New marketplace rules for 2011?

I don't see a problem with someone saying they are thinking about it, I guess. I just think taking pledges is a bit premature.

I'm not a huge fan of community dumps, anyway. If you want to release something that you have no copyright to, release it. Otherwise, it's not much different from piracy. Someone's obtained the game through often a dubious method and seeks to gain money (even if only getting back what they paid for it).

It was one thing to do it for Sonic, that was something special. Nowadays, though, people think that any old crap is worthy of other people's money just because it happened once before. It's a bit like people seeing Stadium Events sell for big money and thinking their NES games must be worth a fortune, lol.

 

That much is fairly obvious.

It's not "gaining" money if you're losing money in the process. The comparison to piracy would make sense if the person who buys and dumps it only sells copies on ebay for a premium. If it's freely distributed after the sale then any comparisons to black-market piracy sales are specious.

I have no idea what relevance this has.

I do think your rules are generally fair, though. Slightly modified:

* All auctions require proof photo at start
* All auctions require a minimum increment (e.g. $20)
* Bidders must have 50 posts, or suitable reputation elsewhere
* State start price
* State end date and time - ensure you can be on at that time
* Seller closes auction by posting at the end time (or a moderator does it for them if late)
* Bids must be for the base price - shipping is on top of the high bid. Do not offer a shipped bid
* Fundraisers must be cleared with the seller before being suggested
* Private offers are not allowed (?)

I think the above pretty much covers it. The last point should probably be up for debate, though. My feeling is that if auctions start to become "PM me your best price" then that invalidates the whole notion of an auction.

 

Sounds good. :thumbsup: I'm in favour of not banning private offers. We've required set prices on sales listings for ages. Auctions could be used as a loophole around that if you allow offers.

Should the minimum increment be fixed as a rule, or up to the seller? And should it be one set increment, or tiered (e.g. $20 incremements to $200, $25 increments to $500, $50 increments over $1000)?

 

This has always puzzled me. Just because the price rises why should the incremental bid have increase at certain points? Someone who may happily keep on bidding in steps of £/$20 may begin to balk at the prospect of having to bid in excess of 100 pounds or dollars once an item reaches a set target to better just one bid. The larger the incremental bids become the more you limit the target audience, no?

Just my thoughts anyway.

 

Because that's how real auctions are done.

Once it gets into big money, you separate the serious bidders from those who can't afford it. If you can't afford to bid $100 more instead of $20 more when it gets to $1,000, DON'T BID!

In an auction house, it speeds things up. The serious bidders would always bid higher anyway, what's the point in piddly little amounts? In a forum situation, it stops an auction thread running to hundreds of posts.

 

Thank you for clarifying. Stupidly I thought that an auction should be open to everyone regardless of budget constraints, now I see it's just for elitist collectors who can afford to throw any old amount at an item and stop the 'little guy' from maybe picking up the one gem he may want just as a one off.

My mistake.

 

Don't worry Consumed the little guy wins too. It just costs us relatively more.

I haven't worked in like 5 years now. I've damaged my brain and can't get back into work. Even with food qualifications I was rejected by Subway and McDonalds and they accept many forms of idiot. Part of the problem stems from they assume as soon as a technical job appears I'd leave them, which may be the case, but I'd still work my arse off for a pittance and honour my contract. The problem is now I'm out of touch and struggling to learn the technical jobs won't take me either and my faculties are going downhill.

My budget is smaller than small lol. Yet I still won the Geist auction @ $700 with an empty wallet. It may be easier for somone with a bigger budget to bump up the cost, but you can win too, it just depends how far you are willing to go.

I personally went as far as to borrow the money off a friend then paid them back by seliing my PS3 slim + TV + Samsung CLX3175FW.

The gems are only out of reach if you do not make a serious attempt to grab them.

 

Not at all. The levels are fair. Take my example. If you can't afford an extra $5 when it gets over $200, you really shouldn't be bidding for the sake of your finances. We're talking:

$200 > $225 > $250 > $275 > $300 etc.

as opposed to

$200 > $220 > $240 > $260 > $280 > $300.

As you can see there, that's one less step - that's all. If you really think you stand a chance bidding $220 and someone won't outbid you, but you can't afford $225, then I'm sorry but yes, the auction has gone into the realms of those who have larger wallets.

By the time it gets to the big difference, e.g. in my example $100 increments for bids over $1,000, surely it has already gone into the realms of the wealthy, anyway?

I'd suggest popping down to Bonhams, Christie's or Sotheby's and seeing how an auction works in the real world. Seriously, it's a different world... and an interesting thing to experience.

 

You're not at all patronizing or condescending are you?

