There's a certain battle going on one of the FB sale pages concerning Dice Scalping. If anyone doesn't know what scalping is here is a description

"Scalping is where a group or individual buys a limited product and then instantly sells it again at an inflated price for profit. This usually applies to sport and music tickets, of which the practice is illegal in many countries such as the UK."

Now within our own group we're a bit split. Some say it's capitalism and only fair for someone to be able to sell what they like, but then the comparison with sport and music tickets arises, obviously being illegal in many countries, with many video game publishers starting to limit the amount of limited edition products individuals can buy for a while now. I also brought up price inflation is heavily regulated in property, so you can only pay over the house value if you don't require any lending. I do however obviously support legitimate buyers who simply sell their product to cover/cut costs, or the selling of limited edition items at a later date where the true value of such items has stabilized and the buyer can be relatively assured of a resale price.

What are your guys thoughts?

I think it's a colossally jerk move and is very anti-community. Limited edition products are hard enough to come by without some dude buying them all and then reselling for a huge profit margin. Whenever I see someone doing this, I instantly right them off as being bad for the community.

Having said that, there is no legal issue. Feel free to jack up prices... just don't be surprised when some people don't like you as much afterwards.

By scalping theyre taking away hobby budget that could have been spent on other things. They indirectly rob the producers and stockists via less sales of other stuff, and outright rob end consumers.

This is something which is so prevalent (and not just where capitalism is supported) that you'll never combat it successfully. Since it's just hobby/toys, I don't see any reason to get up in arms over it. There are far worse abuses going on with regards to monopolies and scalping.

I have a dislike for it, but not much you can do about it.

There are two sides to this. From the Scalpers view, they are there to make ££££. They carry all the risk of buying something they then can't sell on. So yes, they are going to inflate the price, it's simple Supply and Demand, and all business's do this. GW does it. Inflates the price of their 'limited edition' stuff, knowing the demand will buy it. They produce items (see Spacehulk) in limited quantities to ensure people will quickly snap them up and therefore reduce the cost to GW of not having to a) Store or Stock them, b) People buy diect from them.

Now there is an easy way to stop scalpers. Both the little guy on Ebay selling 9 of the 10 limited edition minatures they've bought, to the big company manufacturing a limited amount. Simply don't buy them. The choice is yours. If you buy, then you must support the practise. If you don't buy, then the practice can't happen.

Other companies take an active look at preventing the Ebay scalpers. Kingdom Death for example, limit their first run resins to 1 or 2 per person. They can do this, knowing they'll sell out anyway. At the moment the 1.5 KDM Kickstarter is running. I'm sure due to the success of the game, many backers are buying duplicate copies of the items at a discounted price in the hope to sell them on when they arrive. I've no issue with people doing this, as if you wanted one, you are free to buy it yourself now, and the person buying the duplicate copy to sell, is carrying all the risk of not being able to sell when it arrives.

If you don't like 'Scalpers' then simply don't buy from them. Then there's no market for them.

The real issue is that the print run is too limited. There is obviously a market to sell at least some of these dice at 28 GBP. Games Workshop should take this as an indication that they aren't making enough of the product. Supply is too small. With a high demand and a low supply, the market will naturally want to increase the price. Scalpers perform this function.

Based on how many of their limited release products sell out in less than five minutes, it's probably fair to say that they are horrible at demand forecasting.

Ebay has many items that are no longer available, and which, because of that, attract a premium price. By definition, Limited Edition suggests short supply, which in turn increases demand.

I have in the loft two LE Space Hulks. One is in use, the other still sealed. It might get sold or it might get opened. I have a number of other sealed sets that I haven't got round to yet.

On the other hand, when AoS came out, I ordered 5 copies of the White Dwarf with the rules and free figure for my wargaming group. Was I forward thinking and planning, or was I depriving "the community" of some "rights"? In any case, when I collected them on the day of release, two other gamers offered on the spot to pay double to buy them.

I've also been quietly building a Dogs of War Army for the last 5 years or so. If ebay prices are to be believed, the army has (currently) doubled in value. If I need the cash, I'll sell it - but for what I can get for it, not what I paid for it. Is that scalping?

I guess my conclusion is that buying something IN ORDER TO sell it again immediately at a profit isn't very friendly, but is neither wrong nor illegal.. To stay on point with the LE dice - the RRP is a scalp in the first place, so it's hard to point the finger at secondary scalping.

 Kriswall wrote:
The real issue is that the print run is too limited. There is obviously a market to sell at least some of these dice at 28 GBP. Games Workshop should take this as an indication that they aren't making enough of the product. Supply is too small. With a high demand and a low supply, the market will naturally want to increase the price. Scalpers perform this function.

Based on how many of their limited release products sell out in less than five minutes, it's probably fair to say that they are horrible at demand forecasting.

GW are aware of it and are looking to expand some of their runs.... the Dice however are made externally and there are supply issues...... well that's their excuse anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

stroller wrote:
Ebay has many items that are no longer available, and which, because of that, attract a premium price. By definition, Limited Edition suggests short supply, which in turn increases demand.

I have in the loft two LE Space Hulks. One is in use, the other still sealed. It might get sold or it might get opened. I have a number of other sealed sets that I haven't got round to yet.

On the other hand, when AoS came out, I ordered 5 copies of the White Dwarf with the rules and free figure for my wargaming group. Was I forward thinking and planning, or was I depriving "the community" of some "rights"? In any case, when I collected them on the day of release, two other gamers offered on the spot to pay double to buy them.

I've also been quietly building a Dogs of War Army for the last 5 years or so. If ebay prices are to be believed, the army has (currently) doubled in value. If I need the cash, I'll sell it - but for what I can get for it, not what I paid for it. Is that scalping?

I guess my conclusion is that buying something IN ORDER TO sell it again immediately at a profit isn't very friendly, but is neither wrong nor illegal.. To stay on point with the LE dice - the RRP is a scalp in the first place, so it's hard to point the finger at secondary scalping.

I think it's slightly different when you're buying discontinued models that have been unavailable for years. Plus the price stabilizes, you have some limited or old items that simply can't be sold at higher prices because they are not popular so people will not buy them.

It's not a single answer for all products, but simply buying 30 odd dice and selling them at a massively inflated price as soon as they sell out is most definitely wrong. I personally think a cap of around 5 would be perfectly fine for limited edition products and limited edition individual models.

They're dice.

Seriously. They're dice.

If they're a collector item, then the market will determine their selling price. If GW is selling them for X, and the market is willing to pay X+Y, then that's what they're really worth. It's not a case of,

"Whaann! People are bitches because my expensive randomization cubes are now more expensive, and that's BAD! Whaaan!"

It's a case of,

"Why on Earth would I spend that much cash on six sided randomization devices? Am I so shallow as to believe that by pimping my gaming aids will somehow make my enjoyment of this game greater? I should probably remove myself from the genetic lottery, instead."

This is honestly the most entitlement-based whining I've ever seen. You can get dirt-cheap dice anywhere, and spend the leftovers on your modeling supplies. Claiming that more expensive dice is somehow limiting your modeling purchases, when el-cheapo dice are available, is just such an entitlement-based thought process.

Its only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. They wanna hand money over and promote that inflated prices are worth it, then that's up to them. If the "community" refused it, then it wouldn't happen.

No problem with flipping, for those exact reasons.

 greatbigtree wrote:
They're dice.

Seriously. They're dice.

If they're a collector item, then the market will determine their selling price. If GW is selling them for X, and the market is willing to pay X+Y, then that's what they're really worth. It's not a case of,

"Whaann! People are bitches because my expensive randomization cubes are now more expensive, and that's BAD! Whaaan!"

It's a case of,

"Why on Earth would I spend that much cash on six sided randomization devices? Am I so shallow as to believe that by pimping my gaming aids will somehow make my enjoyment of this game greater? I should probably remove myself from the genetic lottery, instead."

This is honestly the most entitlement-based whining I've ever seen. You can get dirt-cheap dice anywhere, and spend the leftovers on your modeling supplies. Claiming that more expensive dice is somehow limiting your modeling purchases, when el-cheapo dice are available, is just such an entitlement-based thought process.

Wow... I'm assuming you recognize the irony of being so condescending and morally superior about how much people want 'special' dice when you're clearly involved in a hobby where you buy and play with toy soldiers. Just because you don't see the value, doesn't mean there isn't any there.

I don't think it's unreasonable to be frustrated when someone creates an artificial supply shortage in order to drive up prices and make a profit. Yes, they're totally allowed to do so, but no, we don't have to like it.

 greatbigtree wrote:


Am I so shallow as to believe that by pimping my gaming aids will somehow make my enjoyment of this game greater?

Pimping my gaming aids actually does make my enjoyment of the game greater, so "bah" to you!




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't think people have to like it, but it wouldn't exist if people didn't make those higher-than-rrp purchases and perpetuate it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has purchased something simply because I know I can sell it for more because of the demand, rather than artificially creating that demand by buying ALL of them. I did that because the market already existed, because there are people that I knew would 1) not be able to get one normally and 2) would be willing to pay whatever the market value ended up being once it was sold out everywhere.

My "position of moral superiority" comes from my NOT complaining about the luxury of enjoying an expensive hobby. I say that without irony, because I don't have my head jammed in my feces evacuation port.

You want to be frustrated because OUR luxury hobby has a luxury within it, that you feel is too expensive? That's an entitled position. The real-world truth is that these dice are something a person wants.

I want a gakker made of gold. For real. I want that. I'd love to drop a turd on a golden throne. But I can't afford it. Instead, I line my bowl with gold foil and pretend it's made of real gold.

The point?

I can't afford it, so I can't have it. I make "doo" with what I've got, and I don't complain about it. Because I'm not an entitled whiny-pants.

"I think it's slightly different when you're buying discontinued models that have been unavailable for years. Plus the price stabilizes, you have some limited or old items that simply can't be sold at higher prices because they are not popular so people will not buy them."

I mostly agree: there is a difference, but I think it sets instant reselling in a broader context.

 greatbigtree wrote:
My "position of moral superiority" comes from my NOT complaining about the luxury of enjoying an expensive hobby. I say that without irony, because I don't have my head jammed in my feces evacuation port.

You want to be frustrated because OUR luxury hobby has a luxury within it, that you feel is too expensive? That's an entitled position. The real-world truth is that these dice are something a person wants.

I want a gakker made of gold. For real. I want that. I'd love to drop a turd on a golden throne. But I can't afford it. Instead, I line my bowl with gold foil and pretend it's made of real gold.

The point?

I can't afford it, so I can't have it. I make "doo" with what I've got, and I don't complain about it. Because I'm not an entitled whiny-pants.

You may not be an entitled whiny-pants, but you're definitely not someone I'd want in my community if you're going to insult anyone who values something you don't see as valuable.

Guys, please keep in mind that Rule Number One is Be Polite. Please state your views without flinging the personal insults. Thanks!

Scalpers are literally, by definition, parasites. They take money out of the community without adding any value whatsoever.

You can just about successfully argue that people flogging event-limited items on ebay at a ridiculous markup are adding value by allowing those unable to attend the event to get one, and in that case I'd say the problem is GW/FW not resellers, but when you're talking about an item where the only restriction on availability is the number for sale? No, there's no justification for that. GW/FW are still culpable for making a lot of their stuff artificially scarce, but that scarcity wouldn't be as bad if scalping scumbags weren't buying up often multiple of the same items for the sole purpose of relisting them on ebay at a huge markup.

The only people in this situation I have a lower opinion of than scalpers are people who defend scalpers, and I can't fully express my views on the former without riling the mods, so yeah.

I think Yodhrin has the right analysis. Scalpers in many cases are just taking advantage of GW's own crap marketing/operations. I can understand GW wanting to conservatively estimate demand. The problem is when they do that in conjunction with explicit or implicit marketing patter around terms like "limited edition" or "sold out." Just keep in mind that Spulk '09 has been reprinted at least twice since its supposedly limited original run.

There is also another side you may disagree.

My friend got two space hulks. One for fun, one for after.
Sold that few months later but that's how they also top up the hobby budget to afford nicer stuff.

When budgets tight. Sometimes you need some creatively.

Sure but the only reason people get away with fleecing others like that is because GW sets the whole thing up in the first place.

 Kriswall wrote:

You may not be an entitled whiny-pants, but you're definitely not someone I'd want in my community if you're going to insult anyone who values something you don't see as valuable.

Words you've put in my mouth.

I don't believe that there's "no value" in the dice. I wouldn't pay the base price, much less the "market" price for fancy dice, but I've never said they're without value. I appreciate nice dice. I appreciate them to the point I've taken the time to craft a set of 10 from aluminum, for a school project. I really liked them. Heavy, I had to roll them on a separate table, but I liked them. I must also admit, in my carelessness I've lost them. I quit playing for a while and I also lost a handful of models... sigh. If a person is willing to shell out for those fancy dice, all the power to them. It's their money.

Again, I'm saying that complaining about the COST of a luxury within a luxury is pointless. It displays an attitude in which, "I want it, so I deserve it, and it's not fair to me that someone else is making these more expensive, because it's harder for me to get all the pretties that I deserve." I find that attitude insufferable. Regardless of whether or not a person possesses that attitude, it appears that way to myself, as an outside observer.

I have found a more useful attitude in life is to look at a luxury as something I want, but don't need or necessarily deserve simply by wanting it. In that case, I decide how to ration my disposable income, and then decide how to make the most of it. In this case, I would determine that I would rather buy cheap dice, and have more models, than have expensive dice and fewer models. Other people are free to choose otherwise, and I'm not lying when I say I've seen some really cool dice, that I would have paid slightly more for than regular dice. But I would never pay a "premium" for dice, because I don't value them that much. If someone else chooses to pay, then that's their business. But complaining about the cost... If you feel it's worth it, pay it. If it's not worth it, don't.

I'm saying that complaining about not being able to have one's cake and eat it too is something that will diminish my opinion of a person, or anyone else that I know. If a person pays for an item, and I think it's cool, I'll compliment them and wish them well. Only if they gripe about being "ripped off" over the cost of that luxury would I be... put off. So if access to the special community in which everyone loves everything, and nobody is different, and differences in how valuable dice are isn't allowed, I guess I'm going to live with that.

And not complain about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Sure but the only reason people get away with fleecing others like that is because GW sets the whole thing up in the first place.

Would you rather that GW inflates their prices, so that scalping becomes a no-profit option? You can't scalp a $400 box set if people will only pay the up-front $400. That way GW would make more profit, and that's a good thing for the hobby, right? Scalping only works when an item can be resold at a higher price. It's the whole practice of wholesale to distributors to shops to end users.

 Manchu wrote:
I think Yodhrin has the right analysis. Scalpers in many cases are just taking advantage of GW's own crap marketing/operations. I can understand GW wanting to conservatively estimate demand. The problem is when they do that in conjunction with explicit or implicit marketing patter around terms like "limited edition" or "sold out." Just keep in mind that Spulk '09 has been reprinted at least twice since its supposedly limited original run.

A limited run doesn't necessarily mean things won't come back. It just means it's a limited run. Infinity had a "limited run" on the Cosplay Bolt model, yet the Cosplayer whose webstore is the only place to get it has gotten restocked several times.

And really, scalpers aren't just taking advantage of GW's "own crap marketing/operations". They also take advantage of the fact that gamers have little to no patience or willingness to actually look into things themselves, instead wanting to just complain.

Look at the Canoness model for an example of this. How many times did people repost the statements from the Warhammer Community team that after she sold out for preorders or in stores, she'd still be available via ordering from GW Direct?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Sure but the only reason people get away with fleecing others like that is because GW sets the whole thing up in the first place.

I mean, let's be honest. What can they realistically do to prevent this from happening?

1 per customer on their webstore, checked against billing/shipping info?

I think it is actually a lot simpler than you are making it out to be. People respond to a basic sense of fairness. Scalping violates that very reasonable sensibility. It's even worse when a company can be seen as taking no action or even implicitly endorsing the practice.

GW could help curb scalping by curbing its own marketing patter around false scarcity. It's understandable that they want to give the impression of urgency but selling through stock fast has to be balanced against creating anger and disappointment in your customers.

Forge World somewhat limits the practice in a limited capacity by limiting event only models to one per buyer until some time in the afternoon, at which point they'll assume that attendees who wanted one got one and allow people to buy as many as they want. Not perfect, but at least it prevents certain donkey-caves from buying up large swaths of stock when the event has only just begun.

 Manchu wrote:
I think it is actually a lot simpler than you are making it out to be. People respond to a basic sense of fairness. Scalping violates that very reasonable sensibility. It's even worse when a company can be seen as taking no action or even implicitly endorsing the practice.

That's not really an answer. People respond to a sense of fairness...except when it's something they want, then screw it.
Dice sets from GW have been limited to 1 per order for quite some time, at least during the initial preorders. They've taken action on that.

They even set it up so that if you tried to order an individual dice set AND a bundle containing dice, it would flag it and make you remove one or the other.

GW could help curb scalping by curbing its own marketing patter around false scarcity. It's understandable that they want to give the impression of urgency but selling through stock fast has to be balanced against creating anger and disappointment in your customers.

Customers could also help curb scalping by not buying from them at exorbitant prices.
It's easy to pin all the blame on GW, but look at the people still buying the Canoness from eBay at even $10 over the price that GW is selling her for whenever they put her back up for order.

It just requires PATIENCE.

Edit note:
Sorry if this is coming across as "Don't blame GW!". I'm just getting tired of people complaining about companies(GW and Corvus Belli most notably) claiming things as "Limited edition!" or "Limited availability!" and then buying it anyways, or complaining that they couldn't get multiples of it.

Many customers don't buy scalped products. I don't, for example. But it's a lot harder to control what an unknown number of individual customers will or won't do than it is for a single actor at the front end of the process to change its behavior. That's why what GW can do - and can easily do - about this is more important to talk about. And GW can easily be more transparent/truthful about its intentions. But this would take good faith on GW's part, because there doesn't really seem to be sufficient hard blowback on this issue, and I just doubt it will happen, even in the age of a kinder, gentler GW. They want to sell everything they publish. If that means underestimating product demand and creating false information that ratchets up secondary market prices, GW will likely be okay with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm just getting tired of people complaining about companies(GW and Corvus Belli most notably) claiming things as "Limited edition!" or "Limited availability!" and then buying it anyways, or complaining that they couldn't get multiples of it.

