Support NeoGAF

[Imp the Dimp]

Both Xbox and PlayStation stated that they sell consoles at a loss on purpose to get customers into their ecosystem. That’s how the market value of consoles are governed. That is a fact.

No, that's their business model. You and I could literally type "market value economics" into google right now and figure out which one of us is correct. The market value isn't set by one entity. The market value of a product post-release is determined by its ebay price or scalper price, which is one and the same. Would you acknowledge that both consoles and games typically depreciate in price even if their MSRP stays constant for much longer than that? If you had to describe it in your own words, what do you think is happening there? Why can I find a PS4 Pro for $350 on ebay 18 months or so after release even though the MSRP hasn't changed? What would you name that $350 price tag if not the market value?

You’re right that scalpers can’t demand more than what people are willing to pay, but you’re wrong about pricing. People will chalk over $2000 for a PS5 if they’re desperate enough. Scalpers do not determine market value, they only exploit the desperate.

I think "desperate" is a loaded term that I reject. You're desperate for food, medicine and shelter but if your decision making is so impaired by your desperation to get a luxury cutting edge video game console, that you make financially unwise decision you later regret, I think we're not dealing with a rational actor at that point. What really happens is that customers value these products at higher price points than what the manufacturer demands. Scalpers do determine the market value. They're not extorting anyone, they don't force you to pull the trigger. They merely sell to the highest bidder who evidently valued the product at the scalper price (= market value). If you want to play games so badly, just get a PS4 on ebay. You'll be okay.

Without scalpers, the product still wouldn’t be readily available on store shelves because of the high demand. They only make the product available for the desperate. They do not help customers find a product.

No, I reject the framing. They make it accessible to those with little time but enough money. You know this is true which is why you're using loaded language to make their service seem exploitative.

By the way, at anyone following this thread: Do you notice how everyone is on their backfoot when trying to defend the anti-scalper position? I can be as aggressive as I want, because I know their position has no merit.

 

[Sygma]

I don't oppose either business model. I think preying on people who are prone to a gambling addiction is unethical (especially when a game targets minors), but if you are of a sound mind and you decide that the XP booster is worth your money, go for it. You should absolutely be allowed to make, what I consider suboptimal, decisions in a society. Not sure when the gaming sphere turned into the Soviet Union.

You do realise that the suboptimal solution is in place because it's been deliberately thought of it that way in the development stage yeah?

Also if I had to nitpick your argument saying that nothing is relevant about price since it's made arbitrarily, that kind of sounds like omitting the R&D costs, value of all components in one unit + margin / price of distribution (while also casually forgetting that the big names all sell at a loss at the launch of a product since a couple of years now)and only then the products are all under the same price by law because of fair competition.

Scalpers do not compete on the market, they compete on another part of it entirely, because they wouldn't be able to sell in stores


Anyway, I never talked about unethical practices, just the principle behind. Scalpers do bank on the same time short-cut, and you yourself have been saying that it's a good thing they're adding a mean of paying more for a product that they arbitrarily sell at higher price.

You do realize that if they didn't practice that more people would have the product at the intended value, which would only undermine the profits made by scalpers and not the revenue made by the companies

You could simply say that you enjoy competing with other scalpers / making profits when supply and demand conditions allow you to (or simply watch that unfolding if you don't partake) and it would sound a bit more honest

 

[Imp the Dimp]

You do realise that the suboptimal solution is in place because it's been deliberately thought of it that way in the development stage yeah?

Yes. I would not consider playing a game where the progress is so slow that XP boosters are basically a necessity. The fact that these games seem to stick around speaks to the success of this business model unfortunately. My prescription would be to avoid these games.

Also if I had to nitpick your argument saying that nothing is relevant about price since it's made arbitrarily, that kind of sounds like omitting the R&D costs, value of all components in one unit + margin / price of distribution (while also casually forgetting that the big names all sell at a loss at the launch of a product since a couple of years now)and only then the products are all under the same price by law because of fair competition.

I understand, maybe my phrasing was poor. By "arbitrary" I don't mean that it could cost literally anything. I don't know if a business model exists that would support a $1 PS5. Obviously, there are reasonable lower and upper bounds. The MSRP is a price point that is carefully decided based on myriad of variables, but if market conditions change such that, for instance, a chip shortage threatens a steady supply, the market value can deviate from it considerably.

Scalpers do not compete on the market, they compete on another part of it entirely, because they wouldn't be able to sell in stores

Yes, they're part of a secondary market. But that market is accessible to consumers too.

You could simply say that you enjoy competing with other scalpers / making profits when supply and demand conditions allow you to (or simply watch that unfolding if you don't partake) and it would sound a bit more honest

I don't think I've been dishonest. Literally everybody on the internet hates scalpers and I'm on record saying I don't care if poor people are priced out of new hardware. I'm not exactly looking to win the optics war. Still, I disagree with your framing. I don't "enjoy competing with scalpers or making profits". In fact, I don't practice either and it doesn't really matter. My personal character and my personal actions should be decoupled from the argument.

Honestly, I just enjoy being correct when literally 99% of all people got it wrong. Seeing the cognitive dissonance unfold in real time is priceless.