Regardless, we're not talking high art here though are we, or palatial houses, fine wines or collectors cars. It's a different clientele entirely. The Geist Force auction that LeGIt won was perfectly fair in that irrespective of what the previous bid was the next was a minimum $30 more. If an item should go from $100 to $1000 dollars in the space of a few bids all well and good, but to then start dictating that all subsequent participants must then bid a minimum 3 figure sum is just taking things a little too far. So what if your bid gets bested, at least you've been able to have a go. And isn't that what these boards are about, participation?

And as for a thread running to hundreds of posts, oh the humanity...

 

Comsumed I'm sure he means to observe and not bid Insert random shitty auction house and you got the same idea. FYI East Lancs here

 

Not at all. That's why I said "seriously" - in case you took it the wrong way. Congratulations on doing so anyway.

Again, seriously, go to a real auction house. See what it's like. And no, it isn't all art and fine wine. Bonhams, for example, have a very interesting Entertainment Memorabila sale, in which you can pick up a film poster for £50, or a Doctor Who prop for thousands. It really is very interesting to watch an auction, and it saddens me that you would rather have some stereotypical image of toffs spending stupid amounts on items than go and see for yourself what it's like.

ANY auction, regardless of whether it's on eBay, Yahoo Japan, a proper auction house or here on this board, is open to all (ignoring locale exceptions). However, you're very ignorant if you really think it's open to all REGARDLESS of budget constraints. OF COURSE your budget comes into it! Why do you stop bidding on eBay? Because you can't afford to continue!

You really aren't getting my point. The increments are NEGLIGIBLE up until a certain point. You're moaning that the bid will go up by $100 once it gets to $1,000. Well, look at it like this. If nobody wants to bid over $1,000, it's yours for $1,000. If they do, then they're likely to bid $1,100 regardless. If your limit is $1,000, you would have been outbid whether they bid $1,020 or $1,100. Conversely, if you sell something, wouldn't you rather it sell for $1,100 that $1,020?

Don't forget that this isn't just some forum for casual video games chat, we are primarily programmers and collectors of obscure items. Yes, we're used to having to pay through the nose to get something we want. Sorry if it offends you, but we will more than likely be thinking in hundred dollar increments above $1,000 anyway. $20 increases are pretty pointless ON THIS FORUM at that level, because those with the money WILL outbid you. Watch a high value item live on eBay to see what video game collectors are like. Jumping up in hundreds after a certain point is really just saving time!

Threads that run hundreds of posts take up more space. They get crawled by bots, read by people, and use more bandwidth. All of this costs money. Many forums prune old threads to save money. Think yourself lucky ASSEMbler doesn't do this - the ENTIRE forum from the past 6 years or so is still viewable.

Absolutely, all are welcome, and discussion is welcome. Including this one. Hey, you'll be up to 50 posts and able to post in the marketplace yourself by the end of the weekend the way you're going ;-)

 

I'd say bigger increments.

 

You should definately take into account the most renowned sellers views if you ask me... Buyatari / DreamTR / ianoid / kiff etc...

 

Those sellers use set prices and if there is an auction it is on eBay... less relevant for the purposes of this thread unless you are suggesting keep the auctions offsite?

 

True, but Kiff was one of the first to voice his opinion on this thread, and Buyatari seemed to have an opinion on one of the recent auctions! ;-)

Yeah, probably would need to be slightly larger increments than that. Incidentally, should we keep it locked to the increments? I mean, rather than say minimum $5 increment for example, say fixed $5 increments. Otherwise, you could have a high bid of $50, and someone bids $56.01, which is pretty pointless - this isn't eBay!

Also, should it be that you have to only bid the next increment? With one of the recent auctions, someone took the current bid and raised it $180! Fair enough, that may have been what he was prepared to pay, but it seems a bit unsporting.... as Consumed would say, not very fair on those without bulging wallets!

 

Auctions aren't a sport, whoever is prepared to pay the most wins. People should be able to throw out a high bid to begin with.

 

Whoah, whoah, whoah. You're twisting what I said. As has been alluded to more than once in this thread, auctions aren't sport and I fully agree with that sentiment and in that respect fairness doesn't come in to it. Raise the price by $50 or $500, its academic. My thought was that stating once a certain threshold had been reached that it was then and only then unfair to expect the next bidder to have to make a counter bid that was 3 figures higher, irrespective of who you are or what your financial standing is.

Something that does leave a sour taste in the mouth though is another quote from retro:

No, no I wouldn't. But that's just me. To say a $20 increment is derisory is absolutely contemptuous and arrogant beyond belief.

 

That was myself. I am really sorry, I didn't mean it to seem like that.