By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - How to combat scalpers

Dante9 said:
Chrkeller said:

A the gaming related issue is gamers have no backbone.  Gamers cave to MTX, lootboxes, scalpers and pay for online programs...  

Agreed. Lack of backbone and the desire to look flashy in the eyes of other gamers are the root causes of the ills in this industry.

for a second I mistook you were talking about high quality graphics being the root of all ills in this industry =p



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Shatts said:
The_Yoda said:

Why would the "companies strike back"?  If scalpers are buying up all available stock the companies have made their money and the scalpers have now assumed the risk of an item not selling at a profit.

Personally I got away from day one console purchases back in the PS2 era with the exception of the Switch, Wii, and WiiU.  Bought the PS2 once the slim version came out.  Bought the PS3 off Ebay with extra controllers and lots of games for way less than MSRP (used is risky but that PS3 is still kicking). The PS4s (I've bought 3 ) I've bought new but long after they were readily available at retail.  Since I couldn't find a PS5 and my Vader PS4 bit the dust i bought a PS4Pro used.  When the PS5 is a normal sight in retail I'll probably wait for a Black Friday sale and buy one for the kids and maybe one for me. Personally I will not pay scalper prices, hell I don't even like paying full MSRP.

Bruh plz use common sense, research or at least read before giving an opinion. Companies sell their consoles at a loss, Microsoft hasn't been able to profit from the hardware alone, Sony only starts to profit after a while, and Nintendo sold some at a loss as well in the past. The reason they do this is to create a bigger userbase, it's a strategical loss. They can recoup the loss by selling software, subscription service, etc. It was said that Sony needed to sell 10 games per console to recoup the loss back in the PS3 era. The reason for this being the PS3 sold at a huge loss. So with that in mind, obviously companies aren't fond of scalpers either. Not only does it limit the userbase, but it also stays untouched. Scalpers aren't making companies money, in fact the company are only losing money. Plus if people buy from the scalpers, that's extra potential money gone that could have gone to their games. 

Revenue does not equal profit. You can have the highest revenue in the world, but your company could still be failing. 

I'll get more informed and do my research next time. My bad I didn't know Amazon, WalMart, ect sold consoles at a loss.  /s   I get that the attached rate on a scalped game system is delayed.  There may even be a loss associated with it as someone who waits to buy at MSRP isn't subscribed to any services (assuming they aren't already subscribed to said services with a last gen console) and perhaps they buy 1 or 2 less games lifetime because they had to wait to have the system in their hands.  You seem to be making it out to be a complete loss. It is not.  It is mostly just a delay in attachment.

I work closely with logistics.  There is a reason the big three sell to Amazon and other e-commerce as well as all the brick and mortar stores rather than direct to consumer.  It is because it is much cheaper for them in both terms of money and resources. 

One: Physical shipment is cheaper and infinitely easier to track. 

It cost way less to ship 1000 consoles to 1 distribution center than to to ship 1000 consoles to 1000 individual addresses (almost an order of magnitude difference in shipping price)

Two: They do not have to employee nearly as many customer service people to deal with shipment issues. 

That is dealt with by whomever the manufacturer sells to.  Your package didn't arrive, your package was damaged? The manufacturer doesn't have to deal with that and eat more money, Amazon (or the like) has to decide if they want to. Guess who the end customer is pissed off at if things go wrong? Most likely not the manufacturer but whomever sold it to them will bear the brunt of their ill will.  This is a hard metric to track but believe me it is a fairly powerful factor.   

You are correct that revenue does not equate to profit for a manufacturer but the cost of logistics pretty much guarantees that the bulk of product flows through a middle man (at least at the scale the big three sell at). Middlemen don't really care about about attach rates and they see little to nothing in the way of services (one of the reasons Microsoft and so many others started targeting services years ago i.e. cut out the middle man)



I feel like someone already mentioned this, but I admittedly really liked the way Valve handled the Steam Deck. Granted, I do NOT like how it was shipped in its actual box and also labeled with what's inside, but I think Valve actually managed a method that MOSTLY worked. Sure, some people probably conveniently has more than one account that was active for over a month, and some really just purchased it to scalp, but for the most part the Steam Deck has NOT been plagued by the bot scalping issue because their method was actually planned out AND handled at the first party company level.