 

[Lognor]

Hey, we live in a capitalist society. Can't fault people for scalping. I used to do it a ton when I was younger. Easy money when I wasn't making a ton. I've flipped a few PS5s and XSXs over the past year, but only because I was able to grab them without much effort and sell then for a nice profit in short order. It is what it is.

 

[Sygma]

Yes. I would not consider playing a game where the progress is so slow that XP boosters are basically a necessity. The fact that these games seem to stick around speaks to the success of this business model unfortunately. My prescription would be to avoid these games.

I understand, maybe my phrasing was poor. By "arbitrary" I don't mean that it could cost literally anything. I don't know if a business model exists that would support a $1 PS5. Obviously, there are reasonable lower and upper bounds. The MSRP is a price point that is carefully decided based on myriad of variables, but if market conditions change such that, for instance, a chip shortage threatens a steady supply, the market value can deviate from it considerably.

Yes, they're part of a secondary market. But that market is accessible to consumers too.

I don't think I've been dishonest. Literally everybody on the internet hates scalpers and I'm on record saying I don't care if poor people are priced out of new hardware. I'm not exactly looking to win the optics war. Still, I disagree with your framing. I don't "enjoy competing with scalpers or making profits". In fact, I don't practice either and it doesn't really matter. My personal character and my personal actions should be decoupled from the argument.

Honestly, I just enjoy being correct when literally 99% of all people got it wrong. Seeing the cognitive dissonance unfold in real time is priceless.

I mean theres an opportunity and as always it's under the "enjoy while you can" category, which in itself is a good use of time, when it won't be available any longer it will also be just that

 

[BusierDonkey]

If a manufacturer can only make 100 of something available to buy at $100 each I don't see how adding a scalper into the equation makes the thing easier to find. Even when production is stretched thin the product is available for $100 from legit retailers.

With the scalper involved you still only have 100 of something available but priced at $200 each. What a great service!

 

[Imp the Dimp]

If a manufacturer can only make 100 of something available to buy at $100 each I don't see how adding a scalper into the equation makes the thing easier to find. Even when production is stretched thin the product is available for $100 from legit retailers.

With the scalper involved you still only have 100 of something available but priced at $200 each. What a great service!

There some implications here that we need to untangle:

• There are 100 products
• They cost $100 each
• It is possible to successful resell the product for $200

Correct? This means that the product was priced too low initially, because we can see that customers are willing to pay twice the price. The demand outstrips the supply at this price. The correct move is to either increase supply or increase the price. Scalpers are merely a symptom of a market failure.

 

[CeeJay]

Scalpers buy products at MSRP, and redistribute it to those who are willing to pay more for them, thereby providing value as the recipient doesn't have to waste their time following Twitter bots day and night.

I applaud you with the way that you have triggered so many people with this thread but I feel that the quoted sentence shows how you have had to qualify your argument to the point where it becomes overly restrictive.

You can frame absolutely anything with a some heavy cropping to make it true.

For example;

The destruction of the earth from a huge asteroid is a good thing and adds value to some other yet to form planet by releasing the valuable resources locked in the earth back to the universe to be recycled.

Yes, scalpers may be adding value to a small demographic but they do not have a "net positive" effect on value to the entire market, they are merely an extra step in the chain from manufacturer to consumer that is taking a cut of the endpoint price for their own personal gain. An un-necessary "man in the middle" step that has muscled it's way in to an existing and functional (although maybe not ideal) supply chain.

 

[TheMay30thMan]

No, that's their business model. You and I could literally type "market value economics" into google right now and figure out which one of us is correct. The market value isn't set by one entity. The market value of a product post-release is determined by its ebay price or scalper price, which is one and the same. Would you acknowledge that both consoles and games typically depreciate in price even if their MSRP stays constant for much longer than that? If you had to describe it in your own words, what do you think is happening there? Why can I find a PS4 Pro for $400 on ebay 18 months or so after release even though the MSRP hasn't changed? What would you name that $350 if not the market value?


I think "desperate" is a loaded term that I reject. You're desperate for food, medicine and shelter but if your decision making is so impaired by your desperation to get a luxury cutting edge video game console, that you make financially unwise decision you later regret, I think we're not dealing with a rational actor at that point. What really happens is that customers value these products at higher price points than what the manufacturer demands. Scalpers do determine the market value. They're not extorting anyone, they don't force you to pull the trigger. They merely sell to the highest bidder who evidently valued the product at the scalper price (= market value). If you want to play games so badly, just get a PS4 on ebay. You'll be okay.

No, I reject the framing. They make it accessible to those with little time but enough money. You know this is true which is why you're using loaded language to make their service seem exploitative.

By the way, at anyone following this thread: Do you notice how everyone is on their backfoot when trying to defend the anti-scalper position? I can be as aggressive as I want, because I know their position has no merit.

So google it? You’re the only one here that doesn’t know what they’re talking about. “If you want to play games so badly, just get a PS4 on ebay.” Don, is that you?

Desperate isn’t a loaded term, it’s literally who scalpers are taking advantage of. Scalpers have been around for a very long time. You’re just catching up with the trend now. For some reason, you think that they’re a healthy part of the economy and not just a group that exploits people. You have some catching up to do.

