Captialism Crap that Doesn't belong here.

[neogamer]

I went into Wal-Mart on Friday to pick up a DVD player and saw they actually had some Wiis!! For real! Real, live, freaking Wiis! They had to have four of them at least! I was shocked! SHOCKED!! I wanted to get one but I didn't feel like putting $250 on my credit card, despite having tons of credit left on it. I don't like putting that much on a card. Sigh. Someday, Wii, someday.


Good for you!

I am in the financial business, and I don't use credit cards at all.

I normally like people who do though, as it makes me money. The economy is headed for a recession, so it is best for you to wait any way!

[Rob2600]

Spotted a few at a Costco in Grafton, WI. They do bundle packaged so it was the Wii, Mario Party 8 and an extra Wii-mote (though I couldn't see if there was an extra nunchuk).

Wow, stores are still doing Wii bundles? I used to have to sell bundles when I worked at a video game store. I hated it and so did most customers.

[neogamer]

Wow, stores are still doing Wii bundles? I used to have to sell bundles when I worked at a video game store. I hated it and so did most customers.

Can I ask what store you worked at? You don't have to answer, but I always hated when stores do that.

I know when I bought my original Xbox Halo system, they tried to make me buy it in a "bundle offer." After I started to walk out of the store, they changed their mind. I thought that was kind of strange. Keep in mind though, at that time, Halo Xbox systems were everywhere!

[Rob2600]

Can I ask what store you worked at? You don't have to answer, but I always hated when stores do that.

I worked for one of the big video game chain stores in a mall in northern NJ. This was in the late 1990s and early 2000s, before Barnes and Noble and Software Etc. bought everyone out and created a monopoly.

The reason for bundles is simple: video game consoles have a very low profit margin, if any. In order to boost profit margin, stores bundle accessories with consoles because accessories have a very high profit margin. They also include unpopular games in bundles to clear their inventory of them.

Where I worked, we used to include extended warranties in bundles too, because they're 100 percent profit.

[FantasiaWHT]

Uh, just a quick note here... this Costco bundle is a bit of a different story than EB/BB/etc. selling bundles. Costco is a bulk/discount warehouse like Sams Club... because they can't sell the systems themselves for cheaper (manufacturer's don't let them), they bundle it with some accessories/games and give you the discount on the game and/or accessory. They do it with all systems.

[Rob2600]

this Costco bundle is a bit of a different story than EB/BB/etc. selling bundles. Costco is a bulk/discount warehouse like Sams Club... because they can't sell the systems themselves for cheaper (manufacturer's don't let them), they bundle it with some accessories/games and give you the discount on the game and/or accessory.

Good point. If that's the case though, why doesn't Costco let customers pick different games for its bundles? That would be more fair.

[neogamer]

I worked for one of the big video game chain stores in a mall in northern NJ. This was in the late 1990s and early 2000s, before Barnes and Noble and Software Etc. bought everyone out and created a monopoly.

The reason for bundles is simple: video game consoles have a very low profit margin, if any. In order to boost profit margin, stores bundle accessories with consoles because accessories have a very high profit margin. They also include unpopular games in bundles to clear their inventory of them.

Where I worked, we used to include extended warranties in bundles too, because they're 100 percent profit.

Trust me, I know the ins and outs. I was just curious as to where you worked. I know Game Crazy stores do "bundle" offers, but they are at the store managers discretion, not the companies. Either way, I always felt they were unethical.

When I worked my way up in the financial world, we had "financial agents" selling packages to customers! These packages were actually created by the agents themselves! They included insurance, mutual funds, and annuities. Unfortunately, believe it or not, they are not illegal, but are unethical. I know it is comparing apples to oranges, but I just thought I would share....

In other words, not all financial planners (or even analysts) etc. are ethical or honest. I guess neither are some video game stores!

[neogamer]

Costco and Sam's Club do sell different types of bundle offers. I never had a problem with those.

