ps3 Ebay

Status
Not open for further replies.
A lot of the same people were bidding on a lot of the PS3s on eBay, and many were getting to clearly ridiculous levels, in excess of millions of dollars. My guess is that there was a group of people acting as "spoilers", jacking up prices in as many auctions as possible to screw over the profiteers.
 
it was probably many individuals doing this, instead of one large group. most of the insane bids are from people with zero feedback.
 
It something like what you call Instant winner overnight.
Who needs to try the lottery when you can sell it for that much.
 
You have to admit there is certain irony here, with people who had hopes of a big payday by fleecing others with jacked up prices 4x over retail, only have their auctions crapped on by people making bogus bids into the millions of dollars.
 
JethroXP said:
You have to admit there is certain irony here, with people who had hopes of a big payday by fleecing others with jacked up prices 4x over retail, only have their auctions crapped on by people making bogus bids into the millions of dollars.
Click to expand...


Flawed logic. Selling it on ebay, a free market, where bidders willingly pay over retail is ethical. Bidding up auctions with no intention of paying is slimey.
 
Stereophile said:
Flawed logic. Selling it on ebay, a free market, where bidders willingly pay over retail is ethical. Bidding up auctions with no intention of paying is slimey.
Click to expand...

in terms of ethics, profit gains for personal attainment of wealth can be argued as not being very ethical.
 
Man... I have a whole bank of servers with unique IP addresses that I could be using to screw up auctions. MUHAHAHAHAHAH.... but it turns out I aint an asshole.

Is there no way of stopping people with less than X feedback / registered after X bidding? Seems it would be a useful feature.
 
Psychotext said:
Man... I have a whole bank of servers with unique IP addresses that I could be using to screw up auctions. MUHAHAHAHAHAH.... but it turns out I aint an asshole.

Is there no way of stopping people with less than X feedback / registered after X bidding? Seems it would be a useful feature.
Click to expand...

If I were you I would bid 99,999,999.00 on every single one.
 
mike686 said:
If I were you I would bid 99,999,999.00 on every single one.
Click to expand...
I must admit that I was tempted for a while... but honestly even if I was feeling evil I have better things to do. :)
 
Tetrahedron said:
in terms of ethics, profit gains for personal attainment of wealth can be argued as not being very ethical.
Click to expand...

In what system of ethics ?
There is nothing unethical about selling a luxury item for a profit.
;)
 
$14,000 for a PS3 on fleaBay doesn't amaze me one bit. Take a quick gander over at the FS/FT forums here and you'll see why. I guess if people are dumb enough to pay 500+% more than the ACTUAL value of the item, they probably deserve it. But then again, people are ARTIFICIALLY inflating the cost of the item due to the high demand / low supply. It does smack a bit of unethical to try to pawn off the units at these outragous prices. Either way, it's going to continue just like it did with every other console. Gotta love our economic system. :p
 
Somebody tell me this. As we all know, ebay is not free when you're a seller. You have to pay the price to actually list the item, but then you gotta pay a certain percentage of the final price after it sells.

So, to the spammers who jacked up the price of that guys PS3 to $99,999,999.00, doesn't the seller now owe THOUSANDS to ebay?
 
Stereophile said:
Flawed logic. Selling it on ebay, a free market, where bidders willingly pay over retail is ethical. Bidding up auctions with no intention of paying is slimey.
Click to expand...

No, thank you, my logic is fine. People selling PS3s on eBay are doing so with the explicit intention of getting someone else to pay far more for it than they would at retail. Yes, that's legal, it's a free market, but I think we could debate all day about the "ethics" of that.
 
Tetrahedron said:
in terms of ethics, profit gains for personal attainment of wealth can be argued as not being very ethical.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? What you're saying here is that any attempt to obtain wealth is unethical.

On the subject of the PS3 auctions, I think it's disgusting. There individuals are doing a perfectly legitimate act for perfectly legitimate reasons, and we have dozens (if not more) of individuals robbing them of their time and paid auction fees, not to mention reduced profits.

I should read up on eBay bidding legalities. Each bid is a legally binding contract, is it not?
 
JethroXP said:
People selling PS3s on eBay are doing so with the explicit intention of getting someone else to pay far more for it than they would at retail.
Click to expand...
You cannot define the intentions of these individuals, as you do not explicitly know their intentions. Can you assume that these are their intentions? Yes, but you cannot specifically know unless you've discussed with the person and they said that "my intention is to get someone else to pay far more than retail" or some variant of that.

JethroXP said:
Yes, that's legal, it's a free market, but I think we could debate all day about the "ethics" of that.
Click to expand...
Granted, but the fact remains is that these people have made an investment in a product, are aware that they can feasibly profit from this investment, and have taken the time, energy and expense in an attempt to gain these profits. This is not so different from purchasing classic cars or antiques, except of course that the investment hold time is less than a day.

