gpthree: I hope high demand new releases start out at 1200. Anything that makes people think twice about the 1am mad rush on release day is a good thing to me.
I hope high demand new releases start out at 1200. Anything that makes people think twice about the 1am mad rush on release day is a good thing to me.
i wouldnt say people would think twice, but perhaps possibly place games on hold
Exactly. That too. Placing it on hold is almost the same as not being in line. :)
gpthree: Exactly. That too. Placing it on hold is almost the same as not being in line. :)
until you see a game go active just to have a user activate their request in front of you
Which is fine too. I believe the higher price point could increase supply and turn around rates, so I still think I'd get it faster than if it was only 1000. I understand why many people don't think so though.
I believe that the price cap should only be raised for CE/LE, Bundled Games with accessories, and Rare titles like MvC2 or Suikoden 2.
gpthree:I hope high demand new releases start out at 1200. Anything that makes people think twice about the 1am mad rush on release day is a good thing to me.
Why would it change things ... you can just immediately put them on hold and be first in line for whenever the points hit a level you want.
-- Mike
Catch my stuff at GearDiary,com!
Like I stated earlier, to me, thats almost as good as them not even being on the list. Yes I understand its not exactly the same thing. I know if they take it off hold they will be in front of me or anyone else. But even if it discourages a few people, thats progress, regardless of how small it is in my book.
Is this still going into affect on Thursday or has it been delayed for more feedback?
I have a question, of the ones where the computer maxs it out at 1200, how many would keep going higher if the cap was rasied even more, and where would they stop?
Well... with the point cap at 1200, 44 games would go to that limit. If the point cap were higher, a percentage of these games would spread over the higher price range... some would stay at 1200....
Some great ideas and discussions. Love the new poll and idea being sent forth by the Goozex team. But I do have an idea or suggestions, whether many may agree with me or not. I'm just not trying to start any flames and just posting some thoughts, that's all
The idea of raising the point cap to 1200 makes sense towards SOME CE/LE and of course those RARE titles. I say "some" only because not all of those CE/LE or older rare items would even go for that 1200 point increase; they would go for so much more (FFVII, being one that comes to mind).
The idea of the point system reflecting actual currency, from what I believe by many, is only to justify the value of a trade. The idea of 100 points = $5 is probably taken from the Goozex team's statistical market research of finding that the average trade-in value of a used game is $5. So, it is just an assumption by many of 100 points = $5. Because of that assumption, many have come to the conclusion that 1000 points = $50. This is by most standards a great trade in value for a used game, considering that Gamestop charges $55 for a used game that is recently released.
Now, I've seen many that mentioned that 100 pts doesn't equal $5, but I would wonder why it has been mentioned. Everyone wants to equate the points to some sort of value that is recognizable, right? I mean, what then would we equate to the 1200 point increase, maybe $100? That's just a crazy thought and just a reason why I mention most equate 100 points to $5. I'm not trying to start a war or say anything else; I'm just using this info as a basis of the understanding on how Goozex works.
I mention the points because; we then understand that Goozex is giving US (the gamer) the GREATEST DEALS EVER. Getting the actual sale value of the used game and only paying $1 for their services. I'm all for that, considering Gamestop won't give me even $30 for a $60 game used and they sell it at $55. So Goozex rocks in that manner, giving the gamer that level of control. It is why I signed up.
However, this is the point I'm getting to with the mention of the point system. Even if the point cap is raised, it still doesn't fix the updates of the current point system. This is what I mean and I'm just using one recent example that comes to mind.
Mirror's Edge for PS3/360 is both worth 800 points. If they are valued as some would think at 100 points = $5, that means its USED value is $40. Yet, since it is believed we are using Gamestop as are used game market analysis, they are going for $26.99, roughly equivalent to 550 points.
The supply and demand totals are equal when you combine Active+Restricted area for the PS3 (54), yet in the ON Hold section, the demand (221) outweighs the supply (61). Even though it mentions 6 trades going on now. (May 18th, 2009)
The 360 side again has an equal demand and supply when you combine Active+Restricted of (151). Yet in the ON Hold section, the demand is (433) and supply is (145) as of May 18th 2009. Also, 14 trades are going on now all over.
