Selling Villagers for Profit: Thoughts

[cheezu]

So I know that this is a somewhat controversial topic but I was just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this issue.
So selling villagers that you get off of cycling threads is considered a no-no. I have also noticed that even obtaining villagers from auctions to sell them for a higher price (for example, say I got Ankha for 5 million and managed to sell her for 20 million) is also considered taboo. However, in real life, people often buy things to sell them for profit. This is how a lot of business owners make money and, somehow, nobody seems to think it's wrong. So I'm just wondering why many seem to think that doing so in a game which only uses in-game currency (not real money) is so terrible.
Thoughts?

 

[Waluigi]

Dont sell villagers, they are living things (kinda) not furniture.

 

[LambdaDelta]

boycott animal trafficking 2014


Seriously though, I'm just kinda averse to the selling of villagers in general regardless of the circumstances. Even if I *kinda* dabbled in it a bit at first. It's just incredibly greedy on the seller's part and stupid on the buyer's imo, especially since you're essentially paying potentially millions of bells for a character you may not even like, or that may not even stay.

 

[sn0wxyuki]

But you can't do anything to stop anyone because there is seller and there also buyer and they agree on each other.

 

[Farobi]

It's just incredibly greedy on the seller's part and stupid on the buyer's imo, especially since you're essentially paying potentially millions of bells for a character you may not even like, or that may not even stay.

thats kind of a biased answer. lets say someone irl was to wait a line to get a donut, but they had the option to buy one right now for a little extra cash. its their choice whether they'd get the deal or not. and it's virtual money for virtual characters, so i dont see anything crazy here.

 

[Gizmodo]

Tbh people can do what they want
personally i've never had more than like 3 mil in an animal crossing game before, if someone offers to buy one of my villagers for a massive price, i'm not going to say no, sorry

 

[Yui Z]

I don't really have any thoughts on it except that it's the seller's choice to sell and the buyer's choice to buy. There's not really much that can be done...
But I do think it's silly to be greedy of a game :L

 

[Bear_Crossing]

The only thing that annoys me about selling villagers is when people with a cycle thread auction off a popular villager. In the end it's their thread and whatever but generally the point of having a cycle thread is giving people the villagers for free.
Other than that, I don't mind too much.
But lol I wouldn't sell off a villager it wouldn't feel right to me earning bells by selling off a villager.
That's just my opinion, though.

 

[ALLCAPS]

But you can't do anything to stop anyone because there is seller and there also buyer and they agree on each other.

This, pretty much. I never even knew animal trafficking in Animal Crossing existed until I got ACNL. xD

It's considered "taboo" and "terrible" in comparison to real life because it's not real life. It's just a game. It's supposed to be fun and games and happiness for everyone. And anyway, nobody likes to be scammed.

Truth be told, if the market didn't exist for dreamies, I wouldn't participate in it. But as it is, buying villagers is the easiest way to get them, and selling villagers is the easiest way to get bells to buy the villagers. It's a cycle.

It's just incredibly greedy on the seller's part and stupid on the buyer's imo, especially since you're essentially paying potentially millions of bells for a character you may not even like, or that may not even stay.

I think you need to look at the circumstances. There are some sellers that sell villagers not for profit, but for a chance to buy the villagers they want. Sometimes it's hard to weed out which is which. As for the buyers, you can't judge them for being stupid right off the bat if they know what they want when they buy it. Most people who buy for high prices actually want the villagers they buy to stay forever. No one buys a villager they may not even like.

Please be careful when speaking like this because it is generalizing like pretty much everyone in the villager trading market. You don't know why they do the things they do, not everyone is automatically "greedy" or "stupid".

I really much prefer trading villagers to selling them, however I believe selling them is the safer option for everyone involved. For example, someone tries to trade Beau for Ankha, and Beau needs to be taken first because Beau's town is full. The other user promises Ankha and takes Beau first, but never gives Ankha. The first user is essentially scammed out of their villager. When dealing with bells, you just have people drop the money, they go adopt and that's the end of it. The payer even has the option to check if the villager is really in boxes before doing the transaction.