I do have a video game store in my town, Microplay, that started selling Wii bundle systems with six used GameCube games that nobody wanted! I considered this unethical and had a severe problem with it!

The company also did this with Nintendo DS systems during the past holiday season, when they were selling out everywhere!

[YoshiM]

Good point. If that's the case though, why doesn't Costco let customers pick different games for its bundles? That would be more fair.

They really can't because everything comes prepackaged from the factory. Also the game section of these bulk stores don't have bone fide employees assigned to electronics/software like a retail store. To have an associate spend the time for someone to him-haw over a title would cost more money than just bundling from the factory. You save roughly $5 to $7 on console titles (from retail) BUT the selection is very, very limited: maybe 7 to 10 different titles for one system TOPS.

[Rob2600]

They really can't because everything comes prepackaged from the factory. ... You save roughly $5 to $7 on console titles (from retail) BUT the selection is very, very limited: maybe 7 to 10 different titles for one system TOPS.

I'd rather spend the extra $7 at a regular retail store and pick out the exact game I want than save $7 at Costco and get stuck with one I don't want.

[FantasiaWHT]

Why are bundles unethical? Retail stores are prevented from making a profit on the systems by the manufacturer's unreasonable restrictions on price points (THOSE I consider unethical) so this is just a method for them to make a profit. Making a profit is not unethical.

What WOULD be unethical is all the video game chain stores colluding to only offer the same bundle so that customers had no choice.

It's fine if you don't like the practice, and feel free to let that affect your choice of shopping location, but just because you don't like something doesn't make it unethical.

[neogamer]

Why are bundles unethical? Retail stores are prevented from making a profit on the systems by the manufacturer's unreasonable restrictions on price points (THOSE I consider unethical) so this is just a method for them to make a profit. Making a profit is not unethical.

What WOULD be unethical is all the video game chain stores colluding to only offer the same bundle so that customers had no choice.

It's fine if you don't like the practice, and feel free to let that affect your choice of shopping location, but just because you don't like something doesn't make it unethical.

Do you really want me to debate this with you?

Capitalism is about choice. Consumers should have a choice in the marketplace as to what they want to buy. When you limit choices, it becomes a "control" issue (i.e. socialism).

I think you would learn a great deal if you would read the book "The Wealth of Nations." This would greatly help you understand the fallacy of some of the comments you have made in other threads as well.

[neogamer]

Why are bundles unethical? Retail stores are prevented from making a profit on the systems by the manufacturer's unreasonable restrictions on price points (THOSE I consider unethical) so this is just a method for them to make a profit. Making a profit is not unethical.

What WOULD be unethical is all the video game chain stores colluding to only offer the same bundle so that customers had no choice.

It's fine if you don't like the practice, and feel free to let that affect your choice of shopping location, but just because you don't like something doesn't make it unethical.

No offense, but I just feel it is pointless to debate with you. Everything I say, you take a back door approach and try to dispute it. This happened in the infamous "Wal *Mart" thread. I told you, I am not ging to get into a flame war.

If I told you the sky was blue, the would no doubt argue it, and attempt to tell me or anybody else why it is blue, while ignoring the basic facts. So you believe what you want.

Enough said? I'll give you the last word.

I am only here to share my experiences, provide information, and learn from others. What brought you to these forums, to argue, or to question what is?

[Rob2600]

Why are bundles unethical?

I don't think bundles are unethical, but I still hate them and so do many customers.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Bundle offers unethical? Um, no. Bullshit, yes, but not unethical. It's just a decision made by the seller and dependant upon the view of the customer it's a good/bad one. The seller made a decision to sell the article that way and you have a choice to take it or leave it. Where's the dishonesty in that?

[neogamer]

Bundle offers unethical? Um, no. Bullshit, yes, but not unethical. It's just a decision made by the seller and dependant upon the view of the customer it's a good/bad one. The seller made a decision to sell the article that way and you have a choice to take it or leave it. Where's the dishonesty in that?

