Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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...