Marketplace Reform

Id say (even though people hate subforums, myself included), have a seperate Ebay / Auctions forum. Would allow some more discussion and such, and thats what this place is about

 

So what happens if the seller doesn't have time to test/compare the prototype?

 

Did you read the rest of the thread?

Once again if the seller hasnt got time or cant be bothered then he sells the item as the only thing he is able to claim. Review build and price it acordingly. If someone buys and its more then that they arent disapointed and if someone buys and it is no more then a review build then they arent dissapointed. If the seller wants top dolar for his item then its only fair that the buyers know what they are paying for and that the seller does the work to show the differences.

 

well imho good decision, if u sell things u should now what they are, so #4 is reasonable and helps to prevent misunderstandings

 

Yes, I did read the thread, and I'd appreciate less ad hominem. But I think your terminology is... odd. Preview/Review is a very narrow classification and only applies to prototypes sent to magazines. Prototypes from other sources won't be marked that way and marking them as such will only bring more trouble. Or am I missing something here?

Anyway, I'm for buyer beware. It should be on the buyers to acknowledge the risks and potential payoff of such purchases. IMO sellers should only be burdened with providing proof of ownership. Any extra information (differences from the final, etc.) is a bonus.

 

That's the biggest problem that people do not seem to understand. "Beta" is not always different. If sent to a magazine, and it's a CDR, it's still a beta, and in very rare cases, an "Alpha", but that's a key interpretation that a lot of people fail to recognize. Some say Review, some say Preview, some don't say anything at all, but if they are not final games, and can't be played in a retail unit, and you know where they came from (most of mine come from 2-3 sources), they are still Betas.

 

I disagree. Review versions are usually Release Candidates that have been submitted to the licensee (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft etc) for final testing and approval. On very rare occassions beta versions are submitted to magazines, but any magazine worth its salt will consider those preview only. Previews are beta, review copies are usually final. Of course, a RC may be returned to the developer to fix bugs or make small changes depending on the whim of the licensee, so there is a chance that it might change, but the changes will usually be bug fixes rather than content changes. Review copies should not really be considered betas IMHO.

There is confusion in not making a distinction between the two, preview and review.

Your best bet as a buyer is probably to avoid review copies if you want to avoid the chance of getting 'a lemon'.

 

Perhaps the marketplace terminology should be kept to a binary "preview" and "review" to avoid absolutely any confusion. "Preview" would encompass: alpha, beta, "prototype" ie differences, and Review: no differences or no verification of differences ie "white-labels".

 

I've seen Review copies with differences, though.

Considering I'm the one that worked at a magazine for 8 years, and spoke to many others at magazines for years even to this day, we ALWAYS considered non retail disks betas. Just distinctions between Review and Preview.

 

One could argue that review copies with differences become mislabeled.

 

They wouldn't be mislabeled by the magazines, only the PR companies or publishers or developers sending them off.


I especially like the Superman N64 "Review" game I have that has a completely different control scheme, completely different stages, and characters such as Bizarro.

 

Well, I just know when someone asks for an "alpha" "beta" or "proto," they obviously mean a version of a game with notable differences.

 

Not really so obvious. Some people (myself included) appreciate even the smallest of differences. Besides, some close-to-final builds may have hidden data inside the CDs/ROMs that is unused but not yet cleaned out for the final revision. And there are many more reasons for why one would want prototypes even with few to none "notable differences".

Why do so some people assume that every one else thinks the same way they do?

 

Haha, one of my review PSO discs didn't have a period at the end of a sentence.

 

If the seller doesn't have the EQUIPMENT to test betas, I can understand that. However, if the seller doesn't have the TIME to test items (and let's face it, sometimes betas are faulty and won't load - or sometimes it is obvious quite quickly that it is different from retail), then maybe they shouldn't be trying to sell them, especially a bulk lot. If they don't have the time to test, do they really have the time to list, reply to questions, package and ship the items?

A big factor in why I haven't sold some of my surplus stuff is that I don't have the time to dig it all out, sort it, test it, list it, and ship it.

I'm not saying that this will happen here with current members, but there are unscrupulous people out there....

How would you feel if you spent a fair deal of money on a beta, only to find it was no different from a retail copy? Pretty sore, I'd bet. And why isn't it different? Well, the sad fact of the matter is - the seller could have deliberately copied the retail version and made it look like a beta, perhaps by burning to 'official' media e.g. the blank PlayStation CD-Rs that several members own.

Ahh, so you managed to test one of your games!! ;-) Seriously, though... that's cool that you have such a different version and all, but at the end of the day it is still Superman 64, a game which REALLY SUCKED!! :lol:

Anyway, back to the topic.....

I think that we should impose a control that will assure buyers that they are buying a quality, genuine product. Often when someone sells one unreleased beta, we'll get screenshots. I appreciate that this would be very time consuming for sellers who have bulk lots, and probably not practical.

HOWEVER.....

I have seen instances in the past where sellers have advertised large batches of games which, if you totted up the asking prices, would probably run into thousands of dollars. I appreciate that often, the seller won't have the hardware to test these. However, considering you could get a *ahem* modified console for $100 or so (in most cases), would it be so much to ask that they invest in a test machine? They can still sell that on, too - hell, if they pick it up cheap enough, they might even make a profit! It would give sellers extra weight if they can at least guarantee the game runs (something that I know people like DreamTR do, but not everyone does).

 

If you can't test them then say it at the topof the post "untested may or may be different than released".

 

I see these changes as being quite welcome, just offering simple buyer protection (in the form of a disclaimer or more detailed information) is a good thing. Also it would be simple to see that items with photos are more likely to sell, so while this may inconvenience some sellers overall it benefits both sides of the transaction

Just my 2 cents

 

Testing is one thing. I can guarantee if my games don't work, you'll get your money back, or replacement games, but trying to figure our differences in games when we don't know the retail versions, know how to compare/contrast disks on PCs, etc, especially when the majority are less than $25, it's just not worth it, but I don't think anyone here has ever had a testing issue with anyone in particular...

 

Simply advertise the item as it is and give a detailed explanation.

If you are unable to test the game say so, it's then up to the buyer to decide to purchase or not.