From a legal perspective, all of these transactions are wholly ethical. From the same perspective, those who bid on these units with no intention of paying are unethical.

jaguax said:
So, to the spammers who jacked up the price of that guys PS3 to $99,999,999.00, doesn't the seller now owe THOUSANDS to ebay?
Click to expand...
I've never sold on eBay, so I'm not familiar with the percentage of sale fee. The listing fee is waived if the item has to be re-listed if the bidder makes no attempt to pay, and this is a one time thing. If the seller has to re-list more than once (which is likely here), these bidders are blatantly robbing him.

In any case, the seller reserves the right to close the auction at any point and re-list at his leisure. I don't believe this would violate the terms eBay has outlined for PS3/Wii pre-order sales.
 
Don't like the price on ebay? Should have gotten in line. Couldn't get in line for some reason or another? Life's a bitch, accept it.
 
Another way is to be store manager of EB, GameStop, Walmart, etc..

You get first dibs :)
 
I try and find deals to make money on ebay all the time.

Who knows how many of the items on ebay or from people who stole the units or shot some poor fuckin kid in line for it?

Kinda blows if you buy it from one of those assholes.
 
I'm not sure what economics, ethics or philosophy others speak of but it certainly does not come from any liberal western culture. Offering a luxury item for sale, in which people willingly offer to pay over msrp, is not unethical by any standard except maybe marxism.

But even Karl believed the worth of an item is determined by the labor needed to produce it. I waited over 15 hours for a pre-order. Nobody will be able to buy a PS3 for msrp that didn't put in forethought and effort.
Want to pay $500-$600, wait 2 months ? Otherwise get in line before the millions of others.

CopyCat said:
Kinda blows if you buy it from one of those assholes.
Click to expand...

It's like buying diamonds.
Chances are it was mined by some 12 year old illiterate kid with one leg who is starving and makes 20 cents a day.
 
Stereophile said:
It's like buying diamonds.
Chances are it was mined by some 12 year old illiterate kid with one leg who is starving and makes 20 cents a day.
Click to expand...
True in most cases, but there are stores and companies who make a point to show you that their diamonds did not come from such places. I for one am the person who finds those places to buy my diamonds, whenever that may happen.
 
I think the only unethical thing is actually asking flat out for a price higher than retail. I think if you're gonna sell it on ebay, at least have the courtesy to start the bidding at retail price with no reserve. Let the bidders drive the price up. Don't be greedy.

In the for sale section of this forum, there are guys asking $3600 flat out for the console. That, in my opinion is kind of wrong.
 
Making more of a profit, then the people who conceptualized, designed, and manufactured the system, is highly unethical in my books. If you put no work into the design of the console, all you did was stand in a line, how then do you justify the ridiculous profit you make?

... by the way a "free market", of which there are currently none in the world, results in prices paid for goods and services to align with the labor embodied in those things. Opportunistic captialism works against a "free market" system ... something to think about perhaps?
 
The justification is that they made the investment in time, energy and expense. It doesn't matter from an ethics perspective how much profit they make. And, for reference, Sony is most certainly losing money on all physical consoles sold, so by your logic, any profit they stand to make is morally wrong.

jaguax said:
I think the only unethical thing is actually asking flat out for a price higher than retail. I think if you're gonna sell it on ebay, at least have the courtesy to start the bidding at retail price with no reserve.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with this. I think it's a wise move, actually, as these 0-feedback bidders may be more hesitant to bid on an item if the seller allows for the eBay marketplace to determine the final selling price without restriction.
 
phide said:
The justification is that they made the investment in time, energy and expense. It doesn't matter from an ethics perspective how much profit they make. And, for reference, Sony is most certainly losing money on all physical consoles sold, so by your logic, any profit they stand to make is morally wrong.
Click to expand...

Like I said, for a "free market" to work, the price of goods is proportional to the labor expended in the making of the item. Selling PS3s at an inflated price is NOT indicative of a free market, but rather a very clear example of opportunistic capitalism.

By the way, you post is nonsense, as Sony selling something at a loss, means they CANNOT make a profit.
 
The only thing that does not sit right with me and these auctions is the fact that Sony and the retailers are selling them for MSRP with the intentions that the buyers actually being the end customer. Otherwise why are the not increasing the price on them due to the low supply.

How many people got turned down when buying a PS3 that wanted one for themselves or Christmas presents or whatever just so someone could snatch one up with the only intention to hopefully sell it for profit.

I think retailers like Best Buy etc should just jack the price up and only start lowering it when supply starts matching demand.

Other then that, buying something and selling it for as much as you can get offered for it is good old capitalism. A PS3 is not food or medicine or energy to heat your home.
 
phide said:
The justification is that they made the investment in time, energy and expense.
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA....energy and expense?