It offers less of a choice for the consumer. Actually, the Federal Trade Commission has investigated a number of complaints from buyers that have had to buy the "service contract" along with their item (i.e. game system, computer, television, etc.)

That being said, the question becomes: Are we talking about bundles that offer games, etc.

or bundles that require you to purchase a service plan as well?

Maybe we are on different wave lengths. I did bring up about a video game store in my area making you purchase a Wii system with six over-priced used Nintendo GameCube sports games. Is that unethical to me? Absolutely!

That particular example is not illegal, by no means.

[jonjandran]

Capitalism is about choice. Consumers should have a choice in the marketplace as to what they want to buy. When you limit choices, it becomes a "control" issue (i.e. socialism).


Did you think about that before you wrote it?

If it's about choice all the consumer has to do is stop buying the bundle and the manufacturer would stop making the bundle.

It is about choice and the manufacturer has found out that the consumer is to stupid or greedy to make that choice.

It is the consumers fault for not forcing the manufacturer to change. Or are we so helpless we need someone to help us make that choice? If that is the case maybe socialism would be better. Or is that what you are asking for, the government to make all the decisions for us?

See there are always several different ways of looking at everything. :)

[FantasiaWHT]

Do you really want me to debate this with you?

Capitalism is about choice. Consumers should have a choice in the marketplace as to what they want to buy. When you limit choices, it becomes a "control" issue (i.e. socialism).

I think you would learn a great deal if you would read the book "The Wealth of Nations." This would greatly help you understand the fallacy of some of the comments you have made in other threads as well.

What you forget is that diversity (of choice or anything else) works on a macro- as well as a microlevel. An isolated lack of diversity can actually increase the overall diversity. For example, in a school system where every school is identical in having the diversity of both male and female students is less diverse than a school system that includes some single-sex as well as co-ed schools. The choices available at the macro level in that second school system is greater than the first system, even though the second system includes isolated instances of lesser micro diversity. (This does, of course, assume a school system with free choice such as a college system, and not one of mandatory attendance).

The same holds true in video games. The consumer actually has MORE choice if some locations offer bundles. Like I said in my previous post, I would see an ethics problem if every retailer forced a bundle.

Another problem with your argument's citing market-theory capitalism is that the market obviously supports this business model. Costco, Sam's Club, and others selling bundles do it because people buy them and it makes them a profit. If you are going to argue that a certain business practice is unethical because it violates capitalism, you'd better be sure that the business practice doesn't survive in an open market.

To be fair, the situation at and shortly after a launch does not resemble an open market (between massive shortages of supply, fixed street dates, and pre-orders), but as Costco and Sam's Club have proven, their system does continue to work well into a system's life.

Also, why do you consider capitalism to be synonymous with ethics?

[Icarus Moonsight]

Also, why do you consider capitalism to be synonymous with ethics?

I'd like to know that myself. LOL You don't have to go far to cite an instance of unethical practices that was rewarded by a capitalist system.

[neogamer]

What you forget is that diversity (of choice or anything else) works on a macro- as well as a microlevel. An isolated lack of diversity can actually increase the overall diversity. For example, in a school system where every school is identical in having the diversity of both male and female students is less diverse than a school system that includes some single-sex as well as co-ed schools. The choices available at the macro level in that second school system is greater than the first system, even though the second system includes isolated instances of lesser micro diversity. (This does, of course, assume a school system with free choice such as a college system, and not one of mandatory attendance).

The same holds true in video games. The consumer actually has MORE choice if some locations offer bundles. Like I said in my previous post, I would see an ethics problem if every retailer forced a bundle.

Another problem with your argument's citing market-theory capitalism is that the market obviously supports this business model. Costco, Sam's Club, and others selling bundles do it because people buy them and it makes them a profit. If you are going to argue that a certain business practice is unethical because it violates capitalism, you'd better be sure that the business practice doesn't survive in an open market.

To be fair, the situation at and shortly after a launch does not resemble an open market (between massive shortages of supply, fixed street dates, and pre-orders), but as Costco and Sam's Club have proven, their system does continue to work well into a system's life.

