Ethics of reselling game systems
 

Question to TFP...

Is it ethical to buy a high-demand system purely for the purpose of immediately reselling it for a higher price? I've never heard of the practice being out-and-out illegal (though I doubt many of those who do it report it on their income taxes), but there are many things that are both legal and ethically dubious.

At first blush it just "feels" wrong though I can't really give a substantive argument why... so I guess I'll just have to say that it seems crude and selfish. But... I'm curious to see if any fellow gamers can come up with good arguments either way.

I don't how it can be even remotely regarded as unethical. It's all about supply and demand.

About it feeling wrong: would you feel the same if the object in question was something other than a game system?

If you find yourself fortunate enough to possess an item that cost you less than its going value to procure, one perfectly valid option is to sell it at the highest price you can get for it. I don't see how this is even remotely a moral issue.

Coppertop, the fact that something can occur within the framework of supply and demand doesn't make it ethical. The market is not an ethical beast.

I don't necessarily think that it's unethical, though it is in the sense that if everybody did it then nobody could do it. I do think that people who do it are douchebags. I also think the people who buy the consoles from the resellers are douchebags.

IMO, the fact that you're asking this question indicates that, deep down, you "know" it's wrong. In a way, it's almost like stealing.

Ultimately, though, trading is all about buying cheap, and selling with a profit. As far as I'm concerned, it really doesn't matter if you're selling a car, a house or a game system. Do you believe trading in itself is unethical? Or is it just this one example that would be suspect?

I didn't say it was ethical now, did I? I simply said that I don't think it is unethical, if that makes any sense. rat summed it up more eloquently than my feeble attempt. As far as I am concerned, ethics doesn't even enter into the equation.

What makes these people douchebags?

I think that they're douchebags because they're buying up products and jacking up the prices thereby ensuring that a whole bunch of people won't be able to buy those products. The people who buy the consoles at inflated prices are douchebags because they're tools.

Ah, but isn't it the limited supply of consoles that allows resellers to make such profit? Surely no one would pay $1,000 for a PS3 if there are plenty on them sitting on store shelves. At least, no one who isn't a tool.

I don't think it's a problem at all. I stood in line and got my Wii like all the other losers with too much time on their hands. For this latest wave of consoles and the "Now now now!!" mentality society has, there are people who are patient and people who aren't. The people who are willing to pay out the ass for a console are merely paying for the convenience of having one immediately, instead of waiting in line. Or paying for the patient person's time, whichever you prefer. If people are willing to pay the price you're offering, no matter how exorbitant, then let them.

describing the situation as a simple supply/demand transaction and calling it a day ignores the underlying premise that either all supply/demand transaction are ethical or this specific practice is free from ethical consideration.

the former is plainly false and the latter hasn't been proven (at least, not to my satisfaction).

after reading some of the responses, i'm pretty sure there is no way to say that the practice "wrong" simply because vid-game consoles are a pure-luxury item. using the same tactic (for instance) by charging $100 for bottled water after hurricane katrina would be a different matter... it's still a supply/demand issue but the seller is directly preying upon the misery of the buyer (which, i think most would agree is unethical).

I wouldn't describe it as ethical, but, if i had the chance and cash to buy 2 or more, i would considering the profits. Take that how you will.

The reason I couldn't be a salesman is that I can't sell like that to another person.

I feel bad selling something for drastically more than I got it for, even if it does mean profit. It's a personal thing, and so it wouldn't feel right to me to do it. Doesn't mean it's unethical, just not something I can do.

I worked as a telemarketer, and I had the same problem. I was supposed to convince old grandmas that they'd save money with my plan, when they clearly wouldn't.

If you determine that buying something for a lower price than you sell it is unethical, then you are taking a stand against capitalism. You don't think the store bought that PS3 for $600 do you? If the market is willing to pay for it, and it's not a vital item, then there's nothing unethical about it. We're talking about a video game - no one needs one to live.

now if someone came out with a cure for cancer and priced it at a million per pill, that would be unethical as all hell because it would literally be profiting off of a life and death situation - - - sorta like grabbing the guy that's falling off the cliff but not pulling him back up until he agrees to pay you a lot of money ;)


No, the "douchebags" are the video game manufacturers who, knowing that demand will be high, release 5 per store. If you flooded the stores with the systems then you'd eliminate the market for the scalpers.

It doesn't have to be either/or; they're all douchebags.

I don't see how buying and reselling a game system could be inherently unethical (unless you were knowingly buying stolen property, or something along those lines).

Agreed. Supply and demand is neither moral or immoral. It's sort of like gravity - like it or not, it just is.

Except that when someone falls to their death you don't hear a lot of people nonchalantly say shit like, "Well, that's gravity for you. It'll do that." Another difference is that most pure capitalists would agree that trying to limit the detrimental effects of gravity is a good thing. The same couldn't be said about supply and demand.

You pay what you think something is worth. If you resell a system and someone buys it what's unethical? You haven't tricked them.

Business ethics can become quite complex, but this is pretty straigt forward. You invest in waiting in line or getting yourself on that list, so you charge for that when you sell it. Do you think brokers feel badly charging thousands of dollars for Superbowl tickets? Of course not.

Game systems are not a basic human need. Whining about consumers choosing to pay for them of their own free will, whatever that price may be, is absurd. This might actually be relevant if the item in question was clean water, or basic housing, or something of that nature.

So the Mickey Mantle baseball card should only be resold for 5 cents? If someone wants something alot and is willing to pay for it, that is how "value" is given to something. Gems are a perfect example. Diamonds are rare and beautiful and so their value is high. If a ps3 is going for 1500 on the open market, then that is the true valued of it. If the manufacturer is only selling it for 600, well below market, then everyone that gets one for 600 is getting a deal.

I'm not concerned... Ill get a wii and a ps3 when they are cheaper.. No biggie, the ps3 doesnt have anything really worthwhile yet.

As far as the ethics go I dont think its unethical.. I think its lame, but its not unethical. What would be unethical would be if a friend had a friend at like a gamestop that sold an already half paid for system, so the guy could resell it. I know a few GS in my area did that with the 360

It's certainly not illegal - that much is clear. The crux of the matter is more moral than ethical to me. I simply wouldn't feel right doing that to someone else.

Bad karma.

I don't think anyone involved in any of the transactions above are unethical in any way. If someone decides that they're willing to basically pay someone else to wait in line for them so that they can go about their lives and still have the game system so be it. That's basically what the extra charge is for - someone else's time. It's the same with tickets. Brokers charge for either their time to stand in line or their connections that have tickets that will go unused otherwise. If the premium is too much for you, then don't buy.

There are no douchebags in this equation that I can find. The game system manufacturers are obviously putting out a product that people want, and there are manufacturing and distribution constraints involved in introducing a product nationally at a set time and date. The stores that sell the product are providing the product. Anyone reselling a system is only asking to be reimbursed for their time. If paying some jobless nerd an extra $500 to stand in line for you for 12 hours is too much for you, I'm sure you'll be able to find the back of the line yourself. If I use those numbers, that's about $42/hour. How is it unethical for someone to charge you for something that you weren't willing to do yourself?

I don't think this is a case of "doing that" to another person. Both parties would presumeably be entering the agreement completely of their own free will. How is it bad karma?

You obviously aren't hanging around with the same people that I am.

I was comparing the phenomenon of supply/demand and gravity, not people's opinions of, or responses to, them. :cool: