. For the average person, the anxiety at that speed is extreme. I understand Nakamura has made it into a art, though I hesitate to call this "chess deviant" (versus "chess variant," and the deviant is Bullet, not Mr. Nakamura) an art. Perhaps an oddly refined skill is more like it.

I see a lot of people who don't play or enjoy bullet talking like they know something about it.
True, and that includes me. However, that doesn't mean I can't comment on it with some kind of insight. You don't have to have your house destroyed by a tornado to understand the consequences of that experience, even if you don't have the immediate fear your life is hanging by a thread or how awful the aftermath would be.
The wiki article linked in #3 is a good explanation. Rapid fire feedback, the perception of a challenge combined with the perception of having the skill to solve it, loss of self awareness, highly focused, etc.

The wiki article linked in #3 is a good explanation. Rapid fire feedback, the perception of a challenge combined with the perception of having the skill to solve it, loss of self awareness, highly focused, etc.
They forgot the substitution of the quick hand for the thoughtful eye, the predominance of adrenaline over thought just the way the American culture, one that is always on the move and has to have something new every 30 seconds, likes it, and the trivialization of a 1400 year old game.
The Wikipedia article was written by a true believing acolyte; in other words, it's rationalized nonsense. That said, I think they got the loss of self awareness correct.
We live in times where people have to escape themselves in order to be happy, in order to feel alive. This deviant chess, as I call it, could also go by the name Extreme Chess, and it shows up at a time when extremes are everywhere, from sports to politics.
This is no coincidence and says more about the the current state of a culture than it does about chess, which just comes along for the sick ride.

What's frustrating about bullet is that you think that because you're high rated in blitz you are then naturally going to be good at bullet but a lot of people find to their disapointment that they actually suck at it in comparison and that there are players out there who suck at blitz but are fantastic at bullet.
Just remember, Bullet is not a chess variant, it's a chess deviant. Any relationship between Bullet and chess, even Blitz, is merely coincidental.

Because ...
... they are adrenaline junkies.
or
... THEY SUFFER FROM ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER.
or
... anything past 10 minutes old is regarded as ancient history.
or
... they never read Botvinnik's warning that (hyper) speed chess is detrimental for your serious game.
or
... they don't take chess seriously as part art, part science, seeing it only as sport.
or
... their hand is more developed than their brain.
or
... they were just born with a screw lose.
.
.
.
Okay, okay, before all the hate mail starts pouring in ...
or
... they like to have fun.
For me, this kind of chess is equivalent to hitting yourself in the thumb with a hammer just to see what it feels like. If that's your idea of fun, be my guest. It's probably why I like movies that are character studies and don't care about most action films.
Just for fun or speed?
To prevent abuse?
Or.. does it have another reason?
I do not mean to hurt those who enjoy 1 minute game, but I am just wondering.