You reject the framing by framing my argument to be something that it’s not? The service is exploitable. Instead of claiming that I know you’re right, maybe try to prove that it’s not?

I’m not on the backfoot. There’s plenty of merit in this thread, it’s just easy to win when you cover your ears and shriek when people don’t agree with you.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

Yes, scalpers may be adding value to a small demographic but they do not have a "net positive" effect on value to the entire market, they are merely an extra step in the chain from manufacturer to consumer that is taking a cut of the endpoint price for their own personal gain. An un-necessary "man in the middle" step that has muscled it's way in to an existing and functional (although maybe not ideal) supply chain.

I would disagree with this. For one, you say that it favors a small demographic. It is possible that there are fewer people who can afford a PS5 or RTX 3080 at market value than there are people who got the time to check online shops day and night to get one at MSRP. But even if I concede that, I wouldn't really care if price discrimination happened. I already acknowledged that I don't think anyone's entitled to having a PS5 or an RTX 3080 (in light of available alternatives). I do not place any moral weight on distributing these luxury items equitably. Much the same that I don't care if scalpers scalp Rolex watches. Just buy a cheaper watch. Scalpers redistribute these products to the highest bidder instead of the one who spend a lot of time looking for one. That isn't good or bad because the item in question is unnecessary and will likely be more widely available down the line.
Secondly, you could argue that scalpers add a second channel of purchase opportunity. If we eliminated all scalpers, then checking online shops tediously would be the only option of acquiring a PS5 or an RTX 3080 anytime soon. I think having the option to pay a premium and just get the product right away is a benefit.

 

[ReBurn]

Of course scalpers don't cause shortages. They don't produce products or add value. They just inflate prices and extract cash flow that would be used elsewhere. Their relationship to the market is purely parasitic.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

So google it? You’re the only one here that doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

It looks like we are both refusing to google because we're confident that we're correct. How unlucky.

“If you want to play games so badly, just get a PS4 on ebay.” Don, is that you?

No clue what that refers to but yes, if you cannot afford a Rolex, maybe buy a cheaper watch mate. You'll get over it.

Desperate isn’t a loaded term,

Are you taking the piss? Desperation implies a certain state of mind.

it’s literally who scalpers are taking advantage of. Scalpers have been around for a very long time. You’re just catching up with the trend now. For some reason, you think that they’re a healthy part of the economy and not just a group that exploits people. You have some catching up to do.

Exploiting people by offering them a product for a premium, that they would've otherwise likely not gotten for months or years. Why not frame it correctly at least? And yes: At the expense of someone who spent time to get a product. I just don't value the resource time higher than money, or vice versa.

You reject the framing by framing my argument to be something that it’s not? The service is exploitable. Instead of claiming that I know you’re right, maybe try to prove that it’s not?

Well, then rephrase it and I'll reconsider it. It's possible I was too uncheritable to you.

There’s plenty of merit in this thread,

There isn't but good luck

 

[GreatnessRD]

Y'all just be saying anything on the internet.

Delete this, lol.

 

[Markio128]

I love a good laugh on a Monday. Cheers OP!

 

[Sygma]

Honestly, I just enjoy being correct when literally 99% of all people got it wrong. Seeing the cognitive dissonance unfold in real time is priceless.

Your entire point has been that agents who are not involved in the traditional distribution frame in any capacity, nor are regulated unlike the very companies involved from conception to sales are actually bringing value by actually controlling supply and demand as 3rd parties on a presumably impacting enough scale for it to be troublesome for customers wanting to go through the usual route.

It's called unregulated leverage

The law is on it and that's all there is to be said about it. Good for those exploiting the loophole

 

[Imp the Dimp]

Your entire point has been that agents who are not involved in the traditional distribution frame in any capacity, nor are regulated unlike the very companies involved from conception to sales are actually bringing value by actually controlling supply and demand as 3rd parties on a presumably impacting enough scale for it to be troublesome for customers wanting to go through the usual route.

It's called unregulated leverage

The law is on it and that's all there is to be said about it. Good for those exploiting the loophole

I don't derive my morals from law. Your summary of my position is also as uncheritable as it could possibly be without being actively wrong.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

I have been paying scalpers for sporting event tickets to get great seats for sporting events for years.

They don’t bother me if it’s something I want so be it I am buying

 

[Sygma]

I don't derive my morals from law. Your summary of my position is also as uncheritable as it could possibly be without being actively wrong.

I'm sorry for being 100% right
Besides I don't know why you keep bringing an ethical point of view in this. Law / rules are what they are

 

[iHaunter]

Scalpers are essentially making use of a market failure - namely Sony/Nvidia/AMD/etc. failing to increase the prices of their products even though the supply can't meet the demand (due to a chip shortage). The fact of the matter is that there isn't enough products at MSRP for everyone who'd like one, even if you eliminated all the scalpers who buy up the products at MSRP. So either you discriminate by price (which scalpers do) or by time/luck (hitting F5 at the right time on Amazon, checking Twitter bots all day). I don't understand why the latter is more virtuous than the former. Frankly, when it comes to luxury products I prefer an auction over a lottery. Scalpers buy products at MSRP, and redistribute it to those who are willing to pay more for them, thereby providing value as the recipient doesn't have to waste their time following Twitter bots day and night. They don't affect supply because they're obviously incentivized to resell. They do affect demand as the demand for a $1500 RTX 3080 is lower than for a $800 3080 but really, that's how price discovery works. If your price is such that the product is out of stock all the time, you've priced it too low.