Obviously their time isn't worth shit since they have enough of it to sit around and do nothing. It doesn't take much energy to sit your ass on the floor and wait for something and the expense is $600+ tax. So I guess they are justified up until that point.

I am not saying they are wrong for getting more money. But your arguement is stupid. Just say they want more money cause they want money and in this capitalist world they are just doing what everyone else does....trying to get more money for themselves.

what a joke....justified. haha
 
Stereophile said:
I'm not sure what economics, ethics or philosophy others speak of but it certainly does not come from any liberal western culture. Offering a luxury item for sale, in which people willingly offer to pay over msrp, is not unethical by any standard except maybe marxism.
Click to expand...

Wrong! Ethics and morals are subjective by nature. Ethics hold no quantitative properties whatsoever and are based on qualitatives such as how and why, which means it can be debated to no end and everyone probably has their own interptation/perspective on ethical standards. This is why I said it could argued that is unethical.
 
CopyCat said:
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA....energy and expense?

Obviously their time isn't worth shit since they have enough of it to sit around and do nothing. It doesn't take much energy to sit your ass on the floor and wait for something and the expense is $600+ tax. So I guess they are justified up until that point.

I am not saying they are wrong for getting more money. But your arguement is stupid. Just say they want more money cause they want money and in this capitalist world they are just doing what everyone else does....trying to get more money for themselves.

what a joke....justified. haha
Click to expand...

How do you know their time isn't worth anything? As long as the end profit is greater than the opportunity cost, then they might have just taken a week off as sick days.

You're saying people who try to get money for themselves isn't justified then? I guess everyone who works for a living isn't justified. People have different jobs, some have it easier than others. Who are you to say that those who are willing to take the easier route is not justified?
 
In our democratic republic form of government I would say subjectively, selling luxury items for a profit is not unethical ! Now you could argue it is unethical, but it would not be a convincing argument. Clearly nobody believes that or the US would be like Cuba. If society considered selling an item for more than it cost to produce unethical, we would just now be entering the glorious 8 bit revolution comrade. Hahah J/K we'd probably be lucky to have microwaves. Let alone videogame systems.

That pack of gum for 99 cents at a convenience store cost the manufacturer a nickel to produce. Better start an online petition ! Do you think it really costs Toyota an extra $10,000 to produce a low end lexus vs. camry ? Do you realize it costs GM about the same amount of money to make a cobalt vs a corvette ? Most of the costs are fixed. It doesn't matter much to the bottom line what type of car they make.

Who would honestly argue selling a toy in short demand for more than msrp is wrong ? You cannot make a valid argument against selling PS3s on ebay. Any such attempt is uncogent. :D
 
phide said:
You cannot define the intentions of these individuals, as you do not explicitly know their intentions. Can you assume that these are their intentions? Yes, but you cannot specifically know unless you've discussed with the person and they said that "my intention is to get someone else to pay far more than retail" or some variant of that.
Click to expand...

Yes I can, very simply. When you see a PS3 listing on eBay with a minimum bid of $2000 and a "Buy it Now" price of $4000, along with links in the listing to articles about the limited supply of the PS3 I am certian beyond any doubt of the seller's intention.
 
Stereophile said:
That pack of gum for 99 cents at a convenience store cost the manufacturer a nickel to produce.
Click to expand...

(Gets pitchfork and ratty clothes and heads to 10 items or less aisle)

:eek: ONLY 5 CENTS!
BURN THE WITCH!!!
BURN THE WITCH!!!
 
Stereophile said:
In our democratic republic form of government I would say subjectively, selling luxury items for a profit is not unethical ! Now you could argue it is unethical, but it would not be a convincing argument. Clearly nobody believes that or the US would be like Cuba. If society considered selling an item for more than it cost to produce unethical, we would just now be entering the glorious 8 bit revolution comrade. Hahah J/K we'd probably be lucky to have microwaves. Let alone videogame systems.
Click to expand...
agree with this guy

you people who are whining about it are a bunch of sore, whiney losers.

time is money. these guys had a lot of it, now they're making money. go call a wahhhmbulance.
 
Stereophile said:
In our democratic republic form of government I would say subjectively, selling luxury items for a profit is not unethical ! Now you could argue it is unethical, but it would not be a convincing argument. Clearly nobody believes that or the US would be like Cuba. If society considered selling an item for more than it cost to produce unethical, we would just now be entering the glorious 8 bit revolution comrade. Hahah J/K we'd probably be lucky to have microwaves. Let alone videogame systems.