Also, why do you consider capitalism to be synonymous with ethics?

I won't even bother to point out the flaws in your lackluster comparisons, but to answer your question, let me ask you this:

Can you name a better socio-economic system than capitalism?

After reading your various posts I have to wonder if you are a socialist? Please don't take offense to that, it is just a question.

[FantasiaWHT]

I love how you hint that of course, flaws exist, but you can't be bothered to point them out. I'm hurt that I took all that time to carefully point out your flaw and explain it, and you won't do the same in return ;)

If you didn't notice, I was explaining capitalism and I am far from being a socialist.

My personal opinion is that a neither a pure form of socialism nor a pure form of capitalism is the "best" socio-economic system. Pure capitalism is basically economic anarchy (lack of either control or input into the economy by government) that has its flaws. Namely, a minimal amount of government intervention helps avoid price fluctuations and shortages in vital goods that can harm the social sphere. Personally, I think America needs less government involvement in economics, but not a complete abandonment.

[GrandAmChandler]

Back on Topic. Pronto.

This thread is about the Wii availability. Stay on topic.

-GAC-

[neogamer]

Back on Topic. Pronto.

This thread is about the Wii availability. Stay on topic.

-GAC-

Why this is just starting to get good!

[neogamer]

I love how you hint that of course, flaws exist, but you can't be bothered to point them out. I'm hurt that I took all that time to carefully point out your flaw and explain it, and you won't do the same in return ;)

If you didn't notice, I was explaining capitalism and I am far from being a socialist.

My personal opinion is that a neither a pure form of socialism nor a pure form of capitalism is the "best" socio-economic system. Pure capitalism is basically economic anarchy (lack of either control or input into the economy by government) that has its flaws. Namely, a minimal amount of government intervention helps avoid price fluctuations and shortages in vital goods that can harm the social sphere. Personally, I think America needs less government involvement in economics, but not a complete abandonment.

Your comparing apples to oranges, that is your first flaw. Your forget that the marketplace of the product we are talking about, exists only on one level, then for some odd reason, you went off on a tangent! I am ten months away from an MBA remember?

Next, true capitalism is an ideology that is true, but what I was asking is your opinion, which you did answer. You did bring up another point: what do you mean when you say America needs less invlovement in economics? The feds (mainly federal reserve) has a fudiciary responsibility to the American people! Come on....

[GrandAmChandler]

Your comparing apples to oranges, that is your first flaw. Your forget that the marketplace of the product we are talking about, exists only on one level, then for some odd reason, you went off on a tangent! I am ten months away from an MBA remember?

Next, true capitalism is an ideology that is true, but what I was asking is your opinion, which you did answer. You did bring up another point: what do you mean when you say America needs less invlovement in economics? The feds (mainly federal reserve) has a fudiciary responsibility to the American people! Come on....

You don't listen very well do you?

[neogamer]

You don't listen very well do you?

Don't you mean read?

Just a question, but what am I supposed to listen to? These are words in print, not music!

[neogamer]

I love how you hint that of course, flaws exist, but you can't be bothered to point them out. I'm hurt that I took all that time to carefully point out your flaw and explain it, and you won't do the same in return ;)

If you didn't notice, I was explaining capitalism and I am far from being a socialist.

My personal opinion is that a neither a pure form of socialism nor a pure form of capitalism is the "best" socio-economic system. Pure capitalism is basically economic anarchy (lack of either control or input into the economy by government) that has its flaws. Namely, a minimal amount of government intervention helps avoid price fluctuations and shortages in vital goods that can harm the social sphere. Personally, I think America needs less government involvement in economics, but not a complete abandonment.

Anyway, I got to go meet some clients for lunch. If you still want to debate this later, I will. I do respect what you are saying, I just don't agree with what you are saying. Thats all....

[GrandAmChandler]

Now. Stay on Topic. Or Else.

-GAC-