Now the game has been getting a price drop of 50 points each week. The question is, and no offense to Goozex, but if the idea is to get us to trade games faster, what exactly then is considered "fast'? Is "fast" a few days, weeks, a month? To be honest, I don't know exactly what Goozex may mean by faster, but by most, getting something faster would be less than a month, (the time frame that Mirror's Edge should be available at 550 points) and that's if that price stays there, because it could drop again. LOL
But at the same time, would all those individuals who have it available for the 800 points still be there if it is worth 550 points? Would there be a drop in supply and increase in demand? Also, it's funny to note that the supply and demand are the same if you don't take into consideration the ON HOLD. Just an interesting observation, don't know what to make of it now :)
The problem I see is that the use of MUZE of any other service they are using that reflects the price change isn't adjusting correctly and in a timely manner for those quicker trades.
The increase in the point cap is fine, but it wouldn't make a difference if the updates in the point algorithm system weren't fixed to reflect the used game market value. Only if we are actually using the used game market as our data-basing needs, if not, then Goozex then has its own pricing system and then doesn't need to reflect the used game market. Which I believe isn't the case they are saying.
I propose this suggestion and it can be altered to suit Goozex needs:
Now I know, some may think that I'm not being realistic and it looks easy from my side of the fence. Well, to be honest, I know it may not be easy. I'm just trying to provide feedback as best as I can to help Goozex in any way. I'm willing to help as well. So thanks for hearing me out :D and thanks for this poll and conversation.
bytemap:The problem I see is that the use of MUZE of any other service they are using that reflects the price change isn't adjusting correctly and in a timely manner for those quicker trades.
We are aware of the limitations in the Muze database related to market and pricing adjustements (the Muze DB is more for content use).
In the last few months we have setup a few partnerships with other providers and vendors (e.g. Crispy Gamer, Gamefly), and are finalizing one additional integration with Amazon. All these partners allow Goozex to collect several different data sets on pricing information (and othe information used on the Goozex system) which feed the point algorithm.
In the end, the Goozex system will no longer rely on the Muze pricing information, but instead on dynamically collected information from different data sources that allow for more precise pricing. Beside current price values of items, demand and supply will continue to be key drivers for the point values on Goozex, to properly reflect the dynamic of the Goozex economy. Yet, we expect point values to slowly adjust to a more precise representation of the fair market value of items at any given time.
(but all this may be a subject of a separate discussion topic)
Let me attempt to once and for all put this away.
100 Goozex points doesn't equal 5 dollars.
This is the reason a game like Dead Space that sells for 30 dollars is 1000 points. Because there is no reason to drop a price if demand is more than supply.
Ok, you argue they are equal because you pay 5 dollars for 100 points. That's wrong. How many Goozex points will get you 5 dollars... exactly. If there's not two saides to it, you can't equate them. Second, probably 95 percent of points or more being tradeed right now were aquired through other trades not buying.
Finally, 5 dollars doesn'y equate to 100 points because Goozex is not a retailer. Other than the Goozex Exchange, they don't sell games. They don't accept money to get new games. And if 5 dollars equals 100 points, why is the Goozex Exchange 1600 points?
I wouldn't mind increasing the point cap to 1200 for limited editions and collectors edition. It always felt silly that the CE and standard edition would start off at the same price point, er point point. I'm not so fond of a general inflation though.
zannabianca:We are aware of the limitations in the Muze database related to market and pricing adjustements (the Muze DB is more for content use). In the last few months we have setup a few partnerships with other providers and vendors (e.g. Crispy Gamer, Gamefly), and are finalizing one additional integration with Amazon. All these partners allow Goozex to collect several different data sets on pricing information (and othe information used on the Goozex system) which feed the point algorithm. In the end, the Goozex system will no longer rely on the Muze pricing information, but instead on dynamically collected information from different data sources that allow for more precise pricing. Beside current price values of items, demand and supply will continue to be key drivers for the point values on Goozex, to properly reflect the dynamic of the Goozex economy. Yet, we expect point values to slowly adjust to a more precise representation of the fair market value of items at any given time.
That sounds GREAT to hear zannabianca. I thank you for the consideration and implementation of that idea. Great to see Goozex making strides :D:D
About the point system reflecting actual currency. Sorry, dafitzanator777, but I never said it was fact. I said this was based on an ASSUMPTION, from many posts. I understand this and just used that as speculation as to why people feel the way they do with the pricing. I understand and also mention that Goozex also has it's own economic structure that differs from the used game market.
I really don't want to bother debating, not arguing, any points about the system because this thread is about helping Goozex improve on a system, not putting down others for their suggestions and ideas. Which I asked nicely to be avoided, but I guess it wasn't. *sigh*
Anyway, thanks again Goozex (zannabianca) and to everyone else. :)