If you hate scalpers, you should beg for the manufacturers to raise the console and GPU prices to their actual market value (they probably don't do it for brand perception reasons or otherwise). Currently, the products are simply priced too low.

edit: This is neither clickbait nor cringe lol. I've responded to literally everyone in good faith. I'm just correct and I'm sorry it hurt your feelings. By the end of this thread, 40-50% of you guys will be pro-scalping, so keep coping mods.

So the ONLY way to fix scalping, is to artificially make it more expensive?

Are you actually retarded?

 

[Imp the Dimp]

I'm sorry for being 100% right

Right on what again?

Anyone notice how I'm hyper specific on every single thought I have, while I have to deal with posts like these? All my thoughts are transparent. Everyone is free to attack my very foundational beliefs, and yet 5 pages later..

I'm sorry for being 100% right
Besides I don't know why you keep bringing an ethical point of view in this. Law / rules are what they are

This has been a moral argument all along. You and I don't even live in the same country, what makes you think our scalping laws would be the same? The question is whether scalping is unethical. I claim it's not. Your moral system has to be consistent across countries.

So the ONLY way to fix scalping, is to artificially make it more expensive?

Or increase supply, correct.

 

[iHaunter]

Right on what again?

Anyone notice how I'm hyper specific on every single thought I have, while I have to deal with posts like these? All my thoughts are transparent. Everyone is free to attack my very foundational beliefs, and yet 5 pages later..

Or increase supply, correct.

If they COULD increase supply, they already would. It takes YEARS to build a factory to create devices this complicated.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

If they COULD increase supply, they already would. It takes YEARS to build a factory to create devices this complicated.

You are correct. That leaves the price. You're not a socialist by chance, are you? Please, begone and don't waste anybody's time in economics threads lol.

 

[Ellery]

Maybe scalpers don't necessarily cause shortages, but they certainly amplify it by removing supply from the equilibrium.

For most people it certainly would be easier to get a product they desire if it wasn't sitting in some scalper's warehouse.

It is nearly impossible to estimate a correct price that people are ready to pay for things, because psychology plays a gigantic part in price finding here. Just because some people are buying RTX 3080 cards for 1300-1500$ doesn't mean that in a non supply restricted scenario people would do that. FOMO and being frustrated play a big part here.

Ultimately I think this entire thing is extremely complicated and there are so many factors that a two dimensional cherry picked perspective of fitting things to confirm your bias in either direction doesn't apply.

Still with that being said I don't see how scalpers add anything of value in the chain.

 

[soulbait]

I wouldn't care if I was a scalper. I'd just tell you. I already said it's not unethical.

Just because you say something is not unethical, it does make it so.....

 

[Imp the Dimp]

It is nearly impossible to estimate a correct price that people are ready to pay for things, because psychology plays a gigantic part in price finding here. Just because some people are buying RTX 3080 cards for 1300-1500$ doesn't mean that in a non supply restricted scenario people would do that. FOMO and being frustrated play a big part here.

You are correct but I don't think I see much value in separating FOMO and willingness to pay. Obviously FOMO affects it and as time passes, the willingness to pay is likely to decrease. You're also correct that the WIP is higher now than it would be if there was no shortage.

Just because you say something is not unethical, it does make it so.....

True, which is why I explained my stance in detail unlike anyone else in here.

 

[CeeJay]

I would disagree with this. For one, you say that it favors a small demographic. It is possible that there are fewer people who can afford a PS5 or RTX 3080 at market value than there are people who got the time to check online shops day and night to get one at MSRP. But even if I concede that, I wouldn't really care if price discrimination happened. I already acknowledged that I don't think anyone's entitled to having a PS5 or an RTX 3080 (in light of available alternatives). I do not place any moral weight on distributing these luxury items equitably. Much the same that I don't care if scalpers scalp Rolex watches. Just buy a cheaper watch. Scalpers redistribute these products to the highest bidder instead of the one who spend a lot of time looking for one. That isn't good or bad because the item in question is unnecessary and will likely be more widely available down the line.
Secondly, you could argue that scalpers add a second channel of purchase opportunity. If we eliminated all scalpers, then checking online shops tediously would be the only option of acquiring a PS5 or an RTX 3080 anytime soon. I think having the option to pay a premium and just get the product right away is a benefit.

We agree that scalpers provide an extra channel for consumers with deeper pockets to buy an otherwise difficult to find product but a lack of scalpers in the marketplace doesn't reduce the purchase options down to just the one you stated. With enough money a person could buy practically anything they want. Neogaf itself has a marketplace where people can list things they want to buy, sell or swap, a good offer on there for anything will get a buyer what they want. With enough money you could hire someone to stand outside a shop that sells the product you want and approach people to buy it off them.