Soooo, this also means this is possible for the other three as well. Sadly, this would mean many retailers would suffer the lack of "traffic" in the wake of videogame console launches, but if the Steam Deck is managing it, albeit slower than people want, I think it's possible to create a core company-to-consumer logistic that reduces the ability for greedy people to capitalize on demand. AND, truth be told, cutting out retailers likely has some financial benefit, too, that may outweigh the increased cost of handling direct-to-customer logistics. In fact, both Nintendo and Microsoft technically have the infrastructure already in place. Nintendo will have to work on their servers for sure, though, as recent events have proven at such a small scale lol



Check out my entertainment gaming channel!
^^/
ZyroXZ2 said:

I feel like someone already mentioned this, but I admittedly really liked the way Valve handled the Steam Deck. Granted, I do NOT like how it was shipped in its actual box and also labeled with what's inside, but I think Valve actually managed a method that MOSTLY worked. Sure, some people probably conveniently has more than one account that was active for over a month, and some really just purchased it to scalp, but for the most part the Steam Deck has NOT been plagued by the bot scalping issue because their method was actually planned out AND handled at the first party company level.

Soooo, this also means this is possible for the other three as well. Sadly, this would mean many retailers would suffer the lack of "traffic" in the wake of videogame console launches, but if the Steam Deck is managing it, albeit slower than people want, I think it's possible to create a core company-to-consumer logistic that reduces the ability for greedy people to capitalize on demand. AND, truth be told, cutting out retailers likely has some financial benefit, too, that may outweigh the increased cost of handling direct-to-customer logistics. In fact, both Nintendo and Microsoft technically have the infrastructure already in place. Nintendo will have to work on their servers for sure, though, as recent events have proven at such a small scale lol

Isn't Deck a lot less volume and demand than the 2 consoles? Is it even being reported to suffer massive sold out?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

ZyroXZ2 said:

I feel like someone already mentioned this, but I admittedly really liked the way Valve handled the Steam Deck. Granted, I do NOT like how it was shipped in its actual box and also labeled with what's inside, but I think Valve actually managed a method that MOSTLY worked. Sure, some people probably conveniently has more than one account that was active for over a month, and some really just purchased it to scalp, but for the most part the Steam Deck has NOT been plagued by the bot scalping issue because their method was actually planned out AND handled at the first party company level.

Soooo, this also means this is possible for the other three as well. Sadly, this would mean many retailers would suffer the lack of "traffic" in the wake of videogame console launches, but if the Steam Deck is managing it, albeit slower than people want, I think it's possible to create a core company-to-consumer logistic that reduces the ability for greedy people to capitalize on demand. AND, truth be told, cutting out retailers likely has some financial benefit, too, that may outweigh the increased cost of handling direct-to-customer logistics. In fact, both Nintendo and Microsoft technically have the infrastructure already in place. Nintendo will have to work on their servers for sure, though, as recent events have proven at such a small scale lol

That's what I said for my first option (using accounts to order one). But like some people say, Steam Deck only works because the demand is significantly less and the targeted audience are niche. Do people really want to wait those long queues. That's why I said prioritize the people in their subscription service or any method that can determine that person really wants it for their own good. Retailers are still important imo so fully online is not really the first choice.



Around the Network
The_Yoda said:
Shatts said:

Bruh plz use common sense, research or at least read before giving an opinion. Companies sell their consoles at a loss, Microsoft hasn't been able to profit from the hardware alone, Sony only starts to profit after a while, and Nintendo sold some at a loss as well in the past. The reason they do this is to create a bigger userbase, it's a strategical loss. They can recoup the loss by selling software, subscription service, etc. It was said that Sony needed to sell 10 games per console to recoup the loss back in the PS3 era. The reason for this being the PS3 sold at a huge loss. So with that in mind, obviously companies aren't fond of scalpers either. Not only does it limit the userbase, but it also stays untouched. Scalpers aren't making companies money, in fact the company are only losing money. Plus if people buy from the scalpers, that's extra potential money gone that could have gone to their games. 

Revenue does not equal profit. You can have the highest revenue in the world, but your company could still be failing. 

