I don't sell resells.
Don't deal with shady members and/or request some form of deposit?
I agree, but:
>Rents for $5/week
>Routinely lowballs (see Snake's main)
The ironing here burned me.
Not saying that, and I'm also not saying you should charge less. You said the prices were fair. I'm simply saying they aren't.
So then why $5? Why not $7.50, or $10?
By Prav's way though might as well use PSNow atleast then you don't waste a few hours downloading it and it costs the same amount. Its funny how people are "disgusted" about how Sony charges but when it is some person people think its peachy keen. I think what Rai was getting at though is he is basically making money off of it after 4 or 5 people timeshare it. Hell he charged 3 dollars to time share an 8 dollar game and had a list of like 10 people so yea he is making it a buissness.. which I am assuming where Rai has the qualm.
It comes down to if people will pay the money and apparently since people are defending him they will. I have nothing against Prav other than how he does buissness with GS and stipulations he puts on people for the Library but then again I try to avoid getting games from him.
You missed a big point and your math on all that is seemingly rounding things up or down to fit an example. PS NOW is only ps3 games. Lower cost resells should be cheaper timeshares, of course. Nobody has a problem with $2.50/wk ps3 shares that cost $20, but apparently do with $5 PS4 resell timeshares that are nearly double the price of that PS3 game at $35. PS NOW also does not let you rent games for $5/week, it's $7/week for PS3 games per week. I charge $5 for PS4 games per week and not more because I feel $5 is a fair price for a new title. It would take 7 weeks of rental to make my money back, nearly two months of me not touching the game that I put money down on. And $3 to timeshare an $8 game? what, walking dead? that share cost me $15 on top of the $15 I spent on season two and I'm offering both seasons rented for $3/week total (matching market prices in that regard)
Yes, you can profit off of timesharing, but why should that be an issue to anyone? Again, it allows people to play the game who don't want to pay full price for a share, and if they're willing to pay the price, then there is a market for it. Call it "business mode" if you want, there's a big difference between profiting through timesharing and profiting through very clearly ripping people off who don't know about this topic. If Raiborg wants to timeshare his games out for pennies as a charitable thing to the community then he's entitled to be able to do that, but to judge someone for not feeling the need to give away things for cheap is completely wrong. I still don't think offering a game for cheaper than any other rental service is grimey whatsoever. people know exactly what they're paying for.
Also FYI I lowball because I have had success in the past. Also, you have no idea what I offer to who, or how many times I've lowballed. I may have lowballed right in the topic two times in my time here. To say I do it on the regular shows that you're making assumptions (assumptions that are wrong, I *very* rarely buy shares outside of initally joining groups). Seeing people who are reposting their shit multiple times might imply that nobody has made them an offer they want yet, but it could also mean nobody has made them an offer period. Twice now I've lowballed and won, so why wouldn't I lowball? It can only go up from there.. that's how negotiating works bruh. I lowball on shit I really don't need anyway, so if I get turned down then it's no biggie.
It's a $10 difference between phantom and resell on PS4 games, but that is a 40% increase in price on a $25 share. Some people don't have the money to cover that extra 40%, or think that it's worth it to pay that extra. It seems like less than it actually is. On top of this, PS4 shares depreciate fairly quickly, so that gap becomes smaller when you're trying to resell. Locked slots should be abandoned IMO, but they won't be. You have to just accept that that's the way things are, and even if they don't seem fair, as long as someone is willing to take that phantom spot, then complaining that it's unfair is an invalid argument (although not an invalid opinion). some people find advantage in paying less now knowing they won't complete a game for a while, rather than paying an extra $10 now to make back their money a few months down the line.
You guys seem to be ignoring a big thing with timesharing, that you have a sunk cost in something that you're not able to play. Try to tell me Raiborg doesn't try to lower his costs through timeshares, I won't believe you. Nobody would buy dragon age on day one and rent it out on day one unless they wanted to make the share cheaper to them in the future. Should he cut himself off from renting it out anymore if he waits 30 weeks or whatever to make his money back on it? No, he would keep renting it out, and would then begin to profit. The argument that people shouldn't profit isn't really a good one when it comes to timesharing because that implies you should just cut yourself off at a certain point even if the market is still there. People have every right to offer timeshares for Raiborgs prices, but you're throwing away potential money for no real reason. Until multiple people are offering a game for timeshare (which is definitely not the case on 99% of ps4 games), then people don't have an alternate source, and have to wait for the timeshare to become available. If an additional source comes in and charges twice as much and that person on the buying end is cool with paying for the timeshare so that they don't have to wait for the initial person's timeshare to become available, then all the power to that additional source imo. Raiborg charges next to nothing for his timeshares, but that doesn't mean it's a standard set in place that everyone has to adhere to.
think in terms of a psn game like transistor. you can say sony is charging too much, but if someone wants to pay $20 for it, why would sony deny them the offering just because a few people think it's too expensive? should they not offer it at all to please the complainers and thus turn down the potential supporters? These statements are not me saying people who are charging low costs for timeshares are wrong. I'm merely defending the stance that pricing is subjective and that no standard is actually set in place.
And one again, if the market didn't want to pay timeshare prices, we would be forced to lower them. There's a reason me and ashton are able to keep our prices higher, it's because supply on timeshares of ps4 games is low and people are still willing to pay the higher prices, as it's still a cheaper way to play the game for them. Hell, supply is so low that I had to repeatedly offer $4/week to be able to rent an alien timeshare and nobody offered me one for a few weeks.
TL
R - if the market exists for somethin, and you can offer the service, take the opportunity. all this talk about "taking advantage of the community" is taking this situation to an extreme imo. it's not taking advantage of someone if they fully understand what they're paying for and are willing to pay for it. benefitting from that doesn't make you greedy, the service should benefit both parties otherwise it shouldn't be offered.
And for the love of christ, can we please do away with locked slots? They're nothing but trouble.
you guys you're all a bunch of idiots" - I love (most of) y'all. But everyone is entitled to their opinion, don't be the jerk that disagrees with an opinion and takes it personally and holds a grudge, or mocks. Snakeys gonna snake, is what I always say. If the dude stopped buying phantoms for every single game that came out and playin em for 5 minutes a pop before tossin em, he'd have more money and wouldn't be complaining. Shit, timeshares would even benefit him in that regard, even at $5/week. If I was him I'd be petitioning for more demos on the playstation store.