That pack of gum for 99 cents at a convenience store cost the manufacturer a nickel to produce. Better start an online petition ! Do you think it really costs Toyota an extra $10,000 to produce a low end lexus vs. camry ? Do you realize it costs GM about the same amount of money to make a cobalt vs a corvette ? Most of the costs are fixed. It doesn't matter much to the bottom line what type of car they make.

Who would honestly argue selling a toy in short demand for more than msrp is wrong ? You cannot make a valid argument against selling PS3s on ebay. Any such attempt is uncogent. :D
Click to expand...


heh.. I am NOT disagreeing with you... I never said it was unethical, I said it could be argued as such. You are correct it probably does cost 5 cents to manufacture the gum that is sold for 99 cents... but that is just to manufacture it, not paying empolyees, not paying for R&D, not paying for utilities to run the manufacturing facility, not paying for distribution, not paying for marketing... I am sure it would be more like 55 cents to do, then it is sold to a retail supplier for 85 cents who then sells it in their store for 99 cents.

but these people gouging 3000 dollars for a 600 MSRP product have done nothing to facilitate the production or sale of the product except giving up their own time, not even more because they will get it back.. its not like most of these people are going to be actually using the ps3.... more power to them for being able to sell it for 3k +/- to morons who cant wait 2 months or so and get for 600... lol
 
Draax said:
Like I said, for a "free market" to work, the price of goods is proportional to the labor expended in the making of the item. Selling PS3s at an inflated price is NOT indicative of a free market, but rather a very clear example of opportunistic capitalism.
Click to expand...
For shits and giggles, I found out where you get your definition of a "free market", as the words on this Wikipedia article are verbatim with something you stated earlier.
Wikipedia said:
Other philosophies such as some forms of Individualist anarchism and Mutualism (economic theory) anarchism believe that a truly "free market" would result in prices paid for goods and services to align with the labor embodied in those things.
Click to expand...
You omitted some very crucial words in your "plagiarism" of the article, sir. The ideal free market is one in which those who produce goods or offer services are fully able to set prices on their goods or services regardless of market conditions or viability of profit or success. My words.

Draax said:
By the way, you post is nonsense, as Sony selling something at a loss, means they CANNOT make a profit.
Click to expand...
Not from a physical goods perspective, no. It will be a long time before Sony has the opportunity to profit directly from sales of PS3 consoles, so they are not directly profiting from console sales. They profit indirectly from PS3 sales due to games sales and also due to increased adoption of BluRay capable players, leading to greater sales of BluRay titles. If you care to explain how Sony profits directly from console sales today, I'd love to hear it.

CopyCat said:
I am not saying they are wrong for getting more money. But your arguement is stupid. Just say they want more money cause they want money and in this capitalist world they are just doing what everyone else does....trying to get more money for themselves. what a joke....justified. haha
Click to expand...
Justification is relative. It doesn't matter if their profits are "justified" by your merits or mine. They are, by definition of the terms, attempting to profit from investments in time (time spent standing in line and purchasing the console), energy (energy expended in the process of standing in line and purchasing the console) and expense (capital spent acquiring the console itself and the additional expense of eBay listing fees). There's no debating that. Their profits are not fully without justification as you seem to believe.

And if that's your argument, dare I say that your argument is "stupid"?

JethroXP said:
Yes I can, very simply. When you see a PS3 listing on eBay with a minimum bid of $2000 and a "Buy it Now" price of $4000, along with links in the listing to articles about the limited supply of the PS3 I am certian beyond any doubt of the seller's intention.
Click to expand...
A convincing argument, and something I didn't consider. I'll agree with that.

But, then again, perhaps they are typos :)
 
Tetrahedron said:
but these people gouging 3000 dollars for a 600 MSRP product have done nothing to facilitate the production or sale of the product except giving up their own time, not even more because they will get it back.. its not like most of these people are going to be actually using the ps3.... more power to them for being able to sell it for 3k +/- to morons who cant wait 2 months or so and get for 600... lol
Click to expand...


Hahaha exactly. Wait 2 months and pay $600.

But time is money. A lot of these people bidding on ebay would obviously rather pay a premium than wait themselves.

The people giving up their time to camp, do contribute to people being able to play a PS3 on launch day. Someone's got to wait in line for the disabled and feeble. :)
 
dmanrevived said:
How do you know their time isn't worth anything? As long as the end profit is greater than the opportunity cost, then they might have just taken a week off as sick days.

You're saying people who try to get money for themselves isn't justified then? I guess everyone who works for a living isn't justified. People have different jobs, some have it easier than others. Who are you to say that those who are willing to take the easier route is not justified?
Click to expand...
phide said:
There's no debating that. Their profits are not fully without justification as you seem to believe.
Click to expand...
No point in going further with our opinions here guys. You have your level of justification and I have mine. I don't think we can change each others feelings on that and its a pretty subjective thing.

Cheers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top