I'll get more informed and do my research next time. My bad I didn't know Amazon, WalMart, ect sold consoles at a loss.  /s   I get that the attached rate on a scalped game system is delayed.  There may even be a loss associated with it as someone who waits to buy at MSRP isn't subscribed to any services (assuming they aren't already subscribed to said services with a last gen console) and perhaps they buy 1 or 2 less games lifetime because they had to wait to have the system in their hands.  You seem to be making it out to be a complete loss. It is not.  It is mostly just a delay in attachment.

I work closely with logistics.  There is a reason the big three sell to Amazon and other e-commerce as well as all the brick and mortar stores rather than direct to consumer.  It is because it is much cheaper for them in both terms of money and resources. 

One: Physical shipment is cheaper and infinitely easier to track. 

It cost way less to ship 1000 consoles to 1 distribution center than to to ship 1000 consoles to 1000 individual addresses (almost an order of magnitude difference in shipping price)

Two: They do not have to employee nearly as many customer service people to deal with shipment issues. 

That is dealt with by whomever the manufacturer sells to.  Your package didn't arrive, your package was damaged? The manufacturer doesn't have to deal with that and eat more money, Amazon (or the like) has to decide if they want to. Guess who the end customer is pissed off at if things go wrong? Most likely not the manufacturer but whomever sold it to them will bear the brunt of their ill will.  This is a hard metric to track but believe me it is a fairly powerful factor.   

You are correct that revenue does not equate to profit for a manufacturer but the cost of logistics pretty much guarantees that the bulk of product flows through a middle man (at least at the scale the big three sell at). Middlemen don't really care about about attach rates and they see little to nothing in the way of services (one of the reasons Microsoft and so many others started targeting services years ago i.e. cut out the middle man)

Np, and I agree. The only thing I would mention is the significant influence momentum has. The "middlemen" will affect the momentum in one way or another and that can still be negatively impactful to the company. 



Shatts said:
ZyroXZ2 said:

I feel like someone already mentioned this, but I admittedly really liked the way Valve handled the Steam Deck. Granted, I do NOT like how it was shipped in its actual box and also labeled with what's inside, but I think Valve actually managed a method that MOSTLY worked. Sure, some people probably conveniently has more than one account that was active for over a month, and some really just purchased it to scalp, but for the most part the Steam Deck has NOT been plagued by the bot scalping issue because their method was actually planned out AND handled at the first party company level.

Soooo, this also means this is possible for the other three as well. Sadly, this would mean many retailers would suffer the lack of "traffic" in the wake of videogame console launches, but if the Steam Deck is managing it, albeit slower than people want, I think it's possible to create a core company-to-consumer logistic that reduces the ability for greedy people to capitalize on demand. AND, truth be told, cutting out retailers likely has some financial benefit, too, that may outweigh the increased cost of handling direct-to-customer logistics. In fact, both Nintendo and Microsoft technically have the infrastructure already in place. Nintendo will have to work on their servers for sure, though, as recent events have proven at such a small scale lol

That's what I said for my first option (using accounts to order one). But like some people say, Steam Deck only works because the demand is significantly less and the targeted audience are niche. Do people really want to wait those long queues. That's why I said prioritize the people in their subscription service or any method that can determine that person really wants it for their own good. Retailers are still important imo so fully online is not really the first choice.

In Brazil your first option would be a violation of the Customer Defense Code, as you can't demand or give privilege to someone who buys one product to buy the other. Sales must be independent.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Shatts said:

That's what I said for my first option (using accounts to order one). But like some people say, Steam Deck only works because the demand is significantly less and the targeted audience are niche. Do people really want to wait those long queues. That's why I said prioritize the people in their subscription service or any method that can determine that person really wants it for their own good. Retailers are still important imo so fully online is not really the first choice.

In Brazil your first option would be a violation of the Customer Defense Code, as you can't demand or give privilege to someone who buys one product to buy the other. Sales must be independent.

Nice, thanks for the insight. U sure there aren't any loopholes to that rule tho? I wonder how many countries have that rule in place. After listening to interviews of multiple publishers, one thing that makes it difficult was the different rules in every country, so perhaps this is part of the reason why they don't do much about it.