As it stands though, I've traded/given away villagers more than I've sold them. I've been scammed out of good villagers twice, and I wasn't "greedy" with either one (tried to trade for villagers I wanted instead of bells). Can't exactly blame me for preferring to sell villagers in the end. Nobody likes to be at risk of being scammed.

I haven't bought any villagers though. Well, besides Willow, but the person wasn't selling them. I just gave them bells because I felt bad taking Willow for free. xDD; But I'm pretty sure if I ever buy Marshal for 40mil I will be keeping him forever. So no, I don't think that makes me stupid for being a buyer. I just do what I like with bells I earned by myself.

 

[LambdaDelta]

thats kind of a biased answer. lets say someone irl was to wait a line to get a donut, but they had the option to buy one right now for a little extra cash. its their choice whether they'd get the deal or not. and it's virtual money for virtual characters, so i dont see anything crazy here.

Please give an example that actually can correlate to things happening in everyday real-life transactions.

Tell me a donut shop that will let you skip ahead if you pay more. All you'd end up doing with that is pissing people off for playing favorites and losing business.

 

[momayo]

Here's my take on it.

Businesses need to generate profit because they incur costs creating the products they sell. They also need the income in order to improve the level of service they can provide and grow as an organization.

On the other hand, we have pixelated animals from a video game. Do you incur costs when you acquire new villagers? In some cases, yes (when you're cycling, for example; you're expending your time and effort). However, in most cases, players obtain these villagers randomly. When they try to sell these villagers, it's as if they're capitalizing on something that happened completely by chance. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. But it's easy to see this trade as nothing but a bid to gain bells for something that they hadn't really earned through hard work.

They help buyers cut down the time they need to obtain these villagers, but this trade is not comparable to businesses where your money can help improve the product and grow the service.

 

[Farobi]

Please give an example that actually can correlate to things happening in everyday real-life transactions.

Tell me a donut shop that will let you skip ahead if you pay more. All you'd end up doing with that is pissing people off for playing favorites and losing business.

Hey i was just giving an example

And the post below me explains it better.

 

[cheezu]

Please give an example that actually can correlate to things happening in everyday real-life transactions.

Tell me a donut shop that will let you skip ahead if you pay more. All you'd end up doing with that is pissing people off for playing favorites and losing business.

Say there's a donut shop that sells super cheap donuts but it's like 6 blocks away and there's always a huge line of people. Now, there's another donut shop selling more expensive donuts that's just 2 mins away from where you live and has got no lines. There.

 

[sn0wxyuki]

Whether is buy or sell, as long as everybody plays their game happily. The worst yes, being scam. Those scammers are jerks really.

 

[LambdaDelta]

I think you need to look at the circumstances. There are some sellers that sell villagers not for profit, but for a chance to buy the villagers they want. Sometimes it's hard to weed out which is which.

In this case, I'm sorry but they're just doubly stupid then for supporting this awful "business" model both ways.

As for the buyers, you can't judge them for being stupid right off the bat if they know what they want when they buy it. Most people who buy for high prices actually want the villagers they buy to stay forever. No one buys a villager they may not even like.

Still doesn't change the fact that there's no guarantee they'd stay forever. This game (unfortunately) has no real method of keeping a villager to stay, and **** happens all the time.

Please be careful when speaking like this because it is generalizing like pretty much everyone in the villager trading market. You don't know why they do the things they do, not everyone is automatically "greedy" or "stupid".

Hey, there's plenty of giveaways and cycling threads too! I'm also fine with trades, as both sides are getting something they want of equal in-game value.

I really much prefer trading villagers to selling them, however I believe selling them is the safer option for everyone involved. For example, someone tries to trade Beau for Ankha, and Beau needs to be taken first because Beau's town is full. The other user promises Ankha and takes Beau first, but never gives Ankha. The first user is essentially scammed out of their villager. When dealing with bells, you just have people drop the money, they go adopt and that's the end of it. The payer even has the option to check if the villager is really in boxes before doing the transaction.