Sure, when it is advertised that way up front. I don't recall the Skaven BB dice being advertised as limited edition, or the 1ksons dice either. I managed to get 1ksons dice because I F5'd until I could add them to my cart and check out. I only did that because apparently, from my experience missing out on the Skaven BB dice, that is now what is required - not because GW advertsied it at all. Again, back to fairness.

One thing to take into consideration, IMO, is how much of the false information is actually coming from GW proper and not from independents with trade accounts.


Occasionally we get a few posters here on Dakka from independents who claim that things are going to be limited run, when the case is that the availability to independents is limited.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm just getting tired of people complaining about companies(GW and Corvus Belli most notably) claiming things as "Limited edition!" or "Limited availability!" and then buying it anyways, or complaining that they couldn't get multiples of it.

Sure, when it is advertised that way up front. I don't recall the Skaven BB dice being advertised as limited edition, or the 1ksons dice either. I managed to get 1ksons dice because I F5'd until I could add them to my cart and check out. I only did that because apparently, from my experience missing out on the Skaven BB dice, that is now what is required - not because GW advertsied it at all. Again, back to fairness.

How is it exactly surprising that specialty dice, a long-standing limited run item, were a limited run?

 Kanluwen wrote:
How is it exactly surprising that specialty dice, a long-standing limited run item, were a limited run?

Pretty surprising in the BB case. The excellent boxed set comes with color-coded team dice. It made sense that the third available team would have its own dice, as well. Since the Skaven team did not seem to be limited, it followed that the dice would probably not be limited. Even now, I don't believe "limited" means anything more than "we will reprint if/when it suits us." After seeing the GC Cult dice fly off the website, I had a much stronger case for constructive notice regarding the 1k Sons dice. But if you look at ebay, those prices are closer to MSRP. I wonder if it is because there is confidence in among customers that 1k Sons dice will be back or if custom dice just have a stronger value for BB than 40k/AoS.

Free market luxury items have nothing to do with fairness, though.

Quite frankly, we are all in good shape if we can afford to play this game in the first place. It's not fair that someone wants to play, but can't afford it. It's not fair that pay to win can be a thing. But it is. If someone can buy anything and resell it at a profit, that's the way of the world. I could, hypothetically, buy a car directly from the factory, but they won't do that.

Why?

Because there's a distributor network in place. Salespeople that take a cut of the final price. Support networks that provide logistics, and parts to maintain those vehicles. The costs of keeping a roof over the head of the mechanics. People make money, but have costs.

Scalping is the entrepreneur's version of distribution markup. Simple as that. It's not like they're buying all the food in a grocery store and then jacking the price. They're buying toys, and then selling them to other people that are willing to pay a higher price for the toys. Fair doesn't enter the equation. Believing this is an issue of fairness assumes that the believer already has stake in the product. That they are entitled to access to that product, at the lowest cost. This is not true, and is the basis for my points.

Cost for an item can only be unfair if it is too high AND a necessity. A luxury item is not a necessity. GW, nor any luxury company, owes it's consumer access to their product. They have to pay for it.

"Pay to play" is a legitimate criticism of any game exactly because it contradicts fairness.

I appreciate that people do not require these toys to survive. But that point is immaterial to the fact that businesses want to have a reputation for fair dealing. Scalper-friendly practices like creating an false sense of scarcity/urgency undermine the relationship between GW and its customers.

It contradicts fairness of the game, but not fairness to access to the product, which is what GW should be concerned about. If they cared about access to fairness in the game, all product would need to be free, and they wouldn't be able to stay in business. Because that's the only "Fair" access to product.

I'm not sure if you're aware that this continues to be a sense of "deserving" access to product that is a luxury item. No matter what financial cost, you have to pay "something" to play the game. Whether or not you can afford to play "high end" is a case of determining if you value that or not. It is not something that GW owes anyone.

In other words, access to the product is only "unfair" if you don't want to pay what people are selling for.

EDIT: Scratch that. That's still fair. It's just not what someone would want. It can NOT be unfair, as it is not a necessity.

Whoa no one is even close to arguing GW should give away its products for free. I get that you want to build a false dilemma but come back down to earth. There is room for improvement between the current practice and the Soviet Utopia. It's really simple: Sold Out, especially in contrast to Temporarily Out of Stock, implies the product may never be available again, which drives scalping. It would be better for customers for GW to mark every out of stock product that they can reprint as "Inform Me When Back In Stock" and thereby avoid helping the scalpers.

There is no false dilemma here, and none is being created. You've said there is "unfairness" in people scalping. That is false, regarding business practices. GW can not, and is no way responsible for, the financial repercussions of selling their product.

You're putting a moral burden upon GW that does not belong. There is no "morality" in selling a luxury item. [With an argument for addictive substances not withstanding.] The only way they would have a moral obligation would be if this was a necessity. Which it clearly is not.

You're attempting to put a moral burden on a company, for the "immoral" behavior of their customers. Even then, it truly is just a downside of the free market. No morality, just desire and availability. GW could put, "Gone unless we ever feel like making it again" and that would be the most accurate statement. So does an end user believe that they will eventually make more? Maybe. If they do, are they patient enough to wait for that, or will they pay the premium on-top-of-premium for immediate access to the product?

Not a moral issue. Purely a financial transaction. Unless the purchaser believes they are owed something. That they deserve access, and that is being withheld. Only then can a sense of "unfairness" be applied. Only then can it become a moral issue of denial of something that is fairly and justly due. Again, that's not a real-world thing, when it comes to a luxury item.

And I'm sure GW love the scalping practice.

GW make X amount of product to make a profit on.
They make the same amount of money whoever buys it.
Secondly, it means the real GW customers desperately buy everything the second it's released to avoid being scalped.

It's all a win-win situation for GW.

Well, as above, but less cynical. Quite frankly, if I was a GW employee, and knew that the market value was higher than list price, I'd take advantage of my employee discount and then enjoy a double-whammy of profit.

Seriously, if they get a 40% discount, and then sell at a 50% markup, they'd be making a killing.

The kick of it is that GW could just as easily sell the dice at that higher / scalper price, and people would still pay it. Quite frankly, people should be kissing GW's fat wallet that they have an opportunity to buy the dice at less than market value at all. Winners rejoice, and the slow / unlucky still have to pay full pop / market value.

Of course, that would indicate that a person had a sense of gratitude for their luxury item, instead of a feeling of getting what they already deserved.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Well, as above, but less cynical. Quite frankly, if I was a GW employee, and knew that the market value was higher than list price, I'd take advantage of my employee discount and then enjoy a double-whammy of profit.

Seriously, if they get a 40% discount, and then sell at a 50% markup, they'd be making a killing.

The kick of it is that GW could just as easily sell the dice at that higher / scalper price, and people would still pay it. Quite frankly, people should be kissing GW's fat wallet that they have an opportunity to buy the dice at less than market value at all. Winners rejoice, and the slow / unlucky still have to pay full pop / market value.

Of course, that would indicate that a person had a sense of gratitude for their luxury item, instead of a feeling of getting what they already deserved.

They'd be fired if they did that.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
How is it exactly surprising that specialty dice, a long-standing limited run item, were a limited run?

Pretty surprising in the BB case. The excellent boxed set comes with color-coded team dice. It made sense that the third available team would have its own dice, as well. Since the Skaven team did not seem to be limited, it followed that the dice would probably not be limited. Even now, I don't believe "limited" means anything more than "we will reprint if/when it suits us." After seeing the GC Cult dice fly off the website, I had a much stronger case for constructive notice regarding the 1k Sons dice. But if you look at ebay, those prices are closer to MSRP. I wonder if it is because there is confidence in among customers that 1k Sons dice will be back or if custom dice just have a stronger value for BB than 40k/AoS.

With all the dice they rarely if ever seem to be marked as limited edition. Hell for the GSC dice when they sold out initially they were marked as temporarily out of stock.

LOL no I haven't burdened GW with any frivolous moral responsibility. Rather, I have simply explained that it's in the best interests of a business to have a reputation for fair dealing among its customers. Practices that foster/encourage scalping, or strongly appear to do so, undermine that reputation and the business's relationship with its customers - and, ultimately, the very brand of the product. GW's current practices result in a problem. Maybe it's not your problem personally but who cares? it's a problem nonetheless. During the worst years of GW's anti-customer era, there was always someone on the internet willing to defend whatever GW was doing because "blah blah blah luxury item" and it was never convincing. It still isn't. The reason is, the issue is brand experience rather than some Ayn Rand nonsense about the amorality of capitalism.

Um, you've exactly done that. You've expressed that they've acted unfairly. I'm left of centre, please don't associate me with right-wing politics.

The best interests of a business have nothing to do with fairness. Walmart treats their employees and suppliers poorly. Some might even say unfairly. They succeed in business.

This is not a case of whether or not it's a problem for me. I'd like to have fancy dice. I don't defend GW. I deny the validity of an argument saying that a luxury item CAN be unfairly priced, because it can't be. I have not seen one defense of that notion supplied. GW CAN'T unfairly price a package of "special dice", nor can anyone. Unfair can only be applied to a necessity. A scalper can't UNFAIRLY price their resold dice, because they're not a necessity. It's not a "problem" for anyone. They choose how to spend their money and live with the consequences.

Sure it's not nice, but business in any form isn't "nice". Why should scalping be any different? They buy a product, and resell it at a higher value. Same as every other successful store / business in the history of human kind.

It's only dice.

Of course "fairness" can be applied to the cost of items that are not strictly necessary for survival. Fairness is a subjective experience but that doesn't make it any less real. A customer may not care if Wal Mart fleeces its employees but he does care if Wal Mart is fleecing him.

Are scalpers just distributors by another name? No. As Yodhrin alluded, distributors create value to the customer by making product available to them (which can involve taking advantage of pricing difference across markets). Scalpers charge mark ups without creating value. Scalpers actually rely on sabotaging market efficiency in order to drive price.

Yeah, having been through something similar with shortages jumping prices absurdly, scalpels get no love from me.

I've got no problem with someone buying two copies, one to use and another to sell at a later date when its no longer available. It's when they make it impossible to buy the item at its normal cost or jump the price 50%, 100%, or 200%+ that they need to be drowned in the gene pool.

The "buy two copies" trick can certainly be part of the problem, especially when, for whatever reason, demand far exceeds supply and the sole supplier is fickle about communicating its intentions on restocking.

 Dropbear Victim wrote:
By scalping theyre taking away hobby budget that could have been spent on other things. They indirectly rob the producers and stockists via less sales of other stuff, and outright rob end consumers.

By that logic, Doc Marten are indirectly robbing miniature producers if I chose to buy a new pair of boots instead of a Storm Raven...


Scalpers aren't 'robbing' anyone. If the price is clearly displayed, and you choose to pay that price, that's entirely on you. Scalping wouldn't happen if people refused to pay inflated prices.

For what it's worth, those inflated prices quite often aren't even set by the scalpers. Sellers will set their prices based on what they see the product selling for elsewhere.


Hell, back when I was doing Bitz selling, and GW were producing army boxes with limited ed minis in them, I used to buy the army boxes and split them up for eBay. Many of the limited edition minis sold for ridiculous amounts of money... but every single one of them was listed on eBay for a starting price of 99c.

People will pay what they are willing to pay.

 insaniak wrote:
Scalpers aren't 'robbing' anyone. If the price is clearly displayed, and you choose to pay that price, that's entirely on you. Scalping wouldn't happen if people refused to pay inflated prices.

The whole reason I dislike scalpers is because I don't pay the inflated prices. Instead I just miss out on stuff.

I also dislike scalping because it creates an artificial market that leeches off the rest of the community. The same way buying stuff off recasters competes for hobby dollars but those recasters aren't adding anything to the community, scalping competes for money that could go to people who actually contribute.

At the end of the day I just see it as leeching. We can argue about how bad it is or who is to blame for it (and I certainly place a large amount of the blame at GW's feet), but either way it's still just parasitic in my eyes.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The whole reason I dislike scalpers is because I don't pay the inflated prices. Instead I just miss out on stuff.

Yes, exactly. The people who pay the scalpers' prices aren't generally the ones complaining because, after all, they still accepted the bargain. The people who complain are those who get shut out because a market has been undermined by scalping.

I feel Scalping is wrong in community forums like the one in question and feel they can do their scalping on eBay (where the same dice could be found for half the price), but its the site owners decision on what they allow or not.

It's a compelling reason not to buy LE products at resale.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The whole reason I dislike scalpers is because I don't pay the inflated prices. Instead I just miss out on stuff.

That's a reason to dislike the practice of releasing stuff in limited quantities, rather than a reason to dislike scalpers.

I also dislike scalping because it creates an artificial market that leeches off the rest of the community. The same way buying stuff off recasters competes for hobby dollars but those recasters aren't adding anything to the community, scalping competes for money that could go to people who actually contribute.

Assuming that the extra money spent on the scalped stuff would have gone to other hobby-related purchases instead if the purchaser had payed normal retail for that product...


It's hard to say with any sort of certainty that this would actually happen.

 insaniak wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The whole reason I dislike scalpers is because I don't pay the inflated prices. Instead I just miss out on stuff.

That's a reason to dislike the practice of releasing stuff in limited quantities, rather than a reason to dislike scalpers.

It can be both. It is for me.


Also, great post back there, Yodhrin. Despite our often disagreeing on things, posts like that are why you're not on ignore.

 Manchu wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The whole reason I dislike scalpers is because I don't pay the inflated prices. Instead I just miss out on stuff.

Yes, exactly. The people who pay the scalpers' prices aren't generally the ones complaining because, after all, they still accepted the bargain. The people who complain are those who get shut out because a market has been undermined by scalping.

NO. Dead wrong. You don't miss out on a single thing. You weren't owed anything. You lost nothing. You didn't get what you wanted, but you didn't lose anything. Because you didn't spend your money on an optional item.

If it was food, that would be different. You'd lose out on nutrition, something you NEED. Instead, you didn't get what you WANTED. But you didn't lose. Unless you felt you were entitled to that item in the first place. Which you aren't. Misunderstanding not getting what you wanted with not getting something you deserved or needed, is the root of the irritation. The problem is not with scalping. The problem is with people thinking they deserve something because they want it.

The market has not been undermined. The market's integrity is valid. The market value for an item has been paid. Basic economics. Scalping can not exist in situations where the "original" seller has correctly priced the value of an item. Where this item is undervalued by the original seller, then room is left for people willing to take a risk by purchasing excess quantities to make a profit by reselling.

If I buy wheat from a farmer, and resell it at a profit, then that's legitimate. If I buy every single grain of wheat, and then sell it for more than it would be worth in an open market [monopoly] then that would be morally wrong. But that's a foodstuff. That's a necessity. If I buy every single model GW ever makes, and then resell them at a profit, that's me taking a risk. It's what makes scalping work. If the dice were sold for double their list price, you wouldn't have scalpers, because the risk vs reward system would not exist.

This complaint is exactly equal to saying that GW should increase their pricing on dice, so that scalpers can't mark them up. Instead of taking advantage of the opportunities to buy product at a lower than market value and being grateful, complaining that they have to pay the proper, market value for something. Such a perspective.

The analysis absolutely does not hinge on the good in question being required for survival or the consumer being somehow "deserving" or otherwise entitled. You can keep beating that horse but it was never even alive, my friend.

The retail market is about bringing goods and customers together. What scalpers do is step in between goods and customers in order to charge the customers for that very interference.

 Manchu wrote:
. What scalpers do is step in between goods and customers in order to charge the customers for that very interference.

Which can only happen if the goods are being presented in a limited quantity at a price that is lower than the market will bear.

If the original seller produces enough quantity to satisfy demand and/or raises his price (in order to limit demand to a specific level) then the scalper has no platform.

You are preaching to the choir:

 Manchu wrote:
Sure but the only reason people get away with fleecing others like that is because GW sets the whole thing up in the first place.

However the claim that scalper-inflated prices indicate MSRP is "below market" is nonsense.

In other news, I think I just seriously suggested that GW should raise their prices.

Oy...

Yeah, that is more than a bit silly.

GW doesn't need to end scalping (as if it could!) it just needs to change practices that help or appear to help scalpers, like being so opaque about print runs and reprints.

As Kanluwen mentioned, clarifications (or perhaps the change of heart?) regarding the Blanche-inspired Adepta Sororitas sculpt is a step in the right direction.

 insaniak wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The whole reason I dislike scalpers is because I don't pay the inflated prices. Instead I just miss out on stuff.

That's a reason to dislike the practice of releasing stuff in limited quantities, rather than a reason to dislike scalpers.

Well in the part of my post you didn't quote I said I also place plenty of the blame at the feet of GW.

It doesn't stop me disliking scalpers. There are respectable ways to make money, scalping is not one of them. At least used car salesmen provide a service, scalpers are simply parasites.

I also dislike scalping because it creates an artificial market that leeches off the rest of the community. The same way buying stuff off recasters competes for hobby dollars but those recasters aren't adding anything to the community, scalping competes for money that could go to people who actually contribute.

Assuming that the extra money spent on the scalped stuff would have gone to other hobby-related purchases instead if the purchaser had payed normal retail for that product...


It's hard to say with any sort of certainty that this would actually happen.

Of course nothing can be said with certainty, but given the finite nature of a person's finance I don't think it's a terribly large stretch of the imagination.

If things are kept in stock there would be no need for scalping and it helps to create another thing GW does not want the re-casting market (maybe not for dice though )

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
At least used car salesmen provide a service, scalpers are simply parasites.

Given how many of GWs limited releases have sold out within minutes of going on sale over the last few years, it could be argued that scalpers make those releases available to potential buyers who missed the initial feeding frenzy...

Of course nothing can be said with certainty, but given the finite nature of a person's finance I don't think it's a terribly large stretch of the imagination.

The point is that someone having a finite hobby budget doesn't mean that they'll spend that entire budget on other things if they don't buy this one thing here.