Shatts said:
DonFerrari said:

In Brazil your first option would be a violation of the Customer Defense Code, as you can't demand or give privilege to someone who buys one product to buy the other. Sales must be independent.

Nice, thanks for the insight. U sure there aren't any loopholes to that rule tho? I wonder how many countries have that rule in place. After listening to interviews of multiple publishers, one thing that makes it difficult was the different rules in every country, so perhaps this is part of the reason why they don't do much about it.

Theoretically anything that you are OBLIGATED to buy one to get the other is "illegal", but we do have the stuff like buying phones for a discount inside a plan. So behind curtains let's say you could divert 90% of your inventory to be sold through a membership plan, like pay your PS/Xbox in 24-60 parcels together with a sub or the like.

As far as I know there isn't a law that dictates how much of your product needs to be in each channel.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
ZyroXZ2 said:

I feel like someone already mentioned this, but I admittedly really liked the way Valve handled the Steam Deck. Granted, I do NOT like how it was shipped in its actual box and also labeled with what's inside, but I think Valve actually managed a method that MOSTLY worked. Sure, some people probably conveniently has more than one account that was active for over a month, and some really just purchased it to scalp, but for the most part the Steam Deck has NOT been plagued by the bot scalping issue because their method was actually planned out AND handled at the first party company level.

Soooo, this also means this is possible for the other three as well. Sadly, this would mean many retailers would suffer the lack of "traffic" in the wake of videogame console launches, but if the Steam Deck is managing it, albeit slower than people want, I think it's possible to create a core company-to-consumer logistic that reduces the ability for greedy people to capitalize on demand. AND, truth be told, cutting out retailers likely has some financial benefit, too, that may outweigh the increased cost of handling direct-to-customer logistics. In fact, both Nintendo and Microsoft technically have the infrastructure already in place. Nintendo will have to work on their servers for sure, though, as recent events have proven at such a small scale lol

Isn't Deck a lot less volume and demand than the 2 consoles? Is it even being reported to suffer massive sold out?

It is, it's constantly sold out and WAYYY behind on meeting demand, but this thread was about combatting scalpers, and the Steam Deck CLEARLY has enough demand to have a scalping problem... except it doesn't.

I mean, look at limited editions for popular franchises, those also face major bot scalping problems.  Valve handled the Steam Deck fairly, even if, again, massively being undersold because of it.

Shatts said:
ZyroXZ2 said:

I feel like someone already mentioned this, but I admittedly really liked the way Valve handled the Steam Deck. Granted, I do NOT like how it was shipped in its actual box and also labeled with what's inside, but I think Valve actually managed a method that MOSTLY worked. Sure, some people probably conveniently has more than one account that was active for over a month, and some really just purchased it to scalp, but for the most part the Steam Deck has NOT been plagued by the bot scalping issue because their method was actually planned out AND handled at the first party company level.

Soooo, this also means this is possible for the other three as well. Sadly, this would mean many retailers would suffer the lack of "traffic" in the wake of videogame console launches, but if the Steam Deck is managing it, albeit slower than people want, I think it's possible to create a core company-to-consumer logistic that reduces the ability for greedy people to capitalize on demand. AND, truth be told, cutting out retailers likely has some financial benefit, too, that may outweigh the increased cost of handling direct-to-customer logistics. In fact, both Nintendo and Microsoft technically have the infrastructure already in place. Nintendo will have to work on their servers for sure, though, as recent events have proven at such a small scale lol

That's what I said for my first option (using accounts to order one). But like some people say, Steam Deck only works because the demand is significantly less and the targeted audience are niche. Do people really want to wait those long queues. That's why I said prioritize the people in their subscription service or any method that can determine that person really wants it for their own good. Retailers are still important imo so fully online is not really the first choice.

That's the thing, it's a long queue, but there's virtually no "omg bots scalpers bought them all we can't get one!" thing happening because they have stipulations in place.  Valve is properly getting Steam Decks into buyer's hands because they've set up restrictions in place, and though once again the lack of distribution and production struggles to meet demand, the reality is that the demand is high enough that there SHOULD be a scalping problem.  Except there (mostly) isn't...



Check out my entertainment gaming channel!
^^/