The Video Game Critic

I don't mind if someone sells a console for a profit. Hey, it's a two sided transaction and the buyer must of been willing to pay that much to receive that item.

What I do have a problem is HOW some people get the consoles for resale. Let's say there's a lineup of 50 people and they all camped overnight. There's enough consoles for all of them to receive one and everyone in the line is aware of that. The first 10 of so people in line grab 5 each and don't give the people who were waiting just about as long to get one. I'd find that immoral because the first 10 people in line could have told the other people in line what their intentions were instead of having them wait in line all night.  

Like many things, the reselling of consoles on eBay "just is," and is neither intrinsically good or bad. Any kind of auction is going to be the purest form of capitalism. Those eBay bidders are willing to pay those prices and they have every right to do so.

 

Think about it this way. We all know that when a highly anticipated console is released, it is very difficult to acquire in the first few months, sometimes longer. Often one is required to wait in lines in terrible weather for extremely long periods of time. The eBay buyer is essentially paying for the convienance of not having to do that, yet getting the system at the same time as those who did. So, when PS3's were selling for $3000, it isn't really just a PS3. It is more like this:

 

PS3: $600

Convienance and comfort: $2400

 

Now, for most normal folks, myself included, $2400 is way more than one would pay for simple convienance. So you wait in lines or wait until the system is more freely available. But there is nothing intrinsically wrong with both offering a way to avoid the hassle and with people willing to pay a large premium to do so.

 

That said.... do I think it is stupid to buy a $600 system for $3000? Yes. But thinking something is stupid does not quite make it immoral in my book. The person purchasing the product has the responsibility to make sure they are not hosed. They can easily research and verify the real MSRP of the product in question.

 

-Rob

 

 

It is deffinitely not "wrong". As someone who used to collect Sci-fi toy figures, the market there is the same as Videogames. When new Star Trek figures came out, the one female figure, "TROI", was very scarce. She sold on the aftermarket for up to $75, for a $3 figure!...but only for awhile. I have that figure, mint, but it is barely worth five bucks now that a zillion have been made. Same with Vid game systems....they ALL come down in price over time. By spring, anyone will be able to get a PS3 for "normal" price...but people with tons of cash don't want to WAIT, so for them money is no object. And what of the rest of us? I have a PSone that cost $199 when purchased YEARS ago. Now you can get a new, mint in box PSone for $30 or less! Am I sorry I didn't wait? No, because I easily got more than $160 worth of enjoyment from my PSone over the years! OR...Time=money!

[QUOTE=The Video Game Critic]I think it's immoral.  They're taking advantage of the system to make a quick buck, and yes, it is at the expense of others.  I put them in the same category with spammers.  What they're doing is not illegal, but they're a thorn in the side of society.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I feel real sorry for those people who consentingly spend $2000 on the PS3 that the scalper bought with the intent of reselling at a profit. After all, who could expect them to wait until there's more in stock and prices are lower?

When the demand is larger than the supply, is it not immoral to demand for the sole reason of supplying to others who demanded for the actual want of the item for a greatly inflated price? Yeah, I'd say it is.

[QUOTE=Adamant]When the demand is larger than the supply, is it not immoral to demand for the sole reason of supplying to others who demanded for the actual want of the item for a greatly inflated price? Yeah, I'd say it is.[/QUOTE]

What you just described is not only the reason that any service or item has fluctuating value, but the reason any service or item has value at all.  When demand is high and supply is low, prices go up.  That's just how it is.  The only question in such an instance is who is going to profit.

 

I wonder why when a company knows its supply is going to be low inadvertently (as in this case, some kind of technical error), why it doesn't just price these items to market instead of letting others make the profit for buying early.  I remember a few years ago when I went to New York to see "The Producers", the tickets literally cost me around $550.  The reason for this price increase was that scalpers were buying up the tickets at the under $200 prices, and selling them at their real market rate.  The producers of the show decided that they should be making the profits (and rightly so).  They charged those market prices until the demand for the show went down (which happened when the original cast left the show).

 

Technically, I think that's how this sort of things should play out, but there are a number of reasons why larger companies don't do that.  Whatever their decisions are, buying something at a given price and reselling it at a higher or lower price later, based on market, isn't any more immoral than any service or item you can buy or sell.  This, of course, assumes that the item or service doesn't literally violate anyone's basic rights.  If you are selling services like "murder for hire" or items like stolen TV sets, then certainly the immorality of the transaction is unquestionable.

What I have to say is I think they are evil. Not Illegal but it sucks to know that you are so close to getting a wii or PS3 and find out the guy in front of you is getting one to sell on Ebay. They ruin it for us TRUE Gamers.

I can't believe the number of people attempting to justify this using the "free market" argument.  If there was an epidemic and there was a limited supply of the antidote, would you defend a guy who bought them all up so he could gouge everyone?  It might be free market and perfectly legal, but it doesn't mean it's right.  Just like scalpers ruin it for people who want to see concerts/sporting events and spammers pollute our email with their garbage, these people on Ebay are ruining it for gamers who would really like to own the new systems.

[QUOTE=The Video Game Critic]I can't believe the number of people attempting to justify this using the "free market" argument.  If there was an epidemic and there was a limited supply of the antidote, would you defend a guy who bought them all up so he could gouge everyone?[/QUOTE]

Are you trying to compare this to a public need situation?  We don't define ethics around emergency situations -- those take a special place.  A lack of antidotes during an epidemic is an emergency situation.  A lack of consoles during a release is not.

 

[QUOTE=The Video Game Critic]It might be free market and perfectly legal, but it doesn't mean it's right.  Just like scalpers ruin it for people who want to see concerts/sporting events and spammers pollute our email with their garbage, these people on Ebay are ruining it for gamers who would really like to own the new systems.[/QUOTE]

 

Scalpers are a whole different situation.  When someone buys a ticket, they are buying what is generally considered to be "non-transferrable and non-refundable" license to view the program at a specific time in a specific location.  Because they are selling a license and not a physical item, they are only truly legally purchasable through proper channels.  It effectively makes scalping illegal because it constitutes a use of the product beyond that which was licensed.

 

Consoles, as well as all other physical items, follow a different ethic.  When we buy a console, we buy a physical item, not a license.  This means that we may in fact resell it at will to whomever is willing to pay a fair market price.  It just so happens that in the case of a low supply and high demand, a fair market price happens to be very high.

 

Let me ask you this -- would you consider ANY situation where an item in low supply and high demand takes a premium price?  If so, that might explain the ethic you are following a little more clearly.  If not, then I think at the very least you need to explain how this situation is different than any other situation where an item in low supply and high demand sells at a high price.  I'd only suggest staying away from comparisons to emergency situations.  A limitation of supply for a popular item does not constitute in and of itself an emergency situation.

[QUOTE=The Video Game Critic]I can't believe the number of people attempting to justify this using the "free market" argument.  If there was an epidemic and there was a limited supply of the antidote, would you defend a guy who bought them all up so he could gouge everyone?  It might be free market and perfectly legal, but it doesn't mean it's right.  Just like scalpers ruin it for people who want to see concerts/sporting events and spammers pollute our email with their garbage, these people on Ebay are ruining it for gamers who would really like to own the new systems.
[/QUOTE]

Ah, sort of a dramatic "analogy," don't you think?  The fact is, it's not analagous, since we're not dealing with one guy or millions of lives.

I'd love to buy a Wii, but I can't find one.  That's life.  Besides, sealed Wiis are selling for a measly $90 premium on Craigslist.