While I acknowledge that I'm probably not typical, I went for a fairly long stretch where Limited Ed models (either direct from GW or tracked down on eBay) were all that I was buying for myself, as I just didn't need anything else. If there was nothing available on a given week/month/whatever, then I just didn't buy anything.

So a given limited release being available for less wouldn't have made me throw money at GW for other stuff. It just would have resulted in me spending less.

 insaniak wrote:
it could be argued

But do you really want to make and defend that argument?

 Manchu wrote:
The analysis absolutely does not hinge on the good in question being required for survival or the consumer being somehow "deserving" or otherwise entitled. You can keep beating that horse but it was never even alive, my friend.

The retail market is about bringing goods and customers together. What scalpers do is step in between goods and customers in order to charge the customers for that very interference.

My analysis about want vs need is entirely accurate. Your own observations are absolutely incorrect. Ford Motor Company does not make cars. They make money. They do that, by making cars and selling them. They sell them to people, who sell them to other people, who sell them to someone else. But there are only so many links in the chain. You can't keep upticking forever. You can't scalp a scalped ticket for a reasonable risk vs reward.

You can scalp an original price ticket for a greater value... sometimes. If the value of the ticket is less than the market will bear. Scalper inflated prices EXACTLY indicate that the MSRP is below market value. If it wasn't, the scalper couldn't inflate the price! People wouldn't pay it! You're making my argument by baselessly claiming the opposite. I can prove to you what the value is of a given commodity by determining what it will be purchased for. Limited release prices are lower than people are willing to pay, so scalpers can raise it and make money. The proof is right there. Claims to the contrary can be proven false by direct observation of reality.

Scientifically? The process of observing repeatable phenomenon, and drawing conclusions based on reason? Not making baseless claims without backup? Wherein a person can not declare their opinion without basis, and must then prove their point?

My argument can be proven, that the market will bear an intermediary [scalper] that inflates the cost of a specific commodity, therefore that commodity's value on the open market was less than it could be. Observable. Provable. Fairness is irrelevant. Entitlement is the only cause of a sense of unfairness in this situation. The fact that 99% of a given population wouldn't even be aware of this event is further proof that it is not a wide-spread issue, but one held exclusively by a small margin of people that want some item that they don't need.

Please step up with an actual argument to prove your position, or kindly acknowledge there isn't one.

 greatbigtree wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The analysis absolutely does not hinge on the good in question being required for survival or the consumer being somehow "deserving" or otherwise entitled. You can keep beating that horse but it was never even alive, my friend.

The retail market is about bringing goods and customers together. What scalpers do is step in between goods and customers in order to charge the customers for that very interference.

My analysis about want vs need is entirely accurate. Your own observations are absolutely incorrect. Ford Motor Company does not make cars. They make money. They do that, by making cars and selling them. They sell them to people, who sell them to other people, who sell them to someone else. But there are only so many links in the chain. You can't keep upticking forever. You can't scalp a scalped ticket for a reasonable risk vs reward.

You can scalp an original price ticket for a greater value... sometimes. If the value of the ticket is less than the market will bear. Scalper inflated prices EXACTLY indicate that the MSRP is below market value. If it wasn't, the scalper couldn't inflate the price! People wouldn't pay it! You're making my argument by baselessly claiming the opposite. I can prove to you what the value is of a given commodity by determining what it will be purchased for. Limited release prices are lower than people are willing to pay, so scalpers can raise it and make money. The proof is right there. Claims to the contrary can be proven false by direct observation of reality.

Scientifically? The process of observing repeatable phenomenon, and drawing conclusions based on reason? Not making baseless claims without backup? Wherein a person can not declare their opinion without basis, and must then prove their point?

My argument can be proven, that the market will bear an intermediary [scalper] that inflates the cost of a specific commodity, therefore that commodity's value on the open market was less than it could be. Observable. Provable. Fairness is irrelevant. Entitlement is the only cause of a sense of unfairness in this situation. The fact that 99% of a given population wouldn't even be aware of this event is further proof that it is not a wide-spread issue, but one held exclusively by a small margin of people that want some item that they don't need.

Please step up with an actual argument to prove your position, or kindly acknowledge there isn't one.

then answer this if the item in question is available still for $20 can the Scalper still get $40 for it? the thing that helps many scalpers out is ignorance of the buyer, if the buyer is not aware of what is available they will jump on anything, like with the dice set, originally sold for $20 the scalper had them at $40 and yet the same set could be found for $25 shipped on eBay, and because of the sites rules potential buyers from the scalper could not have been informed of that or where.

In the "biz", that's called information advantage, and all resellers possess it. Anywhere you buy something, that company knows where to buy it cheaper, and then they resell it to you. Scalping is just bald-faced reselling.

If I know where to buy an item, and I purchase that item, and then go somewhere else and sell it... that's what they call a grocery store. Everyone knows they could go to a farm and buy a cob of corn. But they don't. They go to a grocery store. I'm exaggerating to make a point, but that's what reselling is. Know where to buy an item cheaper than the open market, purchase it, and then resell it for more.

Good night folks, I've had my say. Wish you well. Be aware that no matter what you purchase, someone else has made money off of it for doing basically nothing.

 greatbigtree wrote:
In the "biz", that's called information advantage, and all resellers possess it. Anywhere you buy something, that company knows where to buy it cheaper, and then they resell it to you. Scalping is just bald-faced reselling.

If I know where to buy an item, and I purchase that item, and then go somewhere else and sell it... that's what they call a grocery store. Everyone knows they could go to a farm and buy a cob of corn. But they don't. They go to a grocery store. I'm exaggerating to make a point, but that's what reselling is. Know where to buy an item cheaper than the open market, purchase it, and then resell it for more.

and yet I'm still confused why anyone would pay $20 for a set of dice let alone $40.

At my shop(which also sells comics, which this is more common with) we call them prospectors. Generally we refuse sales beyond a certain volume, even more so on variant or limited edition items.

A current item is the Star Wars Destiny card/dice game. Because the available stock is so low right now, we limit the packs to 6 per customer, and we always tell people calling that we don't have them(because our local loyal customers just come in to see if we do).

We do not tolerate prospecting, and we actively try to make sure that our products are available for our local customers first and foremost, as their repeat business is what keeps us going.

Lately, I've been getting at least 10 calls a day asking about these packs, none of them from people we know to be regulars, and most from area codes an hour or more away.

If all we cared about was the short term sale, we wouldn't have even sold them in store, and just ebay'd them ourselves.

There are always going to be some consumers able to pay more than MSRP. The question is, how do you make them willing to do it? The answer is not just taking advantage of scarcity but also amplifying it.

Once again: The market is the meeting of consumers and goods. Scalpers step between consumers and goods. The whole point of interfering with the market in this way is to distort pricing, which amounts to creating a dependent submarket.

GW is not charging below market value; their market is just substantially larger and more diverse than the scalper's submarket. The scalper depends on GW not overcharging, otherwise there will be insufficient scarcity to entice those able to overpay. And scarcity per se is not enough; there must also be demand, which is created on the market and not the submarket.

Some alleged entitlement to non-essential products is not why people don't like scalping. Keep in mind there is a difference bewteen paying a scalper's price and liking it. Scalpers actively shut out some consumers not for the sake of making goods available to others but rather for the sake of charging more to consumers who also already have access otherwise but could and would pay more.

BTW this is the difference between scalping and distribution or even reselling.

 Manchu wrote:
GW is not charging below market value; their market is just substantially larger and more diverse than the scalper's submarket.

That doesn't make any sense. GW could set their prices at the exact same point as the scalper and sell to the exact same customers. If someone can buy up all copies of a GW product and immediately sell them at an inflated price then GW must be charging below market value. If GW sold the entire production run on ebay, starting at $0.01 per copy, allowing the market to set the price for each sale, the final result would be above current MSRP. Therefore GW is charging below market value.

Anyway, the real issue here is GW creating artificial scarcity with small production runs that are inadequate to meet demand at MSRP. If GW significantly increased the size of their production runs they'd earn more sales at the same price, giving them more revenue and more profit. GW's failure to do this is inexcusable stupidity.

 Peregrine wrote:
If someone can buy up all copies of a GW product and immediately sell them at an inflated price then GW must be charging below market value.

If someone could sell all or substantially all of a GW dice sets at 200% over MSRP then GW would have just charged that much to begin with. As I explained, scalping generates and exploits a submarket dependent on the existing market. Scalping does not create scarcity or demand; it just amplifies scarcity to exploit the demand of the subset of consumers willing to pay more. Scalping really is just shutting out some customers in order to gouge others.

Peregrine wrote:Anyway, the real issue here is GW creating artificial scarcity with small production runs that are inadequate to meet demand at MSRP. If GW significantly increased the size of their production runs they'd earn more sales at the same price, giving them more revenue and more profit.

Maybe so. It stands to reason that GW does things this way to ensure they sell everything they produce, even if it means missing out on some sales. Ork, Ultramarine, and Sylvaneth dice are all still in stock, after all. The thing that bugs me is GW creating conditions that encourage scalping, like the mixed signals about whether something is really gone for good. Although take a look at the 1k Sons dice prices on ebay compared to the Skavenblight dice. I seriously wonder if speculation rather than real demand ate through that stock.

 Manchu wrote:
If someone could sell all or substantially all of a GW dice sets at 200% over MSRP then GW would have just charged that much to begin with.

This is an interesting assumption here, that the company which proudly declares that it does not do market research will always have the optimal prices for its products.

It stands to reason that GW does things this way to ensure they sell everything they produce, even if it means missing out on some sales.

If only there was a way to judge the likely sales volume for a new product. Perhaps we could call it "customer studying" or something...

Stepping back one.

I liked the Gork and Mork dice idea. For £5 - maybe £6, I'd have bought them as a bit of fun. At £12.50, forget it.

They sold out, so patently others were prepared to spend £12.50.

Today, on ebay, there are 4 UK sets available - prices from £18.50 to £34.56. Presumably the sellers think people will pay that price.

Genestealer dice are £35 - £45. If they sell - the demand was there.

That's market economy, and as others said - if price was the only factor, we'd buy elsewhere....

 Manchu wrote:
Scalping does not create scarcity or demand; it just amplifies scarcity to exploit the demand of the subset of consumers willing to pay more. Scalping really is just shutting out some customers in order to gouge others.

Exactly. It's not natural market forces that allow scalpers to charge more, it's PARTLY natural market forces and partly the fact scalpers are making scarcity worse.

If the scalpers didn't exist, the stuff wouldn't sell out from the primary channel as quickly and regular customers would have more chance to get it.

GW obviously make matter worse by not adequately communicating things like how they're going to handle production runs. For genuine limited items I'd be more than happy if GW just capped it at 1 per customer (or maybe 2 or 3 in the case of dice).

But in the end, I still see scalpers as leeches and dislike them. In a hypothetical world where burglary wasn't illegal and lock makers constructed poor locks, I might lay some blame at lawmakers and lockmakers, but I'd still hate the bloody burglars. Just because someone might be able to scalp and GW don't help things isn't going to stop me disliking the leeches who take advantage of it.

Scalping isn't natural market forces, it's a parasite who doesn't offer a service injecting themselves as a middle man. Even if model makers matched the price of scalpers I'd be happier to pay it because at least they're contributing (certainly not saying GW should inflate their prices any more).

 Manchu wrote:
I think it is actually a lot simpler than you are making it out to be. People respond to a basic sense of fairness. Scalping violates that very reasonable sensibility. It's even worse when a company can be seen as taking no action or even implicitly endorsing the practice.

GW could help curb scalping by curbing its own marketing patter around false scarcity. It's understandable that they want to give the impression of urgency but selling through stock fast has to be balanced against creating anger and disappointment in your customers.

Unfairness is a judgment a human poses on a situation he generally dislikes.
Because for some reason, he needs a justification for that profound dislike.

Meanwhile, in the real world, there are problems you face, solutions you come up with, and whether it's fair or not makes no difference, so why slow yourself with these considerations ?

Dice scalping sounds dumb, I personally dislike Eldar Bone Singer scalping (50 bucks for a miniature you don't even want ... sure) and most of all buildable land scalping which is a reality here and will cost me more than any crazy amount of miniatures, painted, based and diorama-ted.


But in the end, I'm left with two options: pay the price, don't pay the price.


So why even wallow in this fethed up echo chamber with the other guys who aren't that happy that the price is so high ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aerethan wrote:
At my shop(which also sells comics, which this is more common with) we call them prospectors. Generally we refuse sales beyond a certain volume, even more so on variant or limited edition items.

A current item is the Star Wars Destiny card/dice game. Because the available stock is so low right now, we limit the packs to 6 per customer, and we always tell people calling that we don't have them(because our local loyal customers just come in to see if we do).

We do not tolerate prospecting, and we actively try to make sure that our products are available for our local customers first and foremost, as their repeat business is what keeps us going.

Lately, I've been getting at least 10 calls a day asking about these packs, none of them from people we know to be regulars, and most from area codes an hour or more away.

If all we cared about was the short term sale, we wouldn't have even sold them in store, and just ebay'd them ourselves.

So you're losing money and you're loving it ?
Awesome !

(I know it's more like donating money to a cause, but still, ... you have to admit that's quite generous of you).

morgoth wrote:
So why even wallow in this fethed up echo chamber with the other guys who aren't that happy that the price is so high ?

Because if I can make leeches feel bad about leeching then I'm all for it, maybe they'll get themselves a proper respectable job if they think enough of the world dislikes them

 Manchu wrote:
The thing that bugs me is GW creating conditions that encourage scalping, like the mixed signals about whether something is really gone for good. Although take a look at the 1k Sons dice prices on ebay compared to the Skavenblight dice. I seriously wonder if speculation rather than real demand ate through that stock.

That's how they get their product out the door: 1) regular people jump on it, 2) scalpers jump on it, 3) stock empty, success.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

morgoth wrote:
So why even wallow in this fethed up echo chamber with the other guys who aren't that happy that the price is so high ?

Because if I can make leeches feel bad about leeching then I'm all for it, maybe they'll get themselves a proper respectable job if they think enough of the world dislikes them

They are most likely, at present time, laughing all the way to the bank.

morgoth wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

morgoth wrote:
So why even wallow in this fethed up echo chamber with the other guys who aren't that happy that the price is so high ?

Because if I can make leeches feel bad about leeching then I'm all for it, maybe they'll get themselves a proper respectable job if they think enough of the world dislikes them

They are most likely, at present time, laughing all the way to the bank.

Perhaps if they're psychopaths, even most sociopaths have a germ of feeling related to whether other people find them reprehensible.

 Manchu wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
it could be argued

But do you really want to make and defend that argument?

Actually, there was someone on the receiving end in a Facebook group a few months back making that argument. He is not able to get GW where he lives, and so relies on the secondary market making it available for him. So while rare, it's more legitimate than you think.

I think its annoying but at the same time, the item being sold for a higher price increases its value and rarity making it more "Limitied." Who cares about having a limited dice set thats only worth $10?

Stores that sell these limited products also needs to control the sales... as in.. not selling their whole stock to one person. Who can then drive the price up on ebay or w/e.

Companies selling Limited Editions actively encourage scalping. It's their fault.

I get it, it's a trick to get people to impulse buy, but it's making you the one responsible for it unless you actively discourage that by e.g. limiting sales to one item per shipping adress or similar countermeasures.

Just make it a Premium Edition that you restock once your stock goes low. If you managed to print 250 LE German books and they're sold within an hour or so, you should be able to order/make another 250 of them at the same pricepoint (saving money since you don't have to layout/write it again!) and put them up for sale again.

Jacksmiles wrote:
He is not able to get GW where he lives, and so relies on the secondary market making it available for him.

Scalping is not synonymous with the secondary market. In the situation you describe, someone is making goods available where they otherwise would not be. By contrast, the scalper's customers already had access to the same supplier as the scalper.

morgoth wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The thing that bugs me is GW creating conditions that encourage scalping, like the mixed signals about whether something is really gone for good.

That's how they get their product out the door:

Sure, I have explained ITT that I understand the tactic of creating urgency around a small stock to sell out.

But that is not the only way to move stock. You could also make better things. So we can compare the Skavenblight dice with the Lake-Town terrain kits. The former are marked Sold Out while the latter are marked Temporarily Out of Stock. When I purchased the latter, it was not because I mistakenly believed it was a limited product - it was because it was obviously a great product. When it comes back in stock, it will continue to sell very well.

The other issue is, GW did not actually rely on "limited edition" market patter to sell through their dice. GW did not say (and have not said) they won't reprint the dice. So, in other words, by listing some items as Sold Out versus Temporarily Out of Stock, without announcing which is which before the fact, GW is not really helping itself but it is most definitely helping the scalpers.

 Manchu wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
He is not able to get GW where he lives, and so relies on the secondary market making it available for him.

Scalping is not synonymous with the secondary market. In the situation you describe, someone is making goods available where they otherwise would not be. By contrast, the scalper's customers already had access to the same supplier as the scalper.

Yet for limited edition items, the secondary market will adjust for market value regardless of scalping, and he recognized that this will cause him to pay more to get these items on the secondary market. The conversation is in regards to limited-run items, and that's what this gentleman was talking about as well. He doesn't have access to the same supplier as the scalper.

Yes, I understand that he doesn't have access to the same supplier as the scalper - that's why it's not really an example of scalping. Bringing a good to otherwise inaccessible customers adds value. Of course, when you factor in ebay, scalpers could incidentally be doing that. But its not actually their strategy, just an incidental benefit of infrastructure.

 Manchu wrote:
Yes, I understand that he doesn't have access to the same supplier as the scalper - that's why it's not really an example of scalping. Bringing a good to otherwise inaccessible customers adds value. Of course, when you factor in ebay, scalpers could incidentally be doing that. But its not actually their strategy, just an incidental benefit of infrastructure.

But "scalping" is what made it possible for him to get it at all. Incidental benefit is still a benefit.

Don't shoot the messenger here, I was just responding to your assertion of "but do you really want to argue that" by showing you that it's an actual thing that at least one person appreciates because even if he pays more for a limited item, he otherwise would not be able to get that item. Your post had the tone of "it's nonsense that anyone would see it as a benefit" and I was just pointing out "hey, this guy does." Then you say it's not an example of scalping, except it only comes about due to scalping, so the incidental benefit still benefits the guy.