I suppose we are back to what the very definition of a scalper is. I think the definition generally used in this case is someone who is using bots to buy up large quantities of stock preventing people from entering a fair lottery to buy the product. If we take the bots out of the equation and everyone has a fair chance to buy a product, "some" of those buyers will decide to sell their products on for a premium albeit at very low volumes. The consumers with the deep pockets will still have that instant purchase opportunity but they are then paying someone for the time they have spent searching around for stock. With a lower volume of available stock to buy on auction sites, the market price that they fetch will no doubt go up but, those people buying them are the deep pockets and will choose convenience over time consuming web browsing. Without the organised scalper community (if you can call it that) there are still purchase opportunities for those who value time over money.

 

[PSFan]

The reason it takes so much time to "seek out a product" is because the scalpers made the product hard to find in the first place.

 

[TheMay30thMan]

It looks like we are both refusing to google because we're confident that we're correct. How unlucky.


No clue what that refers to but yes, if you cannot afford a Rolex, maybe buy a cheaper watch mate. You'll get over it.

Are you taking the piss? Desperation implies a certain state of mind.


Exploiting people by offering them a product for a premium, that they would've otherwise likely not gotten for months or years. Why not frame it correctly at least? And yes: At the expense of someone who spent time to get a product. I just don't value the resource time higher than money, or vice versa.

Well, then rephrase it and I'll reconsider it. It's possible I was too uncheritable to you.

There isn't but good luck

I’m not googling it because I already took economics and business statistics classes. You appear to be refusing to google it because you prefer to remain ignorant. Scalpers don’t affect the market. They’re not part of the market. They’re resellers.

I recently acquired the Halo edition of the Series X console. It took several hours to purchase online for the listed price of $499.99. Shortly after the stock was out, scalpers listed a bunch of them online for $2000. I put in the time and effort to get a console for a fair price. It was a painstaking process because the demand is high from both consumers and scalpers. If scalpers weren’t there, more people would be able to buy the product for a fair price. It may have even been easier for me to get the console.

Scalpers are not there to make it easier for someone that missed out on getting a console or product. They’re there to make a profit.

All of this will go over your head.

 

[Boglin]

During a time when people are forced to stay in their homes, luxuries like consoles and computers provide one of one of the few outlets for happiness. Because of the pandemic, these products are in higher demand than they otherwise would be and scalpers are exploiting that, which is immoral IMO.

The OP's argument is that the scalpers are providing a service by saving people time and are charging for that. I would agree if the scalpers were contracted to procure a specific item for a specific person, like an errand running service, but they aren't. They're instead working off a business model that specifically targets scarce items and buys out the entire stock to grant themselves the ability to price-gouge.

If this is just as simple as providing people value by saving time, then can someone who is pro scalping explain to me their reasoning if they think doing the same thing with medicine is considered wrong?

 

[Imp the Dimp]

If this is just as simple as providing people value by saving time, then can someone who is pro scalping explain to me their reasoning if they think doing the same thing with medicine is considered wrong?

Yes it is wrong because medicine is an essential product and an equitable distribution is desirable. Nobody needs a PS5.

I suppose we are back to what the very definition of a scalper is. I think the definition generally used in this case is someone who is using bots to buy up large quantities of stock preventing people from entering a fair lottery to buy the product. If we take the bots out of the equation and everyone has a fair chance to buy a product, "some" of those buyers will decide to sell their products on for a premium albeit at very low volumes. The consumers with the deep pockets will still have that instant purchase opportunity but they are then paying someone for the time they have spent searching around for stock. With a lower volume of available stock to buy on auction sites, the market price that they fetch will no doubt go up but, those people buying them are the deep pockets and will choose convenience over time consuming web browsing. Without the organised scalper community (if you can call it that) there are still purchase opportunities for those who value time over money.

Sure, if you only accept those who buy up stock in bulk as scalpers (which I think is fair), then my 2nd point is invalid. Still, I would maintain that I don't care who the recipient of the available stock of PS5s is.

 

[EverydayBeast]

I was very surprised with the initial console shortage, I grew up and consoles were available I understand the Wii was sold out, but people are going in there and buying 5x PS5s you can’t do that brah just grab one for yourself and get out of the website or store, I’m very fortunate to have the series x and PS5 but you can’t buy a truck bed of consoles and sell them for thousands. This behavior is fairly new because I never heard about it with ps4, 3, 2, 1. Ok it’s easy for you to get consoles here’s what gets me, you’re trying to make this a teaching business moment to everyone in that you sell a console for a surplus price, one console for the price of two maybe they feel like they have to do this to put food on the table, but its a bad look in 2022, and I prefer Sony would make more consoles for the scalpers and the regular folk.

 

[Sygma]

Right on what again?

Anyone notice how I'm hyper specific on every single thought I have, while I have to deal with posts like these? All my thoughts are transparent. Everyone is free to attack my very foundational beliefs, and yet 5 pages later..

This has been a moral argument all along. You and I don't even live in the same country, what makes you think our scalping laws would be the same? The question is whether scalping is unethical. I claim it's not. Your moral system has to be consistent across countries.

Or increase supply, correct.

I never made a single point about all of this under an ethical lens, yet, again, you spin stiff under other another angle to not seem like you took a hit. It's been distracting enough tho, these new points you're making are entirely irrelevant.

