Selling Villagers for Profit: Thoughts

[LambdaDelta]

Yeah so uh

I think I'm just gonna ignore this part of the board for my own benefit for the time being.

Assuming I don't forget, I'll come back and address everything I'm wanting to, (and trust me its a LOT) but right now I feel like I'm dangerously close to posting something that could potentially get me auto-banned.

 

[hemming1996]

i feel like a politician ;;
guys can we just stop debating, the truth is nothing can be so cheap you buy it automatically. that's showing that even the worst villagers can be bought

 

[Gizmodo]

Yeah so uh

I think I'm just gonna ignore this part of the board for my own benefit for the time being.

Assuming I don't forget, I'll come back and address everything I'm wanting to, (and trust me its a LOT) but right now I feel like I'm dangerously close to posting something that could potentially get me auto-banned.

Or just calm down..
It's just a game.. what people do shouldn't affect you.. if you want to play in a way you view good, fine.
I don't TT i never will, but do i get annoyed at people who do? No its their choice
its the same with selling villagers

 

[kattayfio]

People can do what they want with the game they paid for. Villagers are fun to look at but aren't real. It's incredible that people even compare them to slaves when they're just pixels on a screen.

Omf this thread is getting so heated whyy

 

[LambdaDelta]

Ok one more thing real quick. I believe I can do this one without potential repercussions.

for gods sake guys, NOTHING can be underpriced. everything is overpriced. . no villager can be underpriced, just deal with it. no matter how crap the villager is you still sell it. someone could actually want that villager.

everything is overpriced, no less.

Something being underpriced and something being overpriced are completely different.

I probably sound like I'm just stating the obvious, but I mean this in the context of an equal value pricing. The closest villagers are to being "underpriced" is if you just give them away, and even then it still isn't as the game will give you the opportunity to get a new villager shortly after. It's a profit and best and a zero sum at worst.

 

[ALLCAPS]

HUGE WALL OF TEXT

jk, I will actually respond.

Business works the way it does BECAUSE it needs to turn a profit and has always been the case, even way back when trading was a thing and "currency" was just other commodities. There's a "cost" to get the product/service prepared and without a way to reap benefits from it there's no way it'd be viable or sustaining for an extended period of time.

THAT'S where the difference between this and villager selling lies. There's literally zero cost nor risk involved for the seller; it's all profit with no chance of loss or a NEED to profit.

So how is this not reflective of each other? All you're doing is reinforcing my point that they are reflective. Villager selling isn't all zero cost--have you read the other posts? People work to get villagers--yeah, some get them with luck, but hey luck is part of it. If you don't have good luck, then find other means to bypass that. Just like you said:

Bad luck there, though that comes with anything really.

If you struck oil in your land and you sold it, is it a bad thing to sell it? I guess you should give it away for free because hey ZERO COST! There's no need to profit! It was FREE OIL!

But then the people you give it away to make profit out of the free oil you gave. But still, who cares, right? Zero cost.

Um, ok.

I'm sorry, but this has to be one of the dumbest things I've read in ages. I don't even know where to begin.

I'm sorry, but that was the point because those were (albeit radical) paraphrasing of your own reasoning:

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.

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.

If you found it dumb, then you find your own words dumb. Your logic, not mine.

Go to every donut shop in your town during their busy hours and wave your wallet around in the air.

Then come back and tell me how many let you cut ahead, and no, people letting you cut ahead of them because they just want to get rid of you being a nuisance doesn't count.

Sigh. You do realize the donut shop thing was an IMAGINARY example made by someone right? It doesn't actually happen? So now you're trying to get us out into the real world to check it out? Liek wut? And did you even read the previous post about it? The shop offers it to you first.

The point is IF GIVEN AN OPTION. IF. As it stands, the option we're comparing to is given in the form of selling and auctions for villagers.

No, but that model makes the most logical sense. The one with the higher rating earned it through multiple transactions done prior and thus has rightfully gained reputation as being a trustworthy dealer, while the person with the lower rating doesn't have this luxury.

Do you ever buy stuff off ebay/Amazon marketplace/etc? If so, do you check the seller's feedback history? The same concept kinda applies here.

Yeah, it does make more logical sense.

No, since it'd be the choice of the person involved. Plus I already mentioned it'd have a huge drawback, since you'd significantly reduce potential traders.

Then why are we even talking about this then? We both agree it's the choice of the person and will have a huge drawback.

Neither does supporting this awful cycle.

Neither does calling people dumb and stupid--oh.

c wut i did there

YES

NO

I DON'T EVEN

I'll take that as a yes.

 

[Gizmodo]

LambdaDelta - I believe Gizmodo already explained this. Say, you get a 2nd town and wish to reset for popular villagers to sell them off. This can actually take hours on end depending on your luck. So the trader/seller is putting effort/time into getting the villager people may potentially want. There's also a risk of not being able to sell the villager off - people backing out of trades, not many interested bidders on that day, etc. I have seen popular villagers being given out for free because someone TT'd them into boxes and the potential buyer backed out in the last minute.

Since you yourself are saying that this is not REAL life, and not a REAL business, why do you have a problem with people spending otherwise meaningless currency on villagers they want, and are instead suggesting Nintendo implement the option of buying villagers with REAL money. It seems a bit self-contradictory to me.