The item not being available to him otherwise only became "not an example of scalping" after I told you he can't get it otherwise, why did you not bring that up as soon as the notion of "people might not be able to get these items otherwise" was mentioned? If I don't know how you define the terms of the argument, I can't argue :/

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
He is not able to get GW where he lives, and so relies on the secondary market making it available for him.

Scalping is not synonymous with the secondary market. In the situation you describe, someone is making goods available where they otherwise would not be. By contrast, the scalper's customers already had access to the same supplier as the scalper.

Yet for limited edition items, the secondary market will adjust for market value regardless of scalping, and he recognized that this will cause him to pay more to get these items on the secondary market. The conversation is in regards to limited-run items, and that's what this gentleman was talking about as well. He doesn't have access to the same supplier as the scalper.

actually he does have access to the same supplier as the scalper, scalpers do not have some mystical place where they can buy their items, they buy them from the same place we do, ticket booths, stores what have you, they just buy a lot of them in hopes of reselling, now some places are putting limits on amounts that can be bought to slow down scalpers, but not all places, like GW, you want to see how ugly scalping is, go to a Target on stocking day when they open their doors, that is just straight up ugly when it comes to HotWheel Scalpers and collectors and such. same thing with that new hatchimals toy or whatever it is called.

Problem is the US is made of consumerists, its why our inflation has gotten away from us to the point no matter what the minimum wage is it will never be enough, we have to have that brand new shiny gadget (not me ) and companies know that. and more importantly Scalpers know that.

Asterios wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
He is not able to get GW where he lives, and so relies on the secondary market making it available for him.

Scalping is not synonymous with the secondary market. In the situation you describe, someone is making goods available where they otherwise would not be. By contrast, the scalper's customers already had access to the same supplier as the scalper.

Yet for limited edition items, the secondary market will adjust for market value regardless of scalping, and he recognized that this will cause him to pay more to get these items on the secondary market. The conversation is in regards to limited-run items, and that's what this gentleman was talking about as well. He doesn't have access to the same supplier as the scalper.

actually he does have access to the same supplier as the scalper, scalpers do not have some mystical place where they can buy their items, they buy them from the same place we do, ticket booths, stores what have you, they just buy a lot of them in hopes of reselling, now some places are putting limits on amounts that can be bought to slow down scalpers, but not all places, like GW, you want to see how ugly scalping is, go to a Target on stocking day when they open their doors, that is just straight up ugly when it comes to HotWheel Scalpers and collectors and such. same thing with that new hatchimals toy or whatever it is called.

Problem is the US is made of consumerists, its why our inflation has gotten away from us to the point no matter what the minimum wage is it will never be enough, we have to have that brand new shiny gadget (not me ) and companies know that. and more importantly Scalpers know that.

I feel like you didn't even read the original portion of this. He does not have access to the same supplier due to not being able to get anything GW except on the secondary market.

Jacksmiles wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
He is not able to get GW where he lives, and so relies on the secondary market making it available for him.

Scalping is not synonymous with the secondary market. In the situation you describe, someone is making goods available where they otherwise would not be. By contrast, the scalper's customers already had access to the same supplier as the scalper.

Yet for limited edition items, the secondary market will adjust for market value regardless of scalping, and he recognized that this will cause him to pay more to get these items on the secondary market. The conversation is in regards to limited-run items, and that's what this gentleman was talking about as well. He doesn't have access to the same supplier as the scalper.

actually he does have access to the same supplier as the scalper, scalpers do not have some mystical place where they can buy their items, they buy them from the same place we do, ticket booths, stores what have you, they just buy a lot of them in hopes of reselling, now some places are putting limits on amounts that can be bought to slow down scalpers, but not all places, like GW, you want to see how ugly scalping is, go to a Target on stocking day when they open their doors, that is just straight up ugly when it comes to HotWheel Scalpers and collectors and such. same thing with that new hatchimals toy or whatever it is called.

Problem is the US is made of consumerists, its why our inflation has gotten away from us to the point no matter what the minimum wage is it will never be enough, we have to have that brand new shiny gadget (not me ) and companies know that. and more importantly Scalpers know that.

I feel like you didn't even read the original portion of this. He does not have access to the same supplier due to not being able to get anything GW except on the secondary market.

this is not about secondary market this is about something that is still visible on the GW website, so a consumer never had a chance to get an item from the GW website? where is a buyer not able to purchase from GW? considering the scalper was selling the items on a North American BST facebook page? where in North America is someone not able to order from GW ?, which is the same place the scalper got his items from? problem is the scalper ordered like 5-6 of an item thereby depriving 4-5 other people of getting that item at SRP, just so the scalper can turn around and sell the items for twice the price.

maybe you should know the facts before spouting off incorrectly.

by the way said scalper of said dice would not sell on eBay since at his prices they would not sell, so instead he would rather give the shaft to a community group instead.

also in your referance, where is this person who cannot buy from GW? tell me where is this mystical place at ?

Asterios - We just have to accept the premise of the hypothetical: the guy apparently cannot buy from GW or any retailers but he can get the items through resellers and/or scalpers. It doesn't matter if it's believable; it's just for the sake of argument.

Jacksmiles - You are still conflating scalping with reselling. As explained in considerable detail, scalping is when someone shuts out some consumers in order to gouge others. The scalper's strategy is not to take advantage of price difference across markets but rather to distort the market he is already in to inflate prices.

Whether this is still a benefit to the guy in the example - sure, I guess, same as how anyone willing to pay a scalper's price "benefits" by receiving what they wanted when they could not get it otherwise. But again, keep in mind that the scalper's own actions are contributing to the "otherwise could not get it" part. This is why I noted, paying a scalper is not the same thing as liking scalpers. Nobody wants to be a scalper's best customer (i.e., a chump). And this is basically why scalping is not a viable business strategy, beyond one shots.

 Manchu wrote:
Asterios - We just have to accept the premise of the hypothetical: the guy apparently cannot buy from GW or any retailers but he can get the items through resellers and/or scalpers. It doesn't matter if it's believable; it's just for the sake of argument.

well if we are going with such imaginary hypothesis lets look at how someone could have never bought from GW or a retailer but can buy from a scalper on a very small group? ummm still trying to figure out how a hypothetical situation like that can occur? this is not like the old days or even like "Convention" exclusives, but an item that had a very wide margin of release to the point it could be bought from GW (which has some of the widest know distribution releases available) or any number of retail situations.

and I still come up empty on how such a hypothetical situation could occur, not too mention the poster indicated this was fact, not hypothetical. wonders if people can fly on their own or have super powers in this "Hypothetical" world?

Asterios wrote:
where is a buyer not able to purchase from GW?

Anywhere that doesn't have a local GW store, if they don't have a credit card?

Or in any of the countries without a local GW, and so subject to GW's insane international shipping charges?

 insaniak wrote:

Asterios wrote:
where is a buyer not able to purchase from GW?

Anywhere that doesn't have a local GW store, if they don't have a credit card?

Or in any of the countries without a local GW, and so subject to GW's insane international shipping charges?

and yet they still can order from them ?

The whole premise is ridiculous.

Everybody in the world has access to credit cards or the equivalent (bank account + paypal or any number of alternatives), at least everybody who can afford GW stuff.

And every last one of these can order stuff online.

So where's your hypothetical customer now ?

 greatbigtree wrote:

You can scalp an original price ticket for a greater value... sometimes. If the value of the ticket is less than the market will bear. Scalper inflated prices EXACTLY indicate that the MSRP is below market value. If it wasn't, the scalper couldn't inflate the price! People wouldn't pay it! You're making my argument by baselessly claiming the opposite. I can prove to you what the value is of a given commodity by determining what it will be purchased for. Limited release prices are lower than people are willing to pay, so scalpers can raise it and make money. The proof is right there. Claims to the contrary can be proven false by direct observation of reality.

Scientifically? The process of observing repeatable phenomenon, and drawing conclusions based on reason? Not making baseless claims without backup? Wherein a person can not declare their opinion without basis, and must then prove their point?

My argument can be proven, that the market will bear an intermediary [scalper] that inflates the cost of a specific commodity, therefore that commodity's value on the open market was less than it could be. Observable. Provable. Fairness is irrelevant. Entitlement is the only cause of a sense of unfairness in this situation.

The truth has to be slightly more nuanced than what you are observing- partially because you lack a control group. Yes, supply and demand are determining prices for scalped items (at least the ones that actually get bought- some overpriced stuff can sit on ebay forever).

However, the point at which the scalped prices are measured, the supply is no longer what it used to be, and that is because many non-scalpers found the product to be reasonable at the retail price and bought them.

For example- I can sell you a copy of Space Crusade for $250. If I do, that proves that $250 wasn't a terrible price, right? But does that mean that Space Crusade should have been priced at $250 back when I bought it in '92? No way, that'd be stupid. Maybe it would have sold a few copies to the people who found it to be worth it, and the many other copies would be collecting dust with the Atari Pacman. So there's something more going on here.

Selling a single item at a markup proves only that it was worth it to that one person at that time, and no more. It is quite likely that if Ticketmaster started selling at the scalped price, the concerts wouldn't sell out at all (because fewer people are willing to pay the inflated prices). Certainly some would, and some would not, right?

Of course, sometimes scalpers get screwed over too. Like those people who bought up tons of copies of Dreadfleet, or the 4th ed Space Hulk (both LE games were picked up by enough re-sellers that they can be bought well below their original retail price).



But the fact that this practice is illegal in some industries, and discouraged in many others should give us pause. Why is it illegal to do this with items that must, by their inherent nature, be limited in supply? Maybe there's something immoral going on that doesn't have to do with the economic feasibility of it all. It is possible that they're simply protecting a band or play hall's right to make things available to a poorer audience. Some bands intentionally underprice their tickets because they want less affluent people to be able to at least hope to attend (Pearl Jam fought with Ticketmaster over this in the '90s).


The economic feasibility of the practice only goes up as the morality of it declines. What I mean to say is, if people scalp food and medicine (both happen) I think the morality hits rock bottom. And yet, the economics of the situation soar. You make less money, but sleep better if the item is a less constant need (like soap). We could progress this by baby steps and reach people selling LE resin pinups from Kingdom Death. At some point it was totally immoral, and at some point I don't think it is anymore.


Then again, when I'm considering buying something of a luxury on EvilBay, I don't really care is a scalper is making money off of me. I care about whether I feel the product I'm getting is worth the price I'm paying (and if it is, I don't feel cheated). I've bought plenty of out of print minis and games, and I don't feel cheated.

Asterios wrote:
this is not about secondary market this is about something that is still visible on the GW website, so a consumer never had a chance to get an item from the GW website? where is a buyer not able to purchase from GW? considering the scalper was selling the items on a North American BST facebook page? where in North America is someone not able to order from GW ?, which is the same place the scalper got his items from? problem is the scalper ordered like 5-6 of an item thereby depriving 4-5 other people of getting that item at SRP, just so the scalper can turn around and sell the items for twice the price.

maybe you should know the facts before spouting off incorrectly.

by the way said scalper of said dice would not sell on eBay since at his prices they would not sell, so instead he would rather give the shaft to a community group instead.

also in your referance, where is this person who cannot buy from GW? tell me where is this mystical place at ?

Well using the UK as an example..... I was personally at work when the GSC dice went on sale. By the time I got home they had sold out..... so re-sale was pretty much my only option and I point blank will refuse to put money in the pocket of some scumbag scalper.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

Asterios wrote:
this is not about secondary market this is about something that is still visible on the GW website, so a consumer never had a chance to get an item from the GW website? where is a buyer not able to purchase from GW? considering the scalper was selling the items on a North American BST facebook page? where in North America is someone not able to order from GW ?, which is the same place the scalper got his items from? problem is the scalper ordered like 5-6 of an item thereby depriving 4-5 other people of getting that item at SRP, just so the scalper can turn around and sell the items for twice the price.

maybe you should know the facts before spouting off incorrectly.

by the way said scalper of said dice would not sell on eBay since at his prices they would not sell, so instead he would rather give the shaft to a community group instead.

also in your referance, where is this person who cannot buy from GW? tell me where is this mystical place at ?

Well using the UK as an example..... I was personally at work when the GSC dice went on sale. By the time I got home they had sold out..... so re-sale was pretty much my only option and I point blank will refuse to put money in the pocket of some scumbag scalper.

yes but wouldn't it have been better if GW put a limit on those dice of 1 or 2 per customer? so as to prevent run outs, companies like LEGO will put limits on their limited edition things and such so as to give more buyers a chance of getting them, instead of a few buying up a lot to scalp later.

morgoth wrote:
The whole premise is ridiculous.

Everybody in the world has access to credit cards or the equivalent (bank account + paypal or any number of alternatives), at least everybody who can afford GW stuff.

And every last one of these can order stuff online.

So where's your hypothetical customer now ?

Does the GW website accept Paypal these days?


And that doesn't address GW's insane international shipping charges, for those customers who don't have a national GW presence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

yes but wouldn't it have been better if GW put a limit on those dice of 1 or 2 per customer? .

Limits annoy people. There no doubt would have been legitimate customers who wanted multiple sets, and who would have been put off by not being able to buy them.

The better option would have been for GW to produce enough to actually fill the demand for them.

 insaniak wrote:

Asterios wrote:

yes but wouldn't it have been better if GW put a limit on those dice of 1 or 2 per customer? .

Limits annoy people. There no doubt would have been legitimate customers who wanted multiple sets, and who would have been put off by not being able to buy them.

I think it's worth it for items that are limited to slightly annoy a few legitimate customers for the sake of not artificially fething up the market for said item.

The reason you put purchasing limits on stuff is not just because of scalpers but also because you want as many different people in your customer base to enjoy the product even if it means a few weirdos who want to buy 10 of the item are slightly miffed.

 insaniak wrote:
The better option would have been for GW to produce enough to actually fill the demand for them.

Agreed, this is the ideal answer. Pair it with effective communication and GW would be seen as standing with rather than against their customers on this issue.

= Blanche-inspired Adepta Sorita sculpt situation

That should be the model for all of these cases going forward. I think that case is obviously a bit different in that it involves something GW itself can manufacture, unlike the dice. But it is a really great starting place and I hope they do that more in the future.

 insaniak wrote:

morgoth wrote:
The whole premise is ridiculous.

Everybody in the world has access to credit cards or the equivalent (bank account + paypal or any number of alternatives), at least everybody who can afford GW stuff.

And every last one of these can order stuff online.

So where's your hypothetical customer now ?

Does the GW website accept Paypal these days?


And that doesn't address GW's insane international shipping charges, for those customers who don't have a national GW presence.

if like me they have a PP card which is tied to their PP account, furthermore, you keep throwing in that high international shipping charges, what do you think the scalpers charge? pennies? I recently checked the cost to send a 4oz package to canada from here in the US and the price was nearly $10 for shipping alone, so GW's insane over seas prices may be more on par then you think.

don't even get me started on how much that same package is to places like Australia, shipping things to my family over there is like buying a small car or something.

Asterios wrote:
... furthermore, you keep throwing in that high international shipping charges, what do you think the scalpers charge?.

Considerably less.

Back when GW instituted their regional sales policy (forbidding independent sellers from selling to customers outside their own countries), rather than blocking overseas sales through their own website GW put in place ridiculously high shipping fees for international purchases in order to discourage people from buying internationally. As in, 60 pounds to ship a pot of paint sort of ridiculous.



So it's not at all a stretch to think that some potential customers may wind up better off paying an inflated sales price and realistic shipping costs, rather than mortgaging their house to pay GW's shipping fees.

 insaniak wrote:

Asterios wrote:
... furthermore, you keep throwing in that high international shipping charges, what do you think the scalpers charge?.

Considerably less.

Back when GW instituted their regional sales policy (forbidding independent sellers from selling to customers outside their own countries), rather than blocking overseas sales through their own website GW put in place ridiculously high shipping fees for international purchases in order to discourage people from buying internationally. As in, 60 pounds to ship a pot of paint sort of ridiculous.



So it's not at all a stretch to think that some potential customers may wind up better off paying an inflated sales price and realistic shipping costs, rather than mortgaging their house to pay GW's shipping fees.

and yet those same people could buy from retailers for about the same price almost, and I repeat last time I tried to ship a small 4 oz package to Australia to my cousin it cost me about $14 to ship it and that was the cheapest option too.

Asterios wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

Asterios wrote:
this is not about secondary market this is about something that is still visible on the GW website, so a consumer never had a chance to get an item from the GW website? where is a buyer not able to purchase from GW? considering the scalper was selling the items on a North American BST facebook page? where in North America is someone not able to order from GW ?, which is the same place the scalper got his items from? problem is the scalper ordered like 5-6 of an item thereby depriving 4-5 other people of getting that item at SRP, just so the scalper can turn around and sell the items for twice the price.

maybe you should know the facts before spouting off incorrectly.

by the way said scalper of said dice would not sell on eBay since at his prices they would not sell, so instead he would rather give the shaft to a community group instead.

also in your referance, where is this person who cannot buy from GW? tell me where is this mystical place at ?

Well using the UK as an example..... I was personally at work when the GSC dice went on sale. By the time I got home they had sold out..... so re-sale was pretty much my only option and I point blank will refuse to put money in the pocket of some scumbag scalper.

yes but wouldn't it have been better if GW put a limit on those dice of 1 or 2 per customer? so as to prevent run outs, companies like LEGO will put limits on their limited edition things and such so as to give more buyers a chance of getting them, instead of a few buying up a lot to scalp later.

i actually messaged GW suggesting such a thing. They just responded saying, due to high demand in future they would increase production run, however with dice specifically it's an issue due to them being made 100% out of house.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

The economic feasibility of the practice only goes up as the morality of it declines. What I mean to say is, if people scalp food and medicine (both happen) I think the morality hits rock bottom. And yet, the economics of the situation soar. You make less money, but sleep better if the item is a less constant need (like soap). We could progress this by baby steps and reach people selling LE resin pinups from Kingdom Death. At some point it was totally immoral, and at some point I don't think it is anymore.

Yeah.. but then how about all these medical companies jacking prices up just because the market can bear it, and condemning many to death by doing so ?

