Goozex Fastpass?

Sithis replied on 10-20-2009 4:41 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

cheeznrice:

I'm consistently at the end of the queue because I add games after 9:00am, but I still support the current system as it does seem more fair than a lottery based system.

You do realize I did not suggest a lottery system.... right?

killmak replied on 10-20-2009 4:41 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Kenny007:

Sithis:

larpi:

if 300 people request a game and roughly of those - 200 people use the 250 extra points option to move further down the line then it makes the system stupid by having the majority of the requesters  having to pay an extra 250 points or 2 tokens or whatever  just to get a spot still in the 150's to 200th long wait status range

if too many people choose to use this option then it becomes useless. 

Thanks for responding before actually reading my complete post.  I addressed this by saying the number of people allowed to purchase the higher queue position would be limited.  I don't know what the limits should be; Goozex would figure that out.  Maybe 50 people per game, maybe a percentage of the total requests/offers, etc.  Obviously if 90% of the people wanting a game try to get a fastpass, then people are essentially back to waiting in the standard line.

....so.....you're right back where we started?  An elite few get these 'premium' spots?  How is this any different than the 'stay up until 1am' that you oppose?  Surely there'd be a race for these pricey spots just like they race to be #1 in line.

I can see it now.  Woo Hoo I got first in line.  Walk away to get a drink.  Come back.  What I am 50th in line???  I guess I better get a fast pass too.  Oh now I am 75th in line thats great.  F this I am not using Goozex anymore.  The End.

mietha replied on 10-20-2009 4:46 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Any thing even close to this concept becomes real, I'm done then and there. If you want to pay more money, go buy the ****ing thing.

Sithis replied on 10-20-2009 4:47 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

cheeznrice:

criminolelawyer:

I still wish they would change the timing. This 1am thing for  those of us on east coast is bogus.

To me that would make the most sense.  I can't stay up until 1am est to add a game to my requests.

Not to get too far off topic, but what do you think about being able to add a game to your requests before it has been released?  Such as whenever Muze adds the game to the database or whatever.  Since people wouldn't know exactly when the game will be added, the queue would build up gradually.  The people that have the most desire for the game would search for it more frequently, and would most likely end up getting a better queue position than someone that just happened to get lucky and hit the button right at 1am.

Kenny007 replied on 10-20-2009 4:47 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Sithis:

cheeznrice:

I'm consistently at the end of the queue because I add games after 9:00am, but I still support the current system as it does seem more fair than a lottery based system.

You do realize I did not suggest a lottery system.... right?

No.  You're suggest a first come, first serve sort of queue system.  This is EXACTLY what we have now; the only difference between what we have and what you suggest is an additional expenditure of points.

Join the Goozex Pokerstars Club!

GreenManGaming

G-Nitro replied on 10-20-2009 4:50 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Sithis:

cheeznrice:

criminolelawyer:

I still wish they would change the timing. This 1am thing for  those of us on east coast is bogus.

To me that would make the most sense.  I can't stay up until 1am est to add a game to my requests.

Not to get too far off topic, but what do you think about being able to add a game to your requests before it has been released?  Such as whenever Muze adds the game to the database or whatever.  Since people wouldn't know exactly when the game will be added, the queue would build up gradually.  The people that have the most desire for the game would search for it more frequently, and would most likely end up getting a better queue position than someone that just happened to get lucky and hit the button right at 1am.

Then you'd have 500 people in line for it before it even comes out. FAIL.  NEXT!

Sithis replied on 10-20-2009 4:53 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

G-Nitro:

Ur not paying $120. Your paying 2400 points. While 2400 points is maybe VALUED at $120, it isn't $120.

If 2400 points is valued at $120, then you've essentially spent $120.  It may not be a debit from your checking account, but the value is the same.  Didn't we all join this site because trading games gives you a better value than getting screwed by GameStop?  Why then would we let ourselves get screwed by Goozex on new games?  Not that I believe that is their intention, but still... 2400 points for a game?  No thank you.

chris100185 replied on 10-20-2009 4:57 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

The only way I would support any sort of reserved place in line is if it's as a reward or something. Say, for every 25 games you trade out, you get to reserve a low spot (first come first serve) on an un released title. It's a high enough requirement that it really wouldn't be a major issue, and it would increase the amount of trades on the site as people will become more active so they could reserve a spot for an event title.

G-Nitro replied on 10-20-2009 4:57 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Sithis:

G-Nitro:

Ur not paying $120. Your paying 2400 points. While 2400 points is maybe VALUED at $120, it isn't $120.

If 2400 points is valued at $120, then you've essentially spent $120.  It may not be a debit from your checking account, but the value is the same.  Didn't we all join this site because trading games gives you a better value than getting screwed by GameStop?  Why then would we let ourselves get screwed by Goozex on new games?  Not that I believe that is their intention, but still... 2400 points for a game?  No thank you.