No doubt of the problem here, but that's essentially the risk you take with doing trades. (kinda basically the same as when I do card trades online) Biggest way to probably reduce risk there though would probably be to just go off whoever has the lower wi-fi rating has to give their villager first, but due to villager limitations this can't always happen. Or just only allow trades with people that have a high rating and good reputations, though then you reduce the chances of you getting a trade offer significantly.

- - - Post Merge - - -

Say there's a donut shop that sells super cheap donuts but it's like 6 blocks away and there's always a huge line of people. Now, there's another donut shop selling more expensive donuts that's just 2 mins away from where you live and has got no lines. There.

But this is two completely different businesses.

Also, this *kinda* doesn't work imo when you realize the more expensive shop tends to be as such BECAUSE people like it more and thus will be willing to pay the higher price. So they end up being the more popular of the shops with more business. At least without going into stuff like fast food vs high class restaurants, which is too extreme to put together as they're marketed to two completely different social classes.

 

[momayo]

I used to prefer trades, until it hit me how terribly inefficient it was.

Scenario A: I have Fauna in boxes, who I want to trade for Pietro. I find a trader who promises to time travel Pietro out. However, after waiting around for a couple of days for something to happen, the trader accidentally TTs out Pietro.

Scenario B: I have Fauna, not in boxes, who I want to trade for PIetro. I promise to TT Fauna out. By the time I do it, the trader has moved on to someone else, failing to inform me, and leaving me with a beloved villager in boxes.

Scenario C: I have Fauna in boxes, who I want to trade for Pietro. No one wants to make the trade with me, and Fauna is voided out as a result.

Scenario D: I have Fauna in boxes, and I find a trader who has Pietro in boxes. Both of us have 10 villagers.

There are many possible ways trades can go wrong, which is why bells are an ideal medium of settlement. It's not a terribly bad business model, just not one that's comfortable with a lot of people (me included, though I have participated in auctions).

 

[LambdaDelta]

I just want Nintendo to do an update that allows people to buy villagers as DLC of sorts for $1-5 per off the eshop

This awful market will crash and burn and I'll be laughing all the way to the end.

 

[FireNinja1]

I just want Nintendo to do an update that allows people to buy villagers as DLC of sorts for $1-5 per off the eshop

This awful market will crash and burn and I'll be laughing all the way to the end.

Then Nintendo would essentially become EA.

 

[cheezu]

Here's my take on it.

Businesses need to generate profit because they incur costs creating the products they sell. They also need the income in order to improve the level of service they can provide and grow as an organization.

On the other hand, we have pixelated animals from a video game. Do you incur costs when you acquire new villagers? In some cases, yes (when you're cycling, for example; you're expending your time and effort). However, in most cases, players obtain these villagers randomly. When they try to sell these villagers, it's as if they're capitalizing on something that happened completely by chance. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. But it's easy to see this trade as nothing but a bid to gain bells for something that they hadn't really earned through hard work.

They help buyers cut down the time they need to obtain these villagers, but this trade is not comparable to businesses where your money can help improve the product and grow the service.

This is definitely an insightful post. New Leaf is my first AC game and before joining TBT and the Adopt My Villager subreddit, I had no idea that the concept of "trading or selling villagers" even existed. Obviously, everything in the game is quite cheap - I had no problems paying off my home loans and PWP's with bells I'd make off of beetle hunting or fishing during my first few weeks of playing. But once you join any Animal Crossing forum and discover new characters/rare furniture sets in the game, you'll quickly realise that the money you have in your bank is simply "just not quite enough"
Obviously, it's not like buying expensive villagers or furniture sets and items is going to "better" the AC community in anyway or improve anyone's life - other than the player's. I guess it is a selfish endeavour in some ways but also means that you get to enjoy the game more.

 

[LambdaDelta]

Then Nintendo would essentially become EA.

I fail to see it.