That's not scalping since the medical equipment or drugs never were affordable to begin with, but what about morality ?

Does it have anything to do with scalping ?

It's a normal and healthy part of capitalism.

One or two limited to one per customer things are alright, but when I see those guys that sometimes pop up with like over 50 and at about twice the price each I die a little inside. Because not only are they scalping, but as an oligopoly they're saying this is what the market will pay.

I have just read all four pages of this topic so far and have to agree with Great Big Tree. Scalping (a new term for me) is justified by those who pay the prices.
Is it inherently wrong? I'd say no. Is it morally wrong, I'd say yes.
It annoys me when I want to buy something that is out of stock, or even worse, no longer in production. I won't pay the inflated prices so I simply won't get it. But that doesn't mean I hate those people who have bought the items to sell them at the inflated prices.
Interesting topic though.

It is an inherent result of capitalism, but that doesn't mean it is a healthy part of capitalism. Often, the results of capitalism are unhealthy for the system, and even more often they're unhealthy for people.

It is rewarded by those who pay the prices, certainly. Although, as with any speculation investment, it can also go wrong (people with tons of 4th ed Space Hulk or Dreadfleet sitting around).

Consider why scalping isn't illegal in this situation. A company produces a limited run of something- the purpose is to increase immediate demand. Especially if they do not institute anti-scalping measures (buying limits, pre-order second runs) then it is a company that is encouraging scalping. So that next time, most customers will see the LE stuff and jump on it right away.

For concert tickets, the limited nature of the tickets is inherent, so there's nothing anyone can do to change that. But in the case of GW's LE production runs, the limited nature is entirely fabricated.

In this instance, Scalping is something the creators encourage (whether it is their intention or not, it is something GW is complicit in). In that case, if there's an ethical question, it may very well lie in the hands of GW.

 Huron black heart wrote:

Is it inherently wrong? I'd say no. Is it morally wrong, I'd say yes.

I'm curious- on what basis are you claiming it isn't inherently wrong if it is not a moral (ethical) basis?

I don't mean to be rude, I'd like to know your answer.

You know, I had really meant to stay out of this. I have said my piece, but here I am. A liar.

Nothing "Wrong" occurs, because no harm has been committed. It is a marketing ploy, that people fall for. Same as any other advertising gimmick. It is not a wrong to encourage people to purchase your luxury item. They choose how to spend their money.

GW creates an increased desire in their purchasers. That's not wrong. They sell their product to whomever buys it. That's not wrong. They make a profit on that sale. That's not wrong. A Scalper purchases the item, assuming a risk in doing so, in the hope that they can then resell the product at a higher price. That's not wrong. An end user decides whether or not to spend their money on that purchase. That's not wrong.

No moral wrong has occurred, at any stage. No one is harmed.

Instead, perhaps a young, fresh-faced gamer is really excited and manages to buy the limited edition product direct from GW at MSRP. Good for them. No one has been harmed.

For a wrong to have been done, someone would need to have been harmed... even financially... and that does not occur with scalping of a luxury item.


It is unethical, in a degree, as the amount by which the scalper profits seems to be out of proportion to the risk they've assumed, and the service they've provided. Whether appreciated or not, a service has been provided by the scalper, in that they've made the product available in a new venue. They've also assumed a personal risk, and in economic terms that must be rewarded. This profit is out of proportion, and thus the scalper is no doubt aware that they're profiting at the expense of someone else's increased costs, but that person is paying voluntarily, so there is no actual wrong.

morgoth wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:

The economic feasibility of the practice only goes up as the morality of it declines. What I mean to say is, if people scalp food and medicine (both happen) I think the morality hits rock bottom. And yet, the economics of the situation soar. You make less money, but sleep better if the item is a less constant need (like soap). We could progress this by baby steps and reach people selling LE resin pinups from Kingdom Death. At some point it was totally immoral, and at some point I don't think it is anymore.

Yeah.. but then how about all these medical companies jacking prices up just because the market can bear it, and condemning many to death by doing so ?

That's not scalping since the medical equipment or drugs never were affordable to begin with, but what about morality ?

Does it have anything to do with scalping ?

Drug companies in the UK have recently got into trouble for doing exactly that.

 greatbigtree wrote:
For a wrong to have been done, someone would need to have been harmed... even financially... and that does not occur with scalping of a luxury item.

That's an incredibly specific definition of "wrong" and I disagree with you in this context.

 greatbigtree wrote:
You know, I had really meant to stay out of this. I have said my piece, but here I am. A liar.

Nothing "Wrong" occurs, because no harm has been committed. It is a marketing ploy, that people fall for. Same as any other advertising gimmick. It is not a wrong to encourage people to purchase your luxury item. They choose how to spend their money.

GW creates an increased desire in their purchasers. That's not wrong. They sell their product to whomever buys it. That's not wrong. They make a profit on that sale. That's not wrong. A Scalper purchases the item, assuming a risk in doing so, in the hope that they can then resell the product at a higher price. That's not wrong. An end user decides whether or not to spend their money on that purchase. That's not wrong.

No moral wrong has occurred, at any stage. No one is harmed.

Instead, perhaps a young, fresh-faced gamer is really excited and manages to buy the limited edition product direct from GW at MSRP. Good for them. No one has been harmed.

For a wrong to have been done, someone would need to have been harmed... even financially... and that does not occur with scalping of a luxury item.


It is unethical, in a degree, as the amount by which the scalper profits seems to be out of proportion to the risk they've assumed, and the service they've provided. Whether appreciated or not, a service has been provided by the scalper, in that they've made the product available in a new venue. They've also assumed a personal risk, and in economic terms that must be rewarded. This profit is out of proportion, and thus the scalper is no doubt aware that they're profiting at the expense of someone else's increased costs, but that person is paying voluntarily, so there is no actual wrong.

that is why scalping certain things like tickets and such is against the law in certain places?

I'll admit, it's my own slicing of the pie, but it works for me. I would define Morality as the difference between right and wrong in stark terms. Black vs White. Ethics define the grey areas in between, or the value of actions without moral implication. Things you should or shouldn't do.

It is neither moral nor immoral to make a promise that you intend to keep. It is immoral to make a promise you intend to break.

If you make a promise in good faith, and good intention, but then find you're unable to fulfil your promise in the context of your abilities, you have several ethical options available to you on how to deal with that.

You could lie about it, and falsify evidence to appear to have fulfilled your promise. This could be immoral if your deception harms the deceived.

You could admit your inability to fulfill your promise due to the impracticality of completion. For example, you promise to complete a task in a given time, but later discover the investment of resources required to do so would be worse than not completing the agreement. This is neither moral, nor immoral, but highly ethical solution, to simply acknowledge the developing situation to the promised party.

You could acknowledge the inability to fulfill your promise, and offer to make some form of amends for that. This is ethical, and morally positive to attempt to compensate the "wronged" party in this case.


Laws are made in regards to Moral, Ethical, Religious, Financial, Conservation, Convenience and frankly any manner of reasons. One area of the planet may feel that the degree of profit made by a scalper is of such degree that the "dickishness" of doing so is too great, so it is outlawed. They might decide scalping creates an environment in which it is "too easy" to defraud people. There could be any manner of reason for outlawing the practice. But "unfairness" shouldn't be one, because it is impossible for the practice to be unfair. Someone purchases a product, and then does with it what they wish. It can't be unfair. It could only be unfair if someone was promised the dice, for example, as payment, and that payment was withheld. Or the dice were stolen, or an extortion attempt is made. These would be "unfair" denials of access to one's rightful property. But that's not the case with scalping. The scalper has rightful ownership of their property, and they offer to sell it at a price. Fair to them, fair to the public. Not nice, I'd say poor ethics, but not morally wrong.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
It is an inherent result of capitalism, but that doesn't mean it is a healthy part of capitalism. Often, the results of capitalism are unhealthy for the system, and even more often they're unhealthy for people.

It is rewarded by those who pay the prices, certainly. Although, as with any speculation investment, it can also go wrong (people with tons of 4th ed Space Hulk or Dreadfleet sitting around).

Consider why scalping isn't illegal in this situation. A company produces a limited run of something- the purpose is to increase immediate demand. Especially if they do not institute anti-scalping measures (buying limits, pre-order second runs) then it is a company that is encouraging scalping. So that next time, most customers will see the LE stuff and jump on it right away.

For concert tickets, the limited nature of the tickets is inherent, so there's nothing anyone can do to change that. But in the case of GW's LE production runs, the limited nature is entirely fabricated.

In this instance, Scalping is something the creators encourage (whether it is their intention or not, it is something GW is complicit in). In that case, if there's an ethical question, it may very well lie in the hands of GW.

 Huron black heart wrote:

Is it inherently wrong? I'd say no. Is it morally wrong, I'd say yes.

I'm curious- on what basis are you claiming it isn't inherently wrong if it is not a moral (ethical) basis?

I don't mean to be rude, I'd like to know your answer.

I probably didn't word that very well, and thought it didn't look right after I wrote it.
I meant that scalping isn't illegal, and for many it is simply seen as a way of making money.
It's not something I would do however as it just doesn't feel right.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I'll admit, it's my own slicing of the pie, but it works for me. I would define Morality as the difference between right and wrong in stark terms. Black vs White. Ethics define the grey areas in between, or the value of actions without moral implication. Things you should or shouldn't do.

It is neither moral nor immoral to make a promise that you intend to keep. It is immoral to make a promise you intend to break.

If you make a promise in good faith, and good intention, but then find you're unable to fulfil your promise in the context of your abilities, you have several ethical options available to you on how to deal with that.

You could lie about it, and falsify evidence to appear to have fulfilled your promise. This could be immoral if your deception harms the deceived.

You could admit your inability to fulfill your promise due to the impracticality of completion. For example, you promise to complete a task in a given time, but later discover the investment of resources required to do so would be worse than not completing the agreement. This is neither moral, nor immoral, but highly ethical solution, to simply acknowledge the developing situation to the promised party.

You could acknowledge the inability to fulfill your promise, and offer to make some form of amends for that. This is ethical, and morally positive to attempt to compensate the "wronged" party in this case.


Laws are made in regards to Moral, Ethical, Religious, Financial, Conservation, Convenience and frankly any manner of reasons. One area of the planet may feel that the degree of profit made by a scalper is of such degree that the "dickishness" of doing so is too great, so it is outlawed. They might decide scalping creates an environment in which it is "too easy" to defraud people. There could be any manner of reason for outlawing the practice. But "unfairness" shouldn't be one, because it is impossible for the practice to be unfair. Someone purchases a product, and then does with it what they wish. It can't be unfair. It could only be unfair if someone was promised the dice, for example, as payment, and that payment was withheld. Or the dice were stolen, or an extortion attempt is made. These would be "unfair" denials of access to one's rightful property. But that's not the case with scalping. The scalper has rightful ownership of their property, and they offer to sell it at a price. Fair to them, fair to the public. Not nice, I'd say poor ethics, but not morally wrong.

Well morality is understanding the distinction between right and wrong and living according to that understanding, and ethics is the philosophy of how that morality guides individual and group behavior. The two are closely related, with morality being the foundation of ethics. Your application there is completely wrong. The scalpers actions are indeed morally wrong as they're denying the product to others for their own financial gain, but ethically ambiguous due to the circumstance, aka anyone can do it and they're not breaking any laws and it depends if they went into the initial purchase with the intention of personal gain.

Fairness also is already represented in current consumer and purchasing laws, fairness is actually the driving force of laws and the justice system. In my new job in property I'm having to research a ton legislation due to the mess a previous employee made. You'd be surprise how often fairness is brought up.

The scalpers deny nothing, to anyone. They purchase a product, and sell it. If you can afford it, it's yours. Nothing is right about it, nothing is wrong about it. That is ethical, not moral. In GW's case, they also purchase the product from an outside company, and then resell them. GW are also defined as scalpers in this case, having added nothing to the process but being a middleman.

Fairness is only applicable in situations where something is due. Not one single person on this planet is "due" any access to fancy dice. Unless they are due that as payment, or, having paid for the dice, did not receive them.

You might want to re-check your legal definition of fair access. There is nothing unfair about scalping, and there is nothing immoral about scalping. Scalping takes advantage of market demand to make a profit. This might be a large or small profit. There could also be a loss. Nobody is owed access to a luxury item. It's the very definition of a luxury.

Not liking something does not make it unfair. A large number of people in general are unable to differentiate between a sense of desire, and a sense of deserving. Fair is applied to deserving. If I work for a wage, it is unfair to withhold my wage. If I then decide to spend my wages on fancy dice, I decide to pay the amount due to acquire them, or I don't. The luxury of fancy dice makes those dice more valuable to some, while gaining no value to others. I, personally, do not value fancy dice more than I value normal, reasonably average-rolling dice. I would not pay more for them. Others do value fancy dice more highly, and would pay a premium to acquire them.

Scalpers take advantage of this situation, and raise the price above MSRP. People that might have paid the MSRP, but are unwilling to pay the scalping price are not denied access to the dice any more than someone that would pay wholesale price but refuse to pay MSRP. Or someone like myself that would be unwilling to pay more than, say, $2 for 10 "nice" gaming dice. Is it unfair that GW charges more than that for their fancy dice, and that I'm denied access to them? Hardly. It is not unfair that a scalper resells the product for a higher value.

If you disagree with this assessment of fair value, please explain to me what the difference in fairness is between someone that would pay $6 for dice that MSRP is $12, and someone that would pay $12 but not $24 to access these dice.

People don't like it, but it's not unfair. As I've said, laws are made for any number of reasons. Unfairness does not apply in this case.

GW are also defined as scalpers in this case, having added nothing to the process but being a middleman.

No, GW produced the IP that they are using for the dice and then license an external company to make them. Even though GW are a middle man in the production line, the dice wouldn't exist without them both from the perspective of the IP being used and being the ones who paid the 3rd party to produce them.

Middlemen exist all over the place because they actually provide a service. The producer of the product doesn't want to deal with the end of the line customers and the customers don't want to deal with the producer, so a middle man steps in to provide the service of liaising. They also may provide the service of expertise.

I don't have anything against middlemen in general.

 greatbigtree wrote:
If you disagree with this assessment of fair value, please explain to me what the difference in fairness is between someone that would pay $6 for dice that MSRP is $12, and someone that would pay $12 but not $24 to access these dice.

Because one is natural market forces determined by the producer of the product and the purchaser of the product. The other unnatural forces influenced by someone who is amplifying a false scarcity and leeching off the market. At the very least scalping is not a respectable way to make money. Many countries DO have laws against scalping but they're generally not wide reaching enough to tackle products other than ticket sales and are difficult to enforce so it's left to the original sellers to come up with ways of combating it.

 Dropbear Victim wrote:
By scalping theyre taking away hobby budget that could have been spent on other things. They indirectly rob the producers and stockists via less sales of other stuff, and outright rob end consumers.

Not that simple. Producer gets same cash anyway and while you might arque others can buy less it can be arqued that the money goes to spending by the scalper.

I buy model from scalper. I have less money to spend on other stuff. HOWEVER that same cash is available on spending by the scalper.

Tough issue and there's also arqument that buying and selling for profit gives chances for others. I would have been unable to get into several concerts if it WASN'T for "buy tickets and sell them later(obviously for profit)". Because even without scalpers I doubt tickets would stay on sale for months ahead and buying tickets from Japan isn't easiest thing from outside Japan short of company doing buying and reselling. So if this activity would completely die it would actually hurt me because while yes tickets would be cheaper for me I wouldn't even be able to get them short of doing it even MORE expensive way by going to Japan specifically to buy ticket in advance(that costs likely 1000 euro or so all in all plus no pay holiday...)

 greatbigtree wrote:
The scalpers deny nothing, to anyone. They purchase a product, and sell it. If you can afford it, it's yours. Nothing is right about it, nothing is wrong about it. That is ethical, not moral. In GW's case, they also purchase the product from an outside company, and then resell them. GW are also defined as scalpers in this case, having added nothing to the process but being a middleman.

Both ethics and morality are subjective, there is no higher order moral authority to say which morality (or set of ethical principle) is the best.

Generally speaking, christians have a concept of fairness which is centered around being victimized, i.e. if anyone does anything that is bad for you, that is wrong of them, and you expect them to stop doing it because they believe the same.

The concept of fairness is immensely different for other cultures, many of which freely accept no copyright (China), purely financial manipulation without any value addition (...), etc.



Scalpers are most likely a lesser evil in a society where states levy arbitrary taxes on everyone and everything, intermediaries galore jack up all the prices, all big companies are into price fixing, many big companies don't pay any taxes where they produce and extract the value, etc.



What Scalpers mostly do is remove produce access from people with less means and offer it to people with more means.

Essentially, the rich are paying the scalpers implicitly to snatch the collector items for them.

Although the service is immaterial and decentralized, it's probably a good thing, like personal shoppers.



Don't worry, when the scalper is done selling to all the rich guys, if he has any stock left, he'll sell it to you at a more reasonable price.

Also, arguing against Scalping is arguing against nature: you cannot win.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Because one is natural market forces determined by the producer of the product and the purchaser of the product. The other unnatural forces influenced by someone who is amplifying a false scarcity and leeching off the market. At the very least scalping is not a respectable way to make money. Many countries DO have laws against scalping but they're generally not wide reaching enough to tackle products other than ticket sales and are difficult to enforce so it's left to the original sellers to come up with ways of combating it.

Ah, you see, scalping is exactly a "natural market force" as much as any other. That's how distribution works. I've gone over this before. If an end user is willing to pay an "uptick" on a product, another layer of distribution will develop, quite naturally. There is no such thing as "false scarcity". Scarcity exists, or it does not. If I were to purchase EVERY, SINGLE, PIECE of product that GW produces, and then sell it, I would be a distributor / reseller, yes? I would put an uptick on the product, and then sell it.

You assign moral weight to this process, where none exists. "Leeching" off the market is what all layers of distribution does. GW produces a product, for the sake of argument, in house, in Great Britain. They sell it to a distributor, perhaps another branch of GW in Canada, say. GW Britain makes a profit. GW Canada distributes to dealers within Canada, without advancing the value of the product but incurring risks and costs while doing so. They up the price, to make a profit. The dealer does the same, distributing to stores. The stores do the same, selling to customers.