Why should companies creating products hence the actual value be regulated if 3rd parties can essentially profit of that regulation in order to leverage the availability without the same constraints

Now I don't know in the case of gpus specifically to which extent its a scalper / miner problem but theres something obviously not working as intended. Or perhaps it is working as intended since the regulated sales volumes are being met anyway, yet companies aren't getting that extra which scalpers do for no good reason

 

[supernova8]

I'm a little puzzled by your distinction between luxury and essential goods/services. Those things are all relative. You have already (more or less) committed that the government should be involved when there shortages of essentials, but you're also saying that "oh it's just the market tough shit" when it comes to what you are selectively describing as luxury items. Of course there is always grey between the black and white, but I'm having trouble understanding your logic when you arbitrarily make the above exception.

Yes it is wrong because medicine is an essential product and an equitable distribution is desirable. Nobody needs a PS5.

It looks as though you're making a moral judgement and then picking apart people's arguments when they make their own moral judgement.

Lots of countries/states have actual laws/regulations in place to protect against price gouging for certain items/resources/services either all the time or during times of emergency. For example, fuel for automobiles, or medical/hygiene products. That is clearly violating the principles of the free market. If we can violate the free market to protect consumers with regard to one set of goods/services, why is it suddenly wrong to do it for another?

Here in Japan I saw the likes of Amazon taking swift action to stop resellers price gouging on surgical masks when COVID kicked off. Clearly these large online platforms do have the facilities/resources to stop it, they just choose not to until the government specifically tells them to. So..... why would we not want the government to make them do it?

You can argue that scalpers provide value to (I'll use my words) lazy people with more money than others, but the flipside is that governments provide/could provide more value to the average person (since there are statistically far more "poor" people than "rich" people - hence the utilitarian point) by stopping said scalpers from operating.

TL;DR - I put it to you that it is disingenuous to say "tough shit" when it comes to luxury items in one breath and then sing the praises of government intervention when it comes to essential goods in another breath. You're either for a completely free market - in which case let the scalpers run free and price everyone out of everything until none of the poor people can afford healthy nutrition - or you concede that government intervention is necessary - in which case why arbitrarily not go after scalpers?

 

[soulbait]

The argument is flawed due to the assumption that most people would be willing to pay above MSRP and the purpose of a console sale.

First, the reason why the MSRP is where it is at is due to two forces: acceptable profit/loss per console sold and what the majority of the consumer base is willing to pay for the product. Some of these consoles are sold at a lost or very little profit (will get to that in the second part), so that pushes the price to a certain point. Then they have to factor in what most people are willing to pay. This is what even drives what they eventually put into the consoles (squeeze in as much tech as possible to hit the MSRP without large loses). The scalpers are not selling to the majority of people who will buy the console, but only the top x% who is willing to pay above the MSRP. Most people will not pay above that amount, which would be less sales.

Second, the main reason to sell a console is not to make money off of the console, but to make money off of the products that come from console. Games, accessories, DLC, subscriptions and more is where they get the money/profits. The console maker gets a cut of everything sold through the console and for the console that has been licensed for it. That is where their money is. Their goal is to sell as many consoles as possible, to generate more money in the long term. A higher MSRP would equate to less console sales over the lifetime, generating them less money. The scalpers only get their money one time: at time at console sold, so they do not have to worry about this dynamic. They can sell the console to a more limited audience who is will to pay more, because it is where their profit is at. They sell to a niche group of desperate people and maximize their profits, where the console manufacturers are selling to an wide audience and their profit is made off of the length of the product's life.

You have a flawed approach saying the scalpers are fixing a market issue. If the console's MSRP was a lot higher, the actual demand would be lower due to less people being able to afford the console. With less console demands, less games, accessories, subscriptions, and more would be sold. So the makers could make more money upfront, due to less money going into their actual profit drivers, they would lose out.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

I never made a single point about all of this under an ethical lens, yet, again, you spin stiff under other another angle to not seem like you took a hit. It's been distracting enough tho, these new points you're making are entirely irrelevant.

Be precise in what you think I'm spinning and I'll respond.

Why should companies creating products hence the actual value be regulated if 3rd parties can essentially profit of that regulation in order to leverage the availability without regulation?

The market failure we're seeing is companies failing to increase the price of their goods accordingly. No regulation keeps them from doing that, they're abstaining for other reasons (likely brand perception). You guys hate the problem and you hate the solution. I don't know what to say. Retailers could all adopt queues like Steam or Apple does, which means you get your shit in 2024. That's just extremely unappealing to me personally.

Now I don't know in the case of gpus specifically to which extent its a scalper / miner problem but theres something obviously not working as intended. Or perhaps it is working as intended since the regulated sales volumes are being met anyway, yet companies aren't getting that extra which scalpers are for no good reason

There is no "miner problem". Using GPUs for mining is no less acceptable than playing games on it or wiping your butt with it. It's your private propety. You do with it as you please.