You aren't getting screwed though. The Exchange is purely optional for those who want to use it. It's not like I have the game requested and Goozex forced me to pay 2400 points. People clicked the buy button and in no way has that made it so Goozex screwed them. 

Your logic throughout this thread is laughable. You should stop and think about things before you try to post suggestions or try and debate. 

As for being valued at $120. I just flipped two games that I paid $20 for each for 1000 and 800 points. One has netted me a tip. That is is $40 for 1850 points.  If i trade just 6 more games for 100 points each ($5 value), I have 2400 points for uncharted 2 at $70 essentially through combination of actually purchasing and Goozex value.

madfigs replied on 10-20-2009 4:59 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

I hate to break it to you guys... but this is now a Tori Amos thread, remember?

mafafu replied on 10-20-2009 5:04 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

madfigs:

I hate to break it to you guys... but this is now a Tori Amos thread, remember?

Damn straight

Sithis replied on 10-20-2009 5:11 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Kenny007:

....so.....you're right back where we started?  An elite few get these 'premium' spots?  How is this any different than the 'stay up until 1am' that you oppose?  Surely there'd be a race for these pricey spots just like they race to be #1 in line.

Not quite -- I do agree that as long as we have a queue of any sort, there is going to be people that race to get a good spot, regardless of how the queue is implemented. But the people that stay up until 1am would not need to pay for a higher spot because they would already be getting a decent place in line (only made slightly worse by the limited priority slots).  Those of us that have work/school/whatever the next day can get a priority slot when it is convenient for us instead of getting shafted for having a life, as is the current situation.  But they'll be paying for that privilege, either to Goozex, the seller, or both.  And yeah if they wait too long, then there may not be any more fastpasses available, but hey there is only so much you can do to even the playing field a bit.

If you buy a new release and put it on Goozex when you're done with it, would you be upset that you received more points than you were expecting, because someone paid for a higher slot?  I didn't think so.  So I think this will motivate people to trade games they might have otherwise kept longer, because they know they will most likely get paid more points for it than they would have if they waited a month or two.  More trades = higher supply = lower queue times for everyone.

Sithis replied on 10-20-2009 5:20 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Kenny007:

Throwing money to get around problems is generally going to receive a poor response from others, regardless of its presentation...

Perhaps, and I get that people are here because we're trying to save money not spend it.  But you have to admit that the long wait time is indeed a turn off to a lot of people, like potential new members as well as those of us that actively participate. 

All my friends that are on this site have at one time or another taken a game out of our request list simply because it was going to take too long to receive.  I dare say many of the naysayers in this thread have done the same thing.  I think my idea would 1) motivate people to join, thereby increasing the game supply, 2) motivate people to trade sooner, thereby reducing wait times, and 3) earn more money for Goozex so they can improve the site, which will in turn lead right back to 1) and 2) again.  Better for everyone. 

But, I know people tend to resist change and don't like the idea of "privileged people" getting a better deal.  Welcome to capitalism -- it sucks for some, works out great for others, but improves everyone's life overall.

BuryMe replied on 10-20-2009 5:25 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Sithis:

Kenny007:

Throwing money to get around problems is generally going to receive a poor response from others, regardless of its presentation...

Perhaps, and I get that people are here because we're trying to save money not spend it.  But you have to admit that the long wait time is indeed a turn off to a lot of people, like potential new members as well as those of us that actively participate. 

All my friends that are on this site have at one time or another taken a game out of our request list simply because it was going to take too long to receive.  I dare say many of the naysayers in this thread have done the same thing.  I think my idea would 1) motivate people to join, thereby increasing the game supply, 2) motivate people to trade sooner, thereby reducing wait times, and 3) earn more money for Goozex so they can improve the site, which will in turn lead right back to 1) and 2) again.  Better for everyone. 

But, I know people tend to resist change and don't like the idea of "privileged people" getting a better deal.  Welcome to capitalism -- it sucks for some, works out great for others, but improves everyone's life overall.

Your iea would do nothing but drive new members away. They will get fed up of getting bumped back in the queue because other people with more points are spending them to get the higher queue positions.

Allowing people to jump the queue won't speed up trading. It will just push people away

And for the record, this is not a capitalistic website. We all earned our queue positions, and we will not be pushed out of them.

Sithis replied on 10-20-2009 5:26 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

G-Nitro:

1st - Don't accuse someone of being a d*** and then hypocritically turn around and be one right back. Argument lost. 

2nd - Don't talk netiquette when you can't even spell correctly or show any of your own. OK, thank you, bye!

Blah, blah blah..  I never claimed to be the poster child of internet kindness, but I also don't think I've been rude to anyone that didn't deserve it.