If that customer now does the same, upticking the price having incurred costs and risks by purchasing the product, they're now a scalper, and they're a "bad guy"? Is it unfair that you can't purchase a product directly from GW Britain, before it even gets put in a box? That would eliminate all middlemen. It would even eliminate the need for packaging, if you brought a box to put it in. Why aren't the rest of the layers of middle men "bad" for doing as they do, but the scalper is "bad" for doing it? This is an entirely arbitrary assessment, based on an inability to differentiate between desire and deserving. If a person believes they DESERVE to purchase a product at MSRP, they will find it unfair that the scalper increases the price. But that's a false assessment of the situation. Nobody deserves to purchase a luxury item. They get to do that if they choose to, and pay the price to acquire it.

Sure, it's a scummy thing to do, but so is most of retail sales. Consider the ethical implications of making more on a commission to sell a product, than the person makes crafting the product. Consider the relative work loads.

Anyhow, while morality can be considered subjective, I disagree. I believe morality is directly related to evolutionary forces, and the primal recognition of a social animal's requirement to avoid harming the community. Again, I've already made my case for scalping not causing harm. If a person can't afford the price, they don't suddenly lose their money and become unable to purchase something else more affordable. Positive morality helps your social groups' ability to thrive. Negative morality harms your social groups' ability to thrive.

For everything else, there's ethics.

Here's a wrinkle to consider: FGS gets several copies of rare dice. They sit on the shelves for weeks because nobody locally either wants them or can afford them.
Like many FGSs, this one isn't raking in the cash so money tied up in stock that's not moving is a bad thing.

You want to help out your store and don't want to buy yet another copy of Prospero. If you buy a couple extra sets are you an ogre?

 greatbigtree wrote:
Ah, you see, scalping is exactly a "natural market force" as much as any other.

It's only as natural a force as society lets it be. If society deems that it's unfair, we legislate against it and/or show disdain for people who seek to earn money that way and/or companies institute policies that make it impossible (like disallowing multiple sales to a single customer on limited items).

Make limited editions one per person based on ID. Problem solved.

You want to buy 5 for your gaming group? Too bad, they can purchase it themselves if it's such a big deal.

Want to sell them online? Okay, but you're not going to get to keep the one you have to do it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Ah, you see, scalping is exactly a "natural market force" as much as any other.

It's only as natural a force as society lets it be. If society deems that it's unfair, we legislate against it and/or show disdain for people who seek to earn money that way and/or companies institute policies that make it impossible (like disallowing multiple sales to a single customer on limited items).

It's already seen as unfair. You're expecting lawmakers to actually do their job in the interest of the people.

 Professor_Plum wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Ah, you see, scalping is exactly a "natural market force" as much as any other.

It's only as natural a force as society lets it be. If society deems that it's unfair, we legislate against it and/or show disdain for people who seek to earn money that way and/or companies institute policies that make it impossible (like disallowing multiple sales to a single customer on limited items).

It's already seen as unfair. You're expecting lawmakers to actually do their job in the interest of the people.

Well lawmakers in several countries have already made scalping illegal or more difficult, as far as I'm aware it just usually doesn't extend beyond ticket sales and it's difficult to enforce unless the sellers get onboard.

 greatbigtree wrote:
If I were to purchase EVERY, SINGLE, PIECE of product that GW produces, and then sell it, I would be a distributor / reseller, yes? I would put an uptick on the product, and then sell it.

No, you'd just be a person with no business sense because GW would produce another batch of all of those products and you'd be left with inventory you bought at MSRP that you can't sell without taking a loss. Scalping only works when there is scarcity (natural or artificial), and the scalper can buy the entire available inventory without the original seller producing more.

You assign moral weight to this process, where none exists. "Leeching" off the market is what all layers of distribution does. GW produces a product, for the sake of argument, in house, in Great Britain. They sell it to a distributor, perhaps another branch of GW in Canada, say. GW Britain makes a profit. GW Canada distributes to dealers within Canada, without advancing the value of the product but incurring risks and costs while doing so.

Uh, what? This isn't how it works, at all. GW does not sell products to their own branches and make a profit, "GW Canada" is just a department within the GW organization. GW's Canadian stores report their sales numbers and what needs to be re-stocked, and GW HQ allocates inventory to them and has it shipped. GW doesn't make any money until the customer buys it in the GW store in Canada.

Is it unfair that you can't purchase a product directly from GW Britain, before it even gets put in a box?

Why does it matter if you purchase from one of GW's UK stores? There is no separate "GW Britain" company to buy from, your local GW store is the exact same company selling the exact same product. If you go to the GW website and buy a product you are buying directly from "GW Britain". There are no middlemen at all in either case, whatever you buy goes direct from the manufacturer to the customer.

Why aren't the rest of the layers of middle men "bad" for doing as they do, but the scalper is "bad" for doing it?

Because some of those middlemen add value to the product. For example, your local independent store buys inventory from GW (at far less than MSRP) and then sells it to you at an increased price. They make a profit in exchange for providing you with a place to buy the stuff you want without having to travel a longer distance to a GW store or waiting for shipping, offer space to play games, provide advice on which things to buy, etc. The scalper does no such thing, they simply prevent you from buying directly from the original seller and take extra profit because you have no other options to buy the thing you want. Buying from a scalper and buying directly from GW are exactly the same from a value-to-the-customer point of view, except buying from the scalper costs more.

 Peregrine wrote:
Buying from a scalper and buying directly from GW are exactly the same from a value-to-the-customer point of view, except buying from the scalper costs more.

I'd actually argue there's less value to the customer. Buying direct from GW you know you're buying from a reputable source with a receipt from GW and you don't have to go hunting on ebay to find it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Ah, you see, scalping is exactly a "natural market force" as much as any other.

It's only as natural a force as society lets it be. If society deems that it's unfair, we legislate against it and/or show disdain for people who seek to earn money that way and/or companies institute policies that make it impossible (like disallowing multiple sales to a single customer on limited items).

In case you haven't noticed, nature doesn't care about society, policies or laws.

 Peregrine wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
If I were to purchase EVERY, SINGLE, PIECE of product that GW produces, and then sell it, I would be a distributor / reseller, yes? I would put an uptick on the product, and then sell it.

No, you'd just be a person with no business sense because GW would produce another batch of all of those products and you'd be left with inventory you bought at MSRP that you can't sell without taking a loss. Scalping only works when there is scarcity (natural or artificial), and the scalper can buy the entire available inventory without the original seller producing more.

You assign moral weight to this process, where none exists. "Leeching" off the market is what all layers of distribution does. GW produces a product, for the sake of argument, in house, in Great Britain. They sell it to a distributor, perhaps another branch of GW in Canada, say. GW Britain makes a profit. GW Canada distributes to dealers within Canada, without advancing the value of the product but incurring risks and costs while doing so.

Uh, what? This isn't how it works, at all. GW does not sell products to their own branches and make a profit, "GW Canada" is just a department within the GW organization. GW's Canadian stores report their sales numbers and what needs to be re-stocked, and GW HQ allocates inventory to them and has it shipped. GW doesn't make any money until the customer buys it in the GW store in Canada.

Is it unfair that you can't purchase a product directly from GW Britain, before it even gets put in a box?

Why does it matter if you purchase from one of GW's UK stores? There is no separate "GW Britain" company to buy from, your local GW store is the exact same company selling the exact same product. If you go to the GW website and buy a product you are buying directly from "GW Britain". There are no middlemen at all in either case, whatever you buy goes direct from the manufacturer to the customer.

Why aren't the rest of the layers of middle men "bad" for doing as they do, but the scalper is "bad" for doing it?

Because some of those middlemen add value to the product. For example, your local independent store buys inventory from GW (at far less than MSRP) and then sells it to you at an increased price. They make a profit in exchange for providing you with a place to buy the stuff you want without having to travel a longer distance to a GW store or waiting for shipping, offer space to play games, provide advice on which things to buy, etc. The scalper does no such thing, they simply prevent you from buying directly from the original seller and take extra profit because you have no other options to buy the thing you want. Buying from a scalper and buying directly from GW are exactly the same from a value-to-the-customer point of view, except buying from the scalper costs more.

1st off, if I bought every single piece GW produces, and they then make more, I would buy that too. I understand it's a hypothetical argument, but come on, that's a predictable reaction to the "produce more" counter. I just buy more. If someone was under the impression that GW would suddenly start producing way more product if someone bought every single item they produced, thus creating a new layer of distribution, I'm afraid they wouldn't understand much about production. So, to counter, I'd just buy more product, and still create a monopoly of who needs to go through whom to get what they desire. Further, buying in such bulk, I could no doubt create a profit margin without much impact on end user cost.

The continued hypothetical situation of imagined layers in the GW distribution system was just that, a hypothetical. The point being that a scalper is just another reseller in a chain of reselling.

The point appears to have been missed in my hypothetical argument of purchasing the product directly at the point it is removed from the mold. Hell, removing the sprues yourself from the mold. At the point the models are taken out of the mold, costs start being added to the sprue. You pay a guy to remove the model. You pay a guy to package the product. You pay a guy to ship the product. You pay a freight company to carry the product to a warehouse. You pay warehouse staff to store and then re-ship the product. You pay someone to receive the product in a store. You pay someone to stock the shelves, and then to process the transaction. Each of these adds costs to the end user. Whether appreciated or not, a scalper can be seen as another layer of the "moving product from here to there, to make the product available to the public."

For example, ticket scalping. You want to buy tickets from the box office, but you can't. But you can walk out in front of the gates, yelling, and someone will come to you and hand deliver tickets at an increased cost. Don't like it? Don't pay.

If someone then buys a product, and scalps it, they too add a cost to the end user. It's another cost in the chain of distribution. The last point you make, in which the scalper creates a monopoly, and thus controls the end user cost. GW has a monopoly up to the point they distribute to "stores". They distribute to GW proper stores, and other Gaming stores. Is it unfair that an end user can't purchase the product before it gets to the store? What if I don't play in one of these stores? I only play in my basement and my friend's garage. Is it fair that I can't buy at the distribution level that the stores buy at? I gain no benefit from having a gaming space, vs a warehouse-style counter that would be cheaper to run and thus lower my costs? These stores charge for a value-add service that I don't want.

So does a scalper. GW's prices [In London, Ontario] are diverted towards in-store "benefits" that I don't benefit from. [Sarcasm] They should charge me less, right? I'm victimized, because I have to pay more than I would need to, so that someone else can benefit, right? [/Sarcasm]

Yet I continue to buy from brick and mortar stores, because I choose to pay the uptick. I could buy online, or from other "discount" sources, but I don't. I choose how I spend my hobby budget. I choose to pay the extra, because I like the idea of seeing, in person, the person I purchase from. I pay extra to get that. People pay scalpers extra, not because they want to, but because if they don't they don't get the product, I guess. But they choose.


Outlawing scalping on the basis of it being unfair has, in my previous posts, been proven to be illogical. It can't be unfair.

Outlawing scalping, based on a scalper probably not possessing a business license, probably not paying sales taxes, and probably not reporting the income for tax purposes makes sense. Without a business license, there is a greater chance that fraudulent items will be "sold" and that there's no consumer protection for that. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for outlawing scalping, that have nothing to do with "pricing fairness".

 Peregrine wrote:
Because some of those middlemen add value to the product. For example, your local independent store buys inventory from GW (at far less than MSRP) and then sells it to you at an increased price. They make a profit in exchange for providing you with a place to buy the stuff you want without having to travel a longer distance to a GW store or waiting for shipping, offer space to play games, provide advice on which things to buy, etc. The scalper does no such thing, they simply prevent you from buying directly from the original seller and take extra profit because you have no other options to buy the thing you want. Buying from a scalper and buying directly from GW are exactly the same from a value-to-the-customer point of view, except buying from the scalper costs more.

Well unless you use a GW store as your main gaming meet point.

 greatbigtree wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
If I were to purchase EVERY, SINGLE, PIECE of product that GW produces, and then sell it, I would be a distributor / reseller, yes? I would put an uptick on the product, and then sell it.

No, you'd just be a person with no business sense because GW would produce another batch of all of those products and you'd be left with inventory you bought at MSRP that you can't sell without taking a loss. Scalping only works when there is scarcity (natural or artificial), and the scalper can buy the entire available inventory without the original seller producing more.

You assign moral weight to this process, where none exists. "Leeching" off the market is what all layers of distribution does. GW produces a product, for the sake of argument, in house, in Great Britain. They sell it to a distributor, perhaps another branch of GW in Canada, say. GW Britain makes a profit. GW Canada distributes to dealers within Canada, without advancing the value of the product but incurring risks and costs while doing so.

Uh, what? This isn't how it works, at all. GW does not sell products to their own branches and make a profit, "GW Canada" is just a department within the GW organization. GW's Canadian stores report their sales numbers and what needs to be re-stocked, and GW HQ allocates inventory to them and has it shipped. GW doesn't make any money until the customer buys it in the GW store in Canada.

Is it unfair that you can't purchase a product directly from GW Britain, before it even gets put in a box?

Why does it matter if you purchase from one of GW's UK stores? There is no separate "GW Britain" company to buy from, your local GW store is the exact same company selling the exact same product. If you go to the GW website and buy a product you are buying directly from "GW Britain". There are no middlemen at all in either case, whatever you buy goes direct from the manufacturer to the customer.

Why aren't the rest of the layers of middle men "bad" for doing as they do, but the scalper is "bad" for doing it?

Because some of those middlemen add value to the product. For example, your local independent store buys inventory from GW (at far less than MSRP) and then sells it to you at an increased price. They make a profit in exchange for providing you with a place to buy the stuff you want without having to travel a longer distance to a GW store or waiting for shipping, offer space to play games, provide advice on which things to buy, etc. The scalper does no such thing, they simply prevent you from buying directly from the original seller and take extra profit because you have no other options to buy the thing you want. Buying from a scalper and buying directly from GW are exactly the same from a value-to-the-customer point of view, except buying from the scalper costs more.

1st off, if I bought every single piece GW produces, and they then make more, I would buy that too. I understand it's a hypothetical argument, but come on, that's a predictable reaction to the "produce more" counter. I just buy more. If someone was under the impression that GW would suddenly start producing way more product if someone bought every single item they produced, thus creating a new layer of distribution, I'm afraid they wouldn't understand much about production. So, to counter, I'd just buy more product, and still create a monopoly of who needs to go through whom to get what they desire. Further, buying in such bulk, I could no doubt create a profit margin without much impact on end user cost.

The continued hypothetical situation of imagined layers in the GW distribution system was just that, a hypothetical. The point being that a scalper is just another reseller in a chain of reselling.

The point appears to have been missed in my hypothetical argument of purchasing the product directly at the point it is removed from the mold. Hell, removing the sprues yourself from the mold. At the point the models are taken out of the mold, costs start being added to the sprue. You pay a guy to remove the model. You pay a guy to package the product. You pay a guy to ship the product. You pay a freight company to carry the product to a warehouse. You pay warehouse staff to store and then re-ship the product. You pay someone to receive the product in a store. You pay someone to stock the shelves, and then to process the transaction. Each of these adds costs to the end user. Whether appreciated or not, a scalper can be seen as another layer of the "moving product from here to there, to make the product available to the public."

For example, ticket scalping. You want to buy tickets from the box office, but you can't. But you can walk out in front of the gates, yelling, and someone will come to you and hand deliver tickets at an increased cost. Don't like it? Don't pay.

If someone then buys a product, and scalps it, they too add a cost to the end user. It's another cost in the chain of distribution. The last point you make, in which the scalper creates a monopoly, and thus controls the end user cost. GW has a monopoly up to the point they distribute to "stores". They distribute to GW proper stores, and other Gaming stores. Is it unfair that an end user can't purchase the product before it gets to the store? What if I don't play in one of these stores? I only play in my basement and my friend's garage. Is it fair that I can't buy at the distribution level that the stores buy at? I gain no benefit from having a gaming space, vs a warehouse-style counter that would be cheaper to run and thus lower my costs? These stores charge for a value-add service that I don't want.

So does a scalper. GW's prices [In London, Ontario] are diverted towards in-store "benefits" that I don't benefit from. [Sarcasm] They should charge me less, right? I'm victimized, because I have to pay more than I would need to, so that someone else can benefit, right? [/Sarcasm]

Yet I continue to buy from brick and mortar stores, because I choose to pay the uptick. I could buy online, or from other "discount" sources, but I don't. I choose how I spend my hobby budget. I choose to pay the extra, because I like the idea of seeing, in person, the person I purchase from. I pay extra to get that. People pay scalpers extra, not because they want to, but because if they don't they don't get the product, I guess. But they choose.


Outlawing scalping on the basis of it being unfair has, in my previous posts, been proven to be illogical. It can't be unfair.

Outlawing scalping, based on a scalper probably not possessing a business license, probably not paying sales taxes, and probably not reporting the income for tax purposes makes sense. Without a business license, there is a greater chance that fraudulent items will be "sold" and that there's no consumer protection for that. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for outlawing scalping, that have nothing to do with "pricing fairness".

so you think taking adavntage of people trying to get something by selling them it at a higher value is not unfair? let me guess you think a ponzi scheme is all well and good? or how about a game of 3 card monte? or even one of those for profit schools that make promises and yet fail to deliver? as it goes you do not think scalping is unfair, but fortunately for us the law does think it is unfair, the whole idea behind scalping is unfair in that it denies others the opportunity to get same said product at the price the scalper paid, say you have a 100 tickets 9 scalpers bought up 10 ea. for 90 and only 10 regular customers got them before being sold out, so those 9 scalpers are going to sell those same items at twice or more the price, after denying over 80 regular customers the opportunity to buy same items, and you think that is fair ? I really have to ask you this, are you a scalper? cause only a scalper would think that is fair, to deny someone something then offer to sell it too them at a higher price.