 

[Novacain]

Scalpers are essentially making use of a market failure - namely Sony/Nvidia/AMD/etc. failing to increase the prices of their products even though the supply can't meet the demand (due to a chip shortage). The fact of the matter is that there isn't enough products at MSRP for everyone who'd like one, even if you eliminated all the scalpers who buy up the products at MSRP. So either you discriminate by price (which scalpers do) or by time/luck (hitting F5 at the right time on Amazon, checking Twitter bots all day). I don't understand why the latter is more virtuous than the former. Frankly, when it comes to luxury products I prefer an auction over a lottery. Scalpers buy products at MSRP, and redistribute it to those who are willing to pay more for them, thereby providing value as the recipient doesn't have to waste their time following Twitter bots day and night. They don't affect supply because they're obviously incentivized to resell. They do affect demand as the demand for a $1500 RTX 3080 is lower than for a $800 3080 but really, that's how price discovery works. If your price is such that the product is out of stock all the time, you've priced it too low.

If you hate scalpers, you should beg for the manufacturers to raise the console and GPU prices to their actual market value (they probably don't do it for brand perception reasons or otherwise). Currently, the products are simply priced too low.

edit: This is neither clickbait nor cringe lol. I've responded to literally everyone in good faith. I'm just correct and I'm sorry it hurt your feelings. By the end of this thread, 40-50% of you guys will be pro-scalping, so keep coping mods.

If you can't see how exploitative market tactics focused entirely on profit at the expense of the end consumer is a negative, it's not my problem.

Scalpers suck because nobody likes an opportunistic leech that wants to skim a nickel off your dime, but there are bigger things to worry about in life than consoles and scalpers to get worked up.

 

[dtremblay]

Scalpers are essentially making use of a market failure - namely Sony/Nvidia/AMD/etc. failing to increase the prices of their products even though the supply can't meet the demand (due to a chip shortage). The fact of the matter is that there isn't enough products at MSRP for everyone who'd like one, even if you eliminated all the scalpers who buy up the products at MSRP. So either you discriminate by price (which scalpers do) or by time/luck (hitting F5 at the right time on Amazon, checking Twitter bots all day). I don't understand why the latter is more virtuous than the former. Frankly, when it comes to luxury products I prefer an auction over a lottery. Scalpers buy products at MSRP, and redistribute it to those who are willing to pay more for them, thereby providing value as the recipient doesn't have to waste their time following Twitter bots day and night. They don't affect supply because they're obviously incentivized to resell. They do affect demand as the demand for a $1500 RTX 3080 is lower than for a $800 3080 but really, that's how price discovery works. If your price is such that the product is out of stock all the time, you've priced it too low.

If you hate scalpers, you should beg for the manufacturers to raise the console and GPU prices to their actual market value (they probably don't do it for brand perception reasons or otherwise). Currently, the products are simply priced too low.

edit: This is neither clickbait nor cringe lol. I've responded to literally everyone in good faith. I'm just correct and I'm sorry it hurt your feelings. By the end of this thread, 40-50% of you guys will be pro-scalping, so keep coping mods.

we got a microecon 101 student!

producers can jack up the price to push some scalpers out of the market. but good luck handling pr of "yes this item is already expensive af and hard to find, but trust us when we say raising the price is in the consumer's best interest."

 

[Sygma]

Be precise in what you think I'm spinning and I'll respond.

The market failure we're seeing is companies failing to increase the price of their goods accordingly. No regulation keeps them from doing that, they're abstaining for other reasons (likely brand perception). You guys hate the problem and you hate the solution. I don't know what to say. Retailers could all adopt queues like Steam or Apple does, which means you get your shit in 2024. That's just extremely unappealing to me personally.

There is no "miner problem". Using GPUs for mining is no less acceptable than playing games on it or wiping your butt with it. It's your private propety. You do with it as you please.

No lol its not a problem of price, it's just modern means of availability. Wanna reduce the scalper issue? I got a few ideas under the hood, easiest one essentially being to entirely stop selling these products digitally.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

No lol its not a problem of price, it's just modern means of availability.

If your product is perpetually out of stock and selling for well over MSRP in secondary markets, what signal is the market sending you there? Can I just get an honest answer here?

 

[Boglin]

Yes it is wrong because medicine is an essential product and an equitable distribution is desirable. Nobody needs a PS5.

So it's a fairness issue. Just like I said at the top of my response, we are in a pandemic. There are fewer options for people to occupy their minds and I think it's cruel to only allow rich people to enjoy luxuries during this time while other people are forced to languish. Although not literally needed to survive, entertainment is still essential for people to stay healthy, IMO.

Even outside of a pandemic, though, most people care about fairness. That's why at release day of a product in high demand with a line of people wrapped around a city block, the first person in line doesn't get to buy all the stock and just resell it at a higher price to the rest of the people in line.
Companies put rules and systems in place such as pre-orders, reservations, or limited purchase quantities per individual to curb the behavior. And the reason for that isn't because those companies are trying to prevent people from saving time.

 

[brian0057]

Yes it is wrong because medicine is an essential product and an equitable distribution is desirable. Nobody needs a PS5.

Even if it's medicine or food, it's not wrong.
Just because it's a necessity or a "right", it doesn't make it inmune to market forces.

No government entity or private company can know for certain the price of anything. It's a chaotic system, like the weather. You can make guesses at the most.
The only way to know its true value is to release the item at a given price and see how the market responds. After that, you adjust.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

So it's a fairness issue.