Exactly..
Lets not forget i'm only a teenager and i paid ?30 i had saved up for my 2nd copy, so sorry if i want to benefit somewhat in a game i have actually paid money for, which is hard to come by when you don't have a job, and are relying on allowance whilst in education
So if i want to benefit from what i've paid for through the game, i should be allowed to do so

 

[LambdaDelta]

Or you know, I'll just not address ALLCAPS' posts, since at this point I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

(came back to grab thread URL to blacklist temperarily)

 

[hemming1996]

Ok one more thing real quick. I believe I can do this one without potential repercussions.



Something being underpriced and something being overpriced are completely different.

I probably sound like I'm just stating the obvious, but I mean this in the context of an equal value pricing. The closest villagers are to being "underpriced" is if you just give them away, and even then it still isn't as the game will give you the opportunity to get a new villager shortly after. It's a profit and best and a zero sum at worst.

this is about the profit, so i wasn't including the free villagers.
i agree with you but the point was that everyone is complaining the worst villagers cost more than the best but then again nothing is underpriced, that was what i was trying to say. so nobody can say a villager is too expensive when there isn't even a minimum to what it can be.

i haven't thought about this so just ignore me if it doesn't make sense.

 

[Farobi]

we should respect each other's opinions guys - no matter how absurd they seem to be.

- - - Post Merge - - -

this goes to those against lamb's claims as well.

 

[MayorKatie]

I don't really understand what there is to get worked up about. some people love it some people hate it. if you love it keep doing what your doing. If you hate it ignore the people who do it and don't do it. There is no way everyones going to stop selling them just because some people think its wrong. it's too relied on to get bells for this to stop completely. Even if it was banned on this website there is Reddit, Tumblr and so many more websites that are not directly animal crossing related and wouldn't be able to ban selling them nor would they care. If you think this is bad there are probably people selling villagers for real money on ebay and craigslist and people probably buy them. Selling villagers is just a matter of opinion and everyone has there own way of playing the game.

 

[Pyonkotchi]

i think its perfectly FINE, I sell villagers all the time, I buy villagers all the time, its not real, im not getting real money, im not selling real people, its not the same thing as selling slave and comparing it to that is disgusting, do not compare a real tragic event to some kids trading fake money for pixels on a screen,

it would be someone buying and selling Tamagotchi pets, except the tamagotchis are being sold for monopoly money

I paid for my game so i can play it how ever I want

 

[ALLCAPS]

we should respect each other's opinions guys - no matter how absurd they seem to be.

- - - Post Merge - - -

this goes to those against lamb's claims as well.

Respect begets respect. I feel like most of us of differing opinions to Lamb haven't been respected by him/her from the get-go.

I mean, we're all automatically greedy and stupid for participating in the market so...

Point in fact:

Or you know, I'll just not address ALLCAPS' posts, since at this point I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

Yeah, thanks. Very nice and respectful of you.

I respect his opinion, which is why I'm actually responding properly. But hey, wut.


Edit:

Since you yourself are saying that this is not REAL life, and not a REAL business, why do you have a problem with people spending otherwise meaningless currency on villagers they want, and are instead suggesting Nintendo implement the option of buying villagers with REAL money. It seems a bit self-contradictory to me.

I like this, thank you.

 

[unravel]

Fighting with your opinion and shiz, jeez guys we all have opinions. Please repect each other and btw Imma report this of this gets worst.

 

[BronzeElf]

When you sell something to someone you are GIVING it to them. Therefore they can do whatever they want. When you auction off something, you're not lending it out for a few days, you're selling it. Do whatever you want with the villagers you buy. It's yours.

 

[Punchyleaf]

Complaining about a theoretical $1 per villager is just as bad as complaining about virtual money

Big huge gaping difference that ignorance can't seem to comprehend is, virtual money is worthless outside of the game. That million you spent on a villager can be made back writhing a few hours at the island, and even ten fold with turnips. Actual money though, you have to work to get it, unlike a big amount of members here that have to ask parents for it

 

[shananza]

I don't really have a problem with it, if someone's really desperate for a villager they'll buy it. And if someone's really desperate for bells and has a villager then they'll sell it. I personally wouldn't buy a villager currently because I want to save up 100m to get all of the post office furniture, maybe if I get there i'll buy some villagers. Yes, a villager isn't like furniture, but some would argue it's better than them simply "going to the void" to me it's still a videogame so I think it's okay to buy/sell villagers if you want ^-^

 

[oath2order]

Look, if some idiot wants to spend money on their "dreamies", then I'd be an idiot to not take their money.

As the saying goes, a fool and his money are easily separated.

 

[Lion-Lhasa]

I suspect Lambda has just missed a villager they wanted somehow and is now bitter, thus they don't want anyone else to be able to get what they want.
If you hate it so much, you don't have to join in with it, the only reason to be so against it is because you want a certain villager but because other people are willing to pay for them, it means you can't get them for free.

Selling villagers you got from a cycle thread is just rude imo, since they take their time to offer villagers to people for free to help them get the ones they want.
If someone buys a villager and sells it for more, that's just business and people shouldn't be punished for either getting lucky or having a more business-like mind.

To buy things and sell them at profit requires time and effort spent. By Lambda's logic no one should ever buy food because you can grow it yourself. How dare anyone make a profit on something you can do yourself?

You buy potatoes and have potatoes. The farmer has had to spend the time, effort and resources to grow potatoes. But you shouldn't have to pay for potatoes because you also have the ability to grow potatoes but just haven't been bothered.

 

[Aesthetic]

I'm selling a virtual villager for .. virtual money.

Don't really .. see the problem? Money is money I guess.