Asterios wrote:

so you think taking adavntage of people trying to get something by selling them it at a higher value is not unfair? let me guess you think a ponzi scheme is all well and good? or how about a game of 3 card monte? or even one of those for profit schools that make promises and yet fail to deliver? as it goes you do not think scalping is unfair, but fortunately for us the law does think it is unfair, the whole idea behind scalping is unfair in that it denies others the opportunity to get same said product at the price the scalper paid, say you have a 100 tickets 9 scalpers bought up 10 ea. for 90 and only 10 regular customers got them before being sold out, so those 9 scalpers are going to sell those same items at twice or more the price, after denying over 80 regular customers the opportunity to buy same items, and you think that is fair ? I really have to ask you this, are you a scalper? cause only a scalper would think that is fair, to deny someone something then offer to sell it too them at a higher price.

I do believe that people buying something, and then reselling it at a higher value is not unfair. All retail markets work on that principle.

Ponzi schemes are theft. The users paying money in do not get what they pay for.

3 Card Monte is as fair as the dealer. If the dealer is cheating, removing the found card and cheating, that's theft. The user does not have a fair stake in the gamble.

Profit schools that do not deliver the education promised are likely guilty of fraud. Claiming to provide a service but then not doing so. That's basically theft.

Each of your supposed "arguments" are false equivalencies. The buyer of scalped dice receives the product they purchased. No theft occurs.


Scalping is neither fair, nor unfair, and is not illegal in Canada, to the best of my knowledge. The previous antithetical arguments regarding tax evasion are independent of scalping proper. I think it's perfectly fair that scalpers purchase items made available on the public market and then resell them. As previously stated, it's their property to do with as they will. They do not deny anything to anyone. If the other customer had been there first, they would have purchased them.

NO ONE DESERVES ACCESS TO FANCY DICE. THEY ARE A LUXURY ITEM.

Belief to the contrary is simply an attitude of entitlement, that is not appropriate to the situation. I am not a scalper, nor have I ever engaged in such a practice. I consider the practice to be unethical. Not Immoral, not unfair, but unethical. I prefer to make my money the old fashioned way.

I'm now going in circles, repeating the same arguments, reduced to defending my position against false equivalency and persons unable to differentiate between desire and deserving.


For those of you of the East European tradition, I wish you a joyous Wigilia, and the full enjoyment of your personal resources, spent as you wish. Hopefully on family and friends. Enjoy the fish!

I wonder if GW has ever considered selling limited edition products by ballot?

 greatbigtree wrote:

Asterios wrote:

so you think taking adavntage of people trying to get something by selling them it at a higher value is not unfair? let me guess you think a ponzi scheme is all well and good? or how about a game of 3 card monte? or even one of those for profit schools that make promises and yet fail to deliver? as it goes you do not think scalping is unfair, but fortunately for us the law does think it is unfair, the whole idea behind scalping is unfair in that it denies others the opportunity to get same said product at the price the scalper paid, say you have a 100 tickets 9 scalpers bought up 10 ea. for 90 and only 10 regular customers got them before being sold out, so those 9 scalpers are going to sell those same items at twice or more the price, after denying over 80 regular customers the opportunity to buy same items, and you think that is fair ? I really have to ask you this, are you a scalper? cause only a scalper would think that is fair, to deny someone something then offer to sell it too them at a higher price.

I do believe that people buying something, and then reselling it at a higher value is not unfair. All retail markets work on that principle.

Ponzi schemes are theft. The users paying money in do not get what they pay for.

3 Card Monte is as fair as the dealer. If the dealer is cheating, removing the found card and cheating, that's theft. The user does not have a fair stake in the gamble.

Profit schools that do not deliver the education promised are likely guilty of fraud. Claiming to provide a service but then not doing so. That's basically theft.

Each of your supposed "arguments" are false equivalencies. The buyer of scalped dice receives the product they purchased. No theft occurs.


Scalping is neither fair, nor unfair, and is not illegal in Canada, to the best of my knowledge. The previous antithetical arguments regarding tax evasion are independent of scalping proper. I think it's perfectly fair that scalpers purchase items made available on the public market and then resell them. As previously stated, it's their property to do with as they will. They do not deny anything to anyone. If the other customer had been there first, they would have purchased them.

NO ONE DESERVES ACCESS TO FANCY DICE. THEY ARE A LUXURY ITEM.

Belief to the contrary is simply an attitude of entitlement, that is not appropriate to the situation. I am not a scalper, nor have I ever engaged in such a practice. I consider the practice to be unethical. Not Immoral, not unfair, but unethical. I prefer to make my money the old fashioned way.

I'm now going in circles, repeating the same arguments, reduced to defending my position against false equivalency and persons unable to differentiate between desire and deserving.


For those of you of the East European tradition, I wish you a joyous Wigilia, and the full enjoyment of your personal resources, spent as you wish. Hopefully on family and friends. Enjoy the fish!

Depends where, in Ontario and Quebec it is.

Well, both Ontario and Quebec have legislation allowing resale under certain conditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticket_resale

And those laws are specific to "event tickets" whereas any product may be bought and resold. See Kijiji, Ebay, Garage Sales, and Flea Markets. So... it's legal in certain situations. I hadn't been aware before checking just now. Amusingly, the law allowing resale is specifically to combat fraudulent ticket sales... one of the reasons I'd said scalping could be made illegal. Oh well, life's funny sometimes.

 greatbigtree wrote:

Asterios wrote:

so you think taking adavntage of people trying to get something by selling them it at a higher value is not unfair? let me guess you think a ponzi scheme is all well and good? or how about a game of 3 card monte? or even one of those for profit schools that make promises and yet fail to deliver? as it goes you do not think scalping is unfair, but fortunately for us the law does think it is unfair, the whole idea behind scalping is unfair in that it denies others the opportunity to get same said product at the price the scalper paid, say you have a 100 tickets 9 scalpers bought up 10 ea. for 90 and only 10 regular customers got them before being sold out, so those 9 scalpers are going to sell those same items at twice or more the price, after denying over 80 regular customers the opportunity to buy same items, and you think that is fair ? I really have to ask you this, are you a scalper? cause only a scalper would think that is fair, to deny someone something then offer to sell it too them at a higher price.

I do believe that people buying something, and then reselling it at a higher value is not unfair. All retail markets work on that principle.

Ponzi schemes are theft. The users paying money in do not get what they pay for.

3 Card Monte is as fair as the dealer. If the dealer is cheating, removing the found card and cheating, that's theft. The user does not have a fair stake in the gamble.

Profit schools that do not deliver the education promised are likely guilty of fraud. Claiming to provide a service but then not doing so. That's basically theft.

Each of your supposed "arguments" are false equivalencies. The buyer of scalped dice receives the product they purchased. No theft occurs.


Scalping is neither fair, nor unfair, and is not illegal in Canada, to the best of my knowledge. The previous antithetical arguments regarding tax evasion are independent of scalping proper. I think it's perfectly fair that scalpers purchase items made available on the public market and then resell them. As previously stated, it's their property to do with as they will. They do not deny anything to anyone. If the other customer had been there first, they would have purchased them.

NO ONE DESERVES ACCESS TO FANCY DICE. THEY ARE A LUXURY ITEM.

Belief to the contrary is simply an attitude of entitlement, that is not appropriate to the situation. I am not a scalper, nor have I ever engaged in such a practice. I consider the practice to be unethical. Not Immoral, not unfair, but unethical. I prefer to make my money the old fashioned way.

I'm now going in circles, repeating the same arguments, reduced to defending my position against false equivalency and persons unable to differentiate between desire and deserving.


For those of you of the East European tradition, I wish you a joyous Wigilia, and the full enjoyment of your personal resources, spent as you wish. Hopefully on family and friends. Enjoy the fish!

so you are saying its fair for someone to go to a store, buy up all of one type of item people will be looking for, then offer to sell it at twice the price? your morals are extremely lacking. i'd put you on par with those hotwheel collectors who go to stores and buy all the treasure hunts before anyone else gets a chance too, just no class.

Asterios wrote:

so you are saying its fair for someone to go to a store, buy up all of one type of item people will be looking for, then offer to sell it at twice the price? your morals are extremely lacking. i'd put you on par with those hotwheel collectors who go to stores and buy all the treasure hunts before anyone else gets a chance too, just no class.

So, personal attack aside, your argument is that since I do not engage in this practice, but believe it is fair, I'm the equal of someone that does engage in the practice. I can define morality, determine that this is an action without moral consequence, and thus present a reasoned argument to prove it.

And the counter you provide is, "You must be a real donkey-cave, so I'm right".


Congratulations. I bow to you, and beg mercy from your awesome powers of debate. All of this parry and reposte, but you sir, have defeated me with this single keyboard stroke. Your genius is truly legendary. Thank you, for enlightening me in the truly marvelous manner in which you've cleverly outwitted me. The Internet is yours!

 greatbigtree wrote:
1st off, if I bought every single piece GW produces, and they then make more, I would buy that too. I understand it's a hypothetical argument, but come on, that's a predictable reaction to the "produce more" counter.

It isn't a counter at all, because it isn't going to happen. Talking about buying GW's entire inventory, including all of their future production runs (and any expanded production capacity they invest in to keep meeting demand) is so far detached from reality that it's pointless to talk about it. GW's supply (and potential production capacity) vastly exceeds anyone's ability to buy it, and you are almost guaranteed to take massive losses if you try to buy GW's entire production capacity at full MSRP. Hypothetical arguments are useful, but only if the hypothetical is realistic. This one is so far detached from reality that it provides no insight into the issue.

Further, buying in such bulk, I could no doubt create a profit margin without much impact on end user cost.

Congratulations, you're no longer a scalper. The whole point of scalping is that you're selling the product at a significantly increased cost. If you're selling for MSRP and using your sales volume to negotiate a deal with the manufacturer you're no longer a scalper, you're just a retail store with high sales volume.

For example, ticket scalping. You want to buy tickets from the box office, but you can't. But you can walk out in front of the gates, yelling, and someone will come to you and hand deliver tickets at an increased cost.

The problem with this "added value" is that the only reason you can't buy the tickets from the box office is that a scalper bought them all to re-sell them at an inflated price. If, say, we impose a law that tickets can not be sold for more than their printed value the scalper is driven out entirely and your tickets are now available to buy directly. Unlike the retail example, the only person gaining any value from the scalper's existence is the scalper.

If someone then buys a product, and scalps it, they too add a cost to the end user. It's another cost in the chain of distribution. The last point you make, in which the scalper creates a monopoly, and thus controls the end user cost. GW has a monopoly up to the point they distribute to "stores". They distribute to GW proper stores, and other Gaming stores. Is it unfair that an end user can't purchase the product before it gets to the store? What if I don't play in one of these stores? I only play in my basement and my friend's garage. Is it fair that I can't buy at the distribution level that the stores buy at? I gain no benefit from having a gaming space, vs a warehouse-style counter that would be cheaper to run and thus lower my costs? These stores charge for a value-add service that I don't want.

The difference here is that the retail chain adds value for some customers at every step. You personally may not benefit from the gaming space at a GW store, but a lot of people do. So, paying for that value may not be desirable for you, but that doesn't mean it's unfair. It just means that you might not wish to buy the product, much like I might not wish to buy the 7th edition rulebook because I don't pay for terrible rules. The scalper, on the other hand, is adding no value at all, to anyone. All they do is increase the price the customer pays for the same product.

 greatbigtree wrote:

Asterios wrote:

so you are saying its fair for someone to go to a store, buy up all of one type of item people will be looking for, then offer to sell it at twice the price? your morals are extremely lacking. i'd put you on par with those hotwheel collectors who go to stores and buy all the treasure hunts before anyone else gets a chance too, just no class.

So, personal attack aside, your argument is that since I do not engage in this practice, but believe it is fair, I'm the equal of someone that does engage in the practice. I can define morality, determine that this is an action without moral consequence, and thus present a reasoned argument to prove it.

And the counter you provide is, "You must be a real donkey-cave, so I'm right".


Congratulations. I bow to you, and beg mercy from your awesome powers of debate. All of this parry and reposte, but you sir, have defeated me with this single keyboard stroke. Your genius is truly legendary. Thank you, for enlightening me in the truly marvelous manner in which you've cleverly outwitted me. The Internet is yours!

your dripping a little sarcasm down your cheek.

 greatbigtree wrote:

NO ONE DESERVES ACCESS TO FANCY DICE. THEY ARE A LUXURY ITEM.

No one deserves access to anything.
No matter what the Human Rights Chart says, nobody is going to give me a house and food.

That's life though, you don't "deserve" anything.

morgoth wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:

NO ONE DESERVES ACCESS TO FANCY DICE. THEY ARE A LUXURY ITEM.

No one deserves access to anything.
No matter what the Human Rights Chart says, nobody is going to give me a house and food.

That's life though, you don't "deserve" anything.

Oh please. People are talking about buying luxury dice, don't go blowing things all out of proportion.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:

NO ONE DESERVES ACCESS TO FANCY DICE. THEY ARE A LUXURY ITEM.

No one deserves access to anything.
No matter what the Human Rights Chart says, nobody is going to give me a house and food.

That's life though, you don't "deserve" anything.

Oh please. People are talking about buying luxury dice, don't go blowing things all out of proportion.

There's no proportion, this is about the very meaning of this whole discussion.

The very idea of being able to "deserve" something is a flawed premise.

So why not cut to the chase, conclude that "deserving" makes no sense whatsoever and move to the next point / topic: do you hate scalpers or not ?, vote yes/no, 73% said yes, 12% voted Obi-Wan Kenobi, poll closed, success.

As an observer with no horse in this race, it seems like you consider 'discussion' to be you barking your opinion and then shutting other people down when they offer an alternate view, because you is right and they is wrong.

It's luxury dice sold for playing toy soldiers. Retain some perspective.

 insaniak wrote:

morgoth wrote:
The whole premise is ridiculous.

Everybody in the world has access to credit cards or the equivalent (bank account + paypal or any number of alternatives), at least everybody who can afford GW stuff.

And every last one of these can order stuff online.

So where's your hypothetical customer now ?

Does the GW website accept Paypal these days?.

I am not sure if you were answered, but GW does take PayPal.

 Peregrine wrote:


Congratulations, you're no longer a scalper. The whole point of scalping is that you're selling the product at a significantly increased cost. If you're selling for MSRP and using your sales volume to negotiate a deal with the manufacturer you're no longer a scalper, you're just a retail store with high sales volume.

The problem with this "added value" is that the only reason you can't buy the tickets from the box office is that a scalper bought them all to re-sell them at an inflated price. If, say, we impose a law that tickets can not be sold for more than their printed value the scalper is driven out entirely and your tickets are now available to buy directly. Unlike the retail example, the only person gaining any value from the scalper's existence is the scalper.

The difference here is that the retail chain adds value for some customers at every step. You personally may not benefit from the gaming space at a GW store, but a lot of people do. So, paying for that value may not be desirable for you, but that doesn't mean it's unfair. It just means that you might not wish to buy the product, much like I might not wish to buy the 7th edition rulebook because I don't pay for terrible rules. The scalper, on the other hand, is adding no value at all, to anyone. All they do is increase the price the customer pays for the same product.

So, it sounds like my hypothetical example is a sticking point. Let's ignore that for the moment. Would you have a contention with my saying that reselling at a higher value is not a moral issue, but that reselling at a substantially higher value can be unethical, as the profit made by the scalper is in vast excess relative to their work load?

If the criteria for a reseller making a profit is that some of their customers benefit from their service, than I will argue that a scalper's services in regards to event ticket sales could indeed benefit some people. You've presupposed that scalpers buy up product / tickets at a rate that would prevent exactly all parties that would be interested in buying a product / ticket from doing so. But what if "regular" buyers would purchase all available stock before someone had a chance to purchase tickets through "typical" means?

For example. Maybe I want to buy tickets to a musical performance. You know, something the cool kids listen to. Tickets go on sale in the morning, but I work until 5. So I try to purchase tickets at the box office, but they're sold out... hypothetically to legitimate customers. This seems like a reasonable hypothetical. If people will pay more than MSRP to a scalper, and all seats are filled in a venue regardless of price, it would be very reasonable to assume those same tickets would sell out to legitimate customers. Without a scalper, I wouldn't have a way to buy the tickets. To be honest, I wouldn't buy scalped tickets anyhow. But there is a legitimate situation in which someone that doesn't like online shopping [me] would be unable to acquire the desired item by any other legitimate means. I would genuinely rather pay an uptick to a scalper / reseller that I can meet in person, than to buy from a faceless online store. It's the reason I still pay "extra" to GW in London, rather than buy online at a 20% discount.

I probably wouldn't pay 200% of MSRP, but the point stands, I think. I honestly can't think of anything I'd pay more than a 20% uptick on, and I'd have to want it mighty bad.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Would you have a contention with my saying that reselling at a higher value is not a moral issue, but that reselling at a substantially higher value can be unethical, as the profit made by the scalper is in vast excess relative to their work load?

Yes, because "moral" and "ethical" are the same thing*. And the issue is not making a high profit margin relative to the work required, it's making a high profit for no added value by exploiting the scarcity of the product.

*Not technically, but the difference between them isn't relevant here.

But what if "regular" buyers would purchase all available stock before someone had a chance to purchase tickets through "typical" means?

This doesn't happen. Scalpers camp the sales website, buy huge batches of the product at once, etc. If "regular" buyers are buying the entire inventory then it's only because no scalpers were interested. But it's a bad hypothetical situation anyway. The people willing to pay significantly above MSRP and make the scalper's business profitable are the ones who are most interested in buying the thing. And the most dedicated buyers are the ones who are going to make sure they are around to buy immediately. The people who say "meh, not worth camping the sales website for this" are the most casual buyers who are unlikely to pay a significant markup.

But there is a legitimate situation in which someone that doesn't like online shopping [me] would be unable to acquire the desired item by any other legitimate means.

So how exactly do you buy from a scalper if you, for some bizarre reason, won't do online shopping? This isn't 1970 anymore, scalpers are selling their tickets/dice/whatever online after using bots to buy out the entire inventory within seconds of it going on sale. The guy standing at the door offering a ticket for some extreme price is much more likely to be someone who got a free ticket from a friend or whatever. Or, at best, they are a small-scale scalper whose activities are a negligible effect on the overall market.

I would genuinely rather pay an uptick to a scalper / reseller that I can meet in person, than to buy from a faceless online store.