No it isn't. Medicine is essential because you might die without it or suffer pain. A PS5 is not essential. And frankly, I'm too lazy to explore this argument any further give how obvious this distinction is. There's literally no way any of guys disagree with this. Some guy earlier in this thread tried to imply something along the lines of me just drawing the lines differently when it comes to determining what's essential and what isn't. If you need to game during lockdown, fine knock yourself out. Go on ebay and get a PS4. Literally nobody cares you can't play God of War with the 60 FPS patch. Cry about it on Reddit or NeoGAF all you want, there's no shortage of entitled manchildren, you'll have plenty of company. The same cannot be said of medicine. You absolutely have a moral obligation to distribute medicine where it's necessary.

 

[NoLootBoxDev]

This is as much true as saying NFTs won't be abused by companies to exploit money from players.

 

[Halo is Back]

I think "desperate" is a loaded term that I reject. You're desperate for food, medicine and shelter but if your decision making is so impaired by your desperation to get a luxury cutting edge video game console, that you make financially unwise decision you later regret, I think we're not dealing with a rational actor at that point. What really happens is that customers value these products at higher price points than what the manufacturer demands. Scalpers do determine the market value. They're not extorting anyone, they don't force you to pull the trigger. They merely sell to the highest bidder who evidently valued the product at the scalper price (= market value). If you want to play games so badly, just get a PS4 on ebay. You'll be okay.

People are not "valuing these products at higher prices points" people are buying these products because of the scarcity of said product. Scalpers exist on exploiting FOMO. If the consoles were readily available for purchase everywhere at $500 then no one would be buying it for $1000 and if scalpers sold it at $400 apiece people would happily buy for that option.

All scalpers do is take availability away from consumers who valued the consoles fairly at $500 and then resell them for crazy prices.

It's basic supply and demand economics but you miss the part where they interrupt the supply part and disrupt the market value.

 

[th4tguy]

If scalping was limited to just video games, it would be annoying for everyone and that’s about it. But it’s not. Scalpers are picking up everything they can get that looks like it could sell out and using software to make mass purchases. Then selling at huge markups.
There are communities online dedicated to determining what the next hot thing g will be to buy up that people will need most and thus pay a higher price for.
There is a reason that governments are looking at laws that would outlaw the practice. It’s dangerous and widens disadvantages of wealth gaps.
In my area it’s hard to find Covid tests (at home rapid tests).
They average between 15$-20$
People are buying them up and selling them via Facebook and Craigslist for 40-50$
There are people who can only afford the product at the market price and need the tests the most due to the nature of their jobs.
Fuck scalpers. Taking advantage of a bad situation to make a profit.

 

[brian0057]

The same cannot be said of medicine. You absolutely have a moral obligation to distribute medicine where it's necessary.

Yes, it can and no, you don't.
What are you gonna do? Go to some asshole's house and steal from him (and maybe even possibly kill him) just because he isn't living up to your standards?

 

[jufonuk]

 

[Imp the Dimp]

Yes, it can and no, you don't.
What are you gonna do? Go to some asshole's house and steal from him (and maybe even possibly kill him) just because he isn't living up to your standards?

You will see a breakdown of societies when inelastic goods like food or medicine run out. Obviously, you're not bound to economic principles anymore when your health or life is on the line. If the alternative to inflicting harm on someone else and steal their food is to die yourself, I think you have a moral obligation for self-preservation.

 

[synchronicity]

I mean I don't love scalpers, but it always amazes me that people get outraged by individuals (in many cases) making a little extra money while corporations are guilty of so much egregious crap that is tolerated or even embraced. People trying to make some money in this way is no big deal to me. Granted, I'm patient and have no urge to be an early adopter of anything at this point in my life, so it doesn't impact me directly, to be fair.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

People are not "valuing these products at higher prices points" people are buying these products because of the scarcity of said product.

You're statement is circular. Why do people pay? Why not just keep playing your on PS4 Pro or your GTX 1060?

Scalpers exist on exploiting FOMO. If the consoles were readily available for purchase everywhere at $500 then no one would be buying it for $1000 and if scalpers sold it at $400 apiece people would happily buy for that option.

Yes, increasing supply would reduce the willingness to pay. But the stock is what it is.

All scalpers do is take availability away from consumers who valued the consoles fairly at $500 and then resell them for crazy prices.

You're almost correct, except your notion that $500 is "fair". What people are willing to pay depends on how much they value a product or a service and might be decoupled from the MSRP during a shortage (or an excess, in which case your WIP would be below MSRP).

It's basic supply and demand economics but you miss the part where they interrupt the supply part and disrupt the market value.

Kinda true. They affect demand. There's less demand for a PS5 at $700 which is desirable, but the overall supply remains the same because scalpers don't want to hoard shit. In a perfect market, Sony would increase the prices themselves and you all are still in denial about it. That other guy I argued with earlier wanted to curb online retailing lol.

I think it's funny that even somewhat right leaning places on the internet turn into prime Stalin when video game pricing is involved. I swear to god there isn't a single place on the internet for socially left capitalists. We're completely extinct.