[metaphor]

There's a distinct difference between blaming scalpers for a general shortage of supply and holding them accountable for detestable profiteering behavior.

The point of bringing up the 15c instance was to highlight the apparent assumption that manufacturer supply always trend consumer demand. A large portion of the user community knew in advance that the 15c would be limited release...but so did scalpers as hundreds of units were immediately relisted at super-inflated prices on zero-day. In the end, it's the user community for which the product was intending to target who ultimately loses...which inflames the compromise that I've made in my mind between a legit business incentive to make a fair profit and an underlying hacker ethos.

Furthermore, scalpers have nothing invested in the creation of the end-product, nor do they ever intend to use it, nor is there any value added to their super-inflated relist price, nor do they share in the business risk of bring the product to market. Profiteering is their strict modus operandi. Although it's certainly delusional to think that these bad apples could ever be done away with completely, I think it's equally asinine to point fingers at an OEM (who has invested in and owns the IP rights) without having first excercised due diligence in holding scalpers who are demonstrably contributing to the supply problem publicly accountable for their actions, if only on a moral note. The problem becomes even more exacerbated when technology enables independent scalpers to gain critical mass on a scale that can nerf an entire production lot. It's unfortunate that the only real action the public can take is inaction against scalper relists...it's even more unfortunate that real consequences are practically nonexistent.

What isn't being acknowledged is the very real risk that any company faces with bringing a hardware product to market at scale. Saturate the market with the intent of deterring scalpers and your unsold investment sits in a storage warehouse costing you untold amounts collecting dust. Increase unit cost on the next product lot and suffer consumer outrage. Set the initial cost beyond reasonable profit and you're in price gouging territory. Assuming a sustainable business model, where's the incentive? Again, it's the user community who ultimately loses to the true vectoralist scalper.

The food vs. yacht analogy appears to dismiss reality. In a zero-sum game, the unit cost of a yacht commands a ballpark 6-8 orders of magnitude delta over food. As a society, we indirectly deny poor people yachts on the merit of economic sensibility, not because it's a social luxury; simply replace yacht with a scaleable luxury like cell phone or computer. The notion of an alternative "affordable yacht" is an oxymoron and subjectively exclusive to the wealthy.

[lmm]

> Furthermore, scalpers have nothing invested in the creation of the end-product, nor do they ever intend to use it, nor is there any value added to their super-inflated relist price, nor do they share in the business risk of bring the product to market.

They've added a lot of value for people who really wanted the console to the extent that they were willing to simply pay $600 for it. Those people can now buy the console rather than having to dick around with the limited supply and hope they were lucky. Trade creates wealth, just as if they'd e.g. imported a product to somewhere where it's not normally sold.

> The food vs. yacht analogy appears to dismiss reality. In a zero-sum game, the unit cost of a yacht commands a ballpark 6-8 orders of magnitude delta over food. As a society, we indirectly deny poor people yachts on the merit of economic sensibility, not because it's a social luxury; simply replace yacht with a scaleable luxury like cell phone or computer. The notion of an alternative "affordable yacht" is an oxymoron and subjectively exclusive to the wealthy.

We're talking about a videogame console here - and not even a value-for-money one, it's been a gimmick from the start.

[metaphor]

> They've added a lot of value for people who really wanted the console to the extent that they were willing to simply pay $600 for it. Those people can now buy the console rather than having to dick around with the limited supply and hope they were lucky.

There is no value added when product scarcity is artificially promulgated by scalpers with no end-use intent. You've made the assumption that the supply status quo would exist without scaplers actively exploiting the market en masse, and I beg to differ...the difference is, as of this minute, I can point to over 5,600 reasons on eBay US alone[1] that support my argument.

You've clearly defined the value added in importing a product to a market where it's not normally sold: work which directly increases product availability. Scalpers do neither and instead play an unaccountable game of double penetration: first by creating artificial scarcity in the market, then again by immediately relisting at 10-fold markup within the very same market they've negated.

> We're talking about a videogame console here - and not even a value-for-money one, it's been a gimmick from the start.

Irrelevant. You are, of course, entitled to your own valuation of the product. Nintendo--who has made real investments in and rightfully owns the IP rights to--on the other hand, has clearly valued it at $60 for its end user, profit markups at the OEM and authorized distributor levels included. Scalpers do nothing more than profiteer, costing legitimate end users a proverbial shit ton more to acquire, and soiling the public image of a company which clearly intended to do well with its end users. On that note, I'll gladly take the time to piss all over the corn flakes of scalpers, the true root cause of this problem.

[1] http://www.ebay.com/sch/?_nkw=nes%20classic%20edition

[lmm]

> You've made the assumption that the supply status quo would exist without scaplers actively exploiting the market en masse, and I beg to differ...the difference is, as of this minute, I can point to over 5,600 reasons on eBay US alone[1] that support my argument.

The scalpers don't destroy the consoles any more than they create them. All they're doing is spreading out the supply over maybe a few weeks - they'll be pricing them to sell before the next shipment from Nintendo arrives. Or else they've made a mistake and are going to lose money for it, which is fine too. Maybe some scalpers are holding onto them for the Christmas rush, but that's just the difference between the console sitting on the scalper's shelf or sitting in a box under the tree - it makes no odds either way.

> You've clearly defined the value added in importing a product to a market where it's not normally sold: work which directly increases product availability.

Scalpers are just import/export across time rather than across space. If it weren't for scalpers there wouldn't be any of this console on sale right now, it'd just be sold out everywhere.

> Scalpers do neither and instead play an unaccountable game of double penetration: first by creating artificial scarcity in the market, then again by immediately relisting at 10-fold markup within the very same market they've negated.

I very much doubt the scarcity is artificial. Scalping is too competitive, too easy a market to enter, for anyone to be cornering the market.

> Irrelevant. You are, of course, entitled to your own valuation of the product.

My point is that it's yacht-like (or, sure, like a $60 trinket rather than a $60k one - let's say a Mont Blanc notebook) rather than food-like. No-one physically needs it, no-one deserves it at a below-market price.

> Nintendo--who has made real investments in and rightfully owns the IP rights to--on the other hand, has clearly valued it at $60 for its end user, profit markups at the OEM and authorized distributor levels included.

Nintendo (who FWIW are notorious for price-fixing and bullying retailers, "losing" shipments for those who don't cooperate) don't get to choose how much people buy or sell the products they own for; it's a free country. If Nintendo can really produce it for less than $60 then they should be selling it for $60 and making money. But they've sold all their stock, and the demand is still there.