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. Perhaps the scalper adds some amount of value to you, but it's 2016 and online shopping is the standard. People who won't buy online (and have enough money to be relevant here) are a tiny, tiny minority. The added value to the customer base as a whole is still within a rounding error of zero.

Seeing this discussion, I went and looked at some of the dice in question. Look at these dice:



Let the scalpers buy these and let them keep them. They're not even close to uniform, and that's a GW promo image.

@ Peregrine:

Well, in that case, you're shifting the goal posts. We went from having some form of service to some degree of customers, to GBT's an old fart that likes to deal in person... how laughably droll.

High profit based on scarcity of product is what drives the value of gold, diamonds, and any manner of luxury items. I can walk out in my yard and pick up a rock. I can't walk out in my yard and pick up a diamond. A diamond is more valuable.

I can find something online, and then meet in person. I've used Kijiji [basically online classified ads] to find things I want, but I still hand cash over to a live person to complete the transaction. I get to see the product before I buy. Valuable to me.

You claim that scalpers use bots to buy up all the available product... but if they didn't, those tickets would still sell out, right? So I'd still be out of luck if I was unable to "camp" the website. If I were willing to buy something online, but was unavailable at the time the tickets were released, and the scalper was there and charged a 30% uptick on a $50 ticket, that would be a $15 service charge to gain access to a ticket I wouldn't otherwise have. That's added value, for a service rendered. Again, the original requirement was that some value be added to at least some customers.

You baselessly claim that online shopping is "the standard" in order to minimise my counter, but that's not the case. Not in my age bracket, anyway. [35 years old, if someone wants to steal my identity...] Just because you personally prefer online shopping over brick and mortar, doesn't mean it's the "standard."

And now we're splitting hairs between "big time" scalpers being a problem, while "small scale" scalpers are having a negligible impact?

The difference between Moral and Ethical is at play here. Morality is right and wrong in stark terms. Ethics deals with, among other things, competing and equally valid morality values. You've presented nothing to defend.


Thank you for your response. Your argument has failed to define how moral and ethical are "the same thing" as far as this is concerned. I've laid out the basis for my assertion, and have explained at length the reason for it's importance. Without backup to your claim, it is baseless, and without value.

You set one, single, defensible position in your requirement for at least some service being supplied to some customers. That was met, and now it's got to be a significant service to most customers. Moving the goalposts is a form of passive aggressive communication, and by employing it, your argument is weakened. It may save face, but not your position.

Whether or not scalpers buy out all tickets, or regular customers buy out all tickets is irrelevant. If all tickets are sold by the time I want one, I can only buy a resold ticket. This is a service, and basic economics says I will pay a premium for that. Your assertion that only the most dedicated buyers will buy from scalpers is also demonstrably false. I have a situation where if a ticket to a movie theatre was available, I would have purchased it. I want to take my family to see Rogue One tomorrow afternoon, but the tickets are all sold out at Landmark Cinemas, in London Ontario. I have this week off for Vacation, and thought about it on Boxing Day. I checked, and no tickets are available. I'd really like to go, because I have the time off this week, and it would be something fun to do with the family. If someone were reselling a set of 4 tickets all grouped together near the centre of the theatre

[and if you are, please message me!]

I'd happily pay a premium to gain access to that luxury item. On the basis that I don't think anyone's actively scalping those tickets, it would seem that tickets to events will still sell out without scalper intervention. And my desire to see that movie tomorrow afternoon is quite great, but not enough to take front row seats. Better to wait and get a better view of the screen. So again, my assertion stands on the basis of direct observation, while your attempt at handwaiving falters. I disprove your assertion about value added being "within a rounding error of zero."


If you're willing to set a defensible position in which we go back and forth, I'm game. But as of right now, you've established no position to hold. You've attacked my position, and been rebuffed on all counts. I can see no reason to reword my defenses over and over again without anything of substance to compete with. If you can't establish and defend a position with anything but empty claims, there's not much left for me to say. I don't care to waste time on a passive aggressive round-about.

John Prins wrote:
Seeing this discussion, I went and looked at some of the dice in question. Look at these dice:



Let the scalpers buy these and let them keep them. They're not even close to uniform, and that's a GW promo image.

Agreed. I don't know how those got approval. On that note...

I had thought about playing GSC so pre-ordered enough of the GSC dice to have 40 total.
When I got them, I realized both that I wasn't going to GSC and that the dice were too dark.
I traded them off.

On the other hand, I picked up the skaven dice---my Orcs are painted in green and yellow---because they looked so good in person at the FGS.

 greatbigtree wrote:
High profit based on scarcity of product is what drives the value of gold, diamonds, and any manner of luxury items. I can walk out in my yard and pick up a rock. I can't walk out in my yard and pick up a diamond. A diamond is more valuable.

What's your point? The issue here is not that scarce things sell for more than common things, it's the scalper increasing prices over what the original seller of the product sets while adding no value. The exploit is the fact that with most products if someone tries to resell at significantly above MSRP everyone just buys from the original seller and the scalper is stuck with inventory they can't sell. But if the scalper manages to get control over supply of a scarce product they can spike the price and the customer can't do anything about it.

I can find something online, and then meet in person. I've used Kijiji [basically online classified ads] to find things I want, but I still hand cash over to a live person to complete the transaction. I get to see the product before I buy. Valuable to me.

Sorry, but this makes no sense at all. You'd honestly rather buy from a classified ad from some random stranger and put the extra effort into arranging an in-person meeting when you could just go to the original manufacturer's website and click "buy" for less money? Maybe you're actually weird like this, but you are a tiny minority.

You claim that scalpers use bots to buy up all the available product... but if they didn't, those tickets would still sell out, right?

Not necessarily. And they might not sell out so quickly that normal customers are unable to get to them. Remember, the people willing to pay extra for those tickets are the dedicated fans who are going to be the most determined to buy immediately. They'll take a quick break from work, ask a friend to buy for them, etc, and make sure they get their tickets instead of hoping they'll be available later (from whatever source). The fact that a show sells out a week after tickets go on sale doesn't matter because that's more than enough time for anyone who really wants them to get tickets.

You baselessly claim that online shopping is "the standard" in order to minimise my counter, but that's not the case. Not in my age bracket, anyway. [35 years old, if someone wants to steal my identity...] Just because you personally prefer online shopping over brick and mortar, doesn't mean it's the "standard."

I'm in the same age bracket, and every single person I know regularly buys stuff online. I don't know a single person with your weird rejection of online shopping. And I certainly don't know anyone who would be happy paying extra for something because they're afraid to buy it online from a mainstream seller.

And now we're splitting hairs between "big time" scalpers being a problem, while "small scale" scalpers are having a negligible impact?

It's not splitting hairs, it's simple fact. A person who tries to scalp one ticket out of a concert with 20,000 tickets is having a negligible effect on the market because they control a tiny percentage of the total sales. The vast majority of the customers have no interaction with the scalpers and buy normally at MSRP from the original seller. The scalpers that are having a meaningful impact on the market are the ones who have bots that buy up 19,500 of the 20,000 tickets within seconds of them going on sale and immediately put them up for sale at an inflated price. Both of them are wrong, but only one of them is worth discussing.

The difference between Moral and Ethical is at play here. Morality is right and wrong in stark terms. Ethics deals with, among other things, competing and equally valid morality values. You've presented nothing to defend.

No, this is completely wrong. Morality does NOT inherently deal with black and white rules, there are plenty of moral systems that allow for gray areas between the extremes.

You set one, single, defensible position in your requirement for at least some service being supplied to some customers. That was met, and now it's got to be a significant service to most customers. Moving the goalposts is a form of passive aggressive communication, and by employing it, your argument is weakened. It may save face, but not your position.

It's not moving the goalposts, it's using common sense instead of insisting on the absolute strictest possible literal interpretation of "no value". Adding value for one customer out of millions who has exceptionally weird buying habits and beliefs adds so little value to the customer base as a whole that it isn't worth considering. Take away that "value" entirely and the vast majority of the customers won't even notice. With something like gaming space, on the other hand, there is added value for a significant percentage of the market even if every single customer doesn't benefit.

I disprove your assertion about value added being "within a rounding error of zero."

You do no such thing. A person who wants to see a movie at a specific time and at a specific theater so badly that they'll pay a scalper an inflated price for a random afternoon showing weeks after the movie was released (hardly a scarce commodity that any scalper would ever bother with) but can't bother to buy the tickets in the long window before they sell out is a tiny minority. Compared to the vast number of people who will see Rogue One your case is so rare that it isn't worth considering. You're doing the equivalent of setting up ridiculous trolley problems to justify your ethical position instead of dealing with typical real-world situations.

But as of right now, you've established no position to hold.

Not true at all. I've clearly stated my position: scalping is wrong because it increases prices and hurts the customers while adding no value. Scalpers are selfish parasites on the community, and if they all ceased to exist nothing of value would be lost.

John Prins wrote:
Seeing this discussion, I went and looked at some of the dice in question. Look at these dice:

Let the scalpers buy these and let them keep them. They're not even close to uniform, and that's a GW promo image.

Yukk.

I guess the buyers deserve to be scalped.

 Peregrine wrote:
And the most dedicated buyers are the ones who are going to make sure they are around to buy immediately..

Which doesn't always help. I've had the experience of being camped on the website when the tickets for an event went live, and still missing out... and in at least one of those cases, I wound up getting tickets elsewhere later.

I've also had events that I really would have liked to go to, but that I didn't know about until some time after tickets had already been on sale.

 Peregrine wrote:

I'm in the same age bracket, and every single person I know regularly buys stuff online.

As am I... and most of the people I know don't like online shopping.

Isn't anecdotal evidence grand?

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And the most dedicated buyers are the ones who are going to make sure they are around to buy immediately..

Which doesn't always help. I've had the experience of being camped on the website when the tickets for an event went live, and still missing out... and in at least one of those cases, I wound up getting tickets elsewhere later.

And if it wasn't for bot scalpers you probably would have got the tickets during your camping

 Peregrine wrote:

I'm in the same age bracket, and every single person I know regularly buys stuff online.

As am I... and most of the people I know don't like online shopping.

Isn't anecdotal evidence grand?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
And if it wasn't for bot scalpers you probably would have got the tickets during your camping

Sure. Doesn't change the point though, which was simply that being a 'dedicated' customer doesn't automatically mean that you'll have bought something the moment it went on sale.

Do you remember about this mini?

This 1st "I have a BIG one" version of Emperor's Champion was at the beginning ONLY available in the BIG Black Templar box in French, Belgian & Luxembourgian GW.
Too bad for the BT play who already bought the game box + few kits or those wanted to buy quietly as their painting or pocket money rate...
Actually in this expensive box these BT were just normal SM kit with transfer sheet instead today shoulder pad kit.
So several non-BT player bought the big expensive box (still less expensive than buying each squad and vehicule separatly) rather than standard army box in rder to get back some money buy selling the Emperor's Champion.

On a forum a guy complained that someone ask 1/3 of the army box price for the single champion.
A forum member cheered him up by saying he will sold it only for 1/4 of price of the complete box.
In a convention somebody proposed a friend one for $50
He replied something like: "I have a better deal, you keep your mini, I keep my $50"
However after hard negotiation few fanboy were proud of their BT bought only $30.
Did GW finally hear of this? don't know but in the French White Dwarf one day their was a special offer with a ticket to cut for having the Champion for 10€ (less than 11$ ) only!

Don't imagine how the $30-50 buyer were upset against those who sold them the overprized Champion, especially if the transaction was done after WD publication but before they buy the magazine the "insider trading" way !
Today this 1st version (8039P) Champion can be found around $25 to $40 depending if it is still in the blister or not.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-40k-Black-Templars-Emperors-Champion-LIMITED-EDITION-METAL-MINIATURE-/332079496048?hash=item4d517afb70:g:CS8AAOSwcLxYJ9vB
http://www.ebay.com/itm/40K-Rare-oop-vintage-Metal-Black-Templar-Space-Marine-Emperors-Champion-NIB-3-/262593958087?hash=item3d23d1d0c7:g:w5sAAOSwU-pXvtpX

and some people are also trying to do more than "dice scalping" by trying sell for $30 the 2nd (8039S) version
http://www.ebay.com/itm/40K-Rare-oop-Vintage-Metal-Black-Templar-Space-Marine-Emperors-Champion-NIB-1-/261705005911?hash=item3ceed57b57:g:hc4AAOSwj0NUkgRk
while it is still avaailable around $12 on GW site!!!
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-EU/Black-Templars-The-Emperor-s-Champion


I also heard some rumors about Magic the Gathering when WoC was still independant.
Instead of giving their employees some bonus for X-Mas or salary increase WoC was said to print again, , some new copy of the most expensive cards.
As they were printed using original mint, they were absolutly identical to those mox, black lotus or whatever sold for $100 on E-bay.
This cost nearly nothing to WoC (just paper and ink) and the employee would be supposed to sell them privatly.

I also heard from a model shop kepper some rumors about all this made in China collectible (like Heroclix or D&D mini) that include ultra-rare or unique stuff:
When officially the factory was supposed to make let say 1000 minis per day during 1 month, some employees let the machine produce a little more during few extra hours.
Officially, the extra minis were register as defect and destroy (to explain the extra use of material)
Officiously, they would have fallen in poor employees pockets instead of the destruction bin.
As they were produced over the authorized licence member they would be counterfeit BUT as the produced on the same machine by the same worker with the same material they were identical to the real one.
In fact it was more fencing than counterfeit.
To which extent the hierarchy (or even the client) just "close the eyes" (and thus hiding extra money bonus to the chinese governement) don't know.
But be sure that when "only" 1000 limited edition mini are produced at the end of the World, actually 10 extra more with (or without) visible (or not) defect should be around.

For a concert, you can easily notice a ticket was sold 2 times by seeing somebody else sitting at your place.
But when you want to by limited edition #958 mini, do really check hard enought?
Anyway if somebody else also have it how do you know that it's not his mini that was reported as defect one and taken back from the bin?

Just think about the $125 Space Hulk
First it is still available in US ( checked on January 4th 2017)
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Space-Hulk-2016
but not any-more in UK
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Space-Hulk-2016
anyway some people are trying already to sell it $195.00
http://www.ebay.com/itm/GW-Boardgame-Space-Hulk-3rd-Edition-2nd-Printing-Box-NM-/361867742595?hash=item5440ff8d83:g:YF4AAOSw241YaIh6
Of course no GW (or subcontractor) employee was likely to "steal" a full box from the bin.
But do you really think that, for example 100% of the Terminator sprue went out of the mould with zero defect?
Would have been a waste to incinerate all these sprue just because one lighting claw was missing.
Obviously with most a the defective sprue, at least 2 full Terminators could be made and each one could be sold $10-$15 on E-bay.
So just selling the 12 Terminators could already bring more money than the full box.
A Tyrannide player could therefore getting his genestealer squad for free but buying the box and selling the Terminator one by one to several people!
So more Space Hulk Terminator are available in the World than the ones actually sold in the box.

Actually some Dice Scalpers are sometimes "useful" while still making even more money by buying and splitting box content when manufacturer are reluctant to sell spare part for a product you break or lose an element.
However this not only spoil the marketing argument for the manufacturer "hey buy this premium box to get limited edition mini!" but also make him loosing money.
Why?

Well most of consumers will not starve or sell their blood or organs to get a hobby product.
They have a monthly budget.
So when the Dice Scalper buy at once two $50 limited edition box to sell it twice the price, manufacter get $100 and he will get $100. Shouldn't Manufacturer & DS be happy to work together?
NO because the guys with a $100 budget, will spend each all their budget to get 2 boxes leaving them no money to by anything else.
If they were able to get the box at $50, they would have bought each in addition $25 extension, $15 special mini, $10 dice set finally bringing $200 to the manufacturer.

On the over hand the DS splitter buy one box and split content in 4 set of $30, he get $30x4-$100=$20
4 happy consumers get for $30
- rule only
- army of good
- army of evil
- scenery/board
If they are not fanboy, this leave them each $70 pocket money nice for them, bad for the manufacturer who must sell them "something else" to get to $300 difference he expected by selling the 4 boxes with 75% useless stuff.
If the box are limited edition, and no box remain, this may not be a problem except if they are not fanboy and will rather use the $70 to by some Valentine gift for girl/boyfriend instead of using it in the hobby.

So the only one who ALWAYS loose with DS is the manufacturer: DS is a kind of parasite for him in any case.
The money manufacturer 1st get for DS is always lost sometimes while consumer sometimes win.
Even if DS made a mistake (by buying a product that is finally revealed to be unpopular or will have another reprint/edition), when DS lower his price (to reduce his lost) or split the box, it spoils the manufacturer market.
Just imagine "hey look my new Xquest"- "sorry for the money, I prefer buying the original Xquest with plenty of 2nd hand extension sold on E-bay.



Anyway minis, pins, cards,... are NOT stamps or money produced by (or for) a government. The $100 ultra-rare of today maybe made again tomorrow.
Note also that ultra detailed mini quality decreased as the mold is used so #958 may be not a nice as #058...

When things become rare over time and thus sell for more, that's not scalping. Scalping is when you look up white dwarf, see there's some new shiny available, go to the GW website and it's sold out, go to ebay and there's plenty of sellers with multiple of said item in their inventory and selling it at twice the retail price.

 Kriegspiel wrote:
and some people are also trying to do more than "dice scalping" by trying sell for $30 the 2nd (8039S) version
http://www.ebay.com/itm/40K-Rare-oop-Vintage-Metal-Black-Templar-Space-Marine-Emperors-Champion-NIB-1-/261705005911?hash=item3ceed57b57:g:hc4AAOSwj0NUkgRk
while it is still avaailable around $12 on GW site!!!
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-EU/Black-Templars-The-Emperor-s-Champion

I don't have a problem with that. The one on ebay is metal, some people like metal and are willing to pay more for it and since GW stopped making metal models, they're rare and worth more. The person COULD have bought that item from GW themselves (I believe it was just general release?).

Scalping isn't selling an OOP model for more than you paid for it, it's knowing a model is limited or going OOP and so buying a bunch of them with the sole intention of reselling them for an inflated price when the official store sells.