Topic

Why do we lose 20% of the value of our houses when we sell?

My idea for a change to the real estate listings for "used" houses:

You can sell your house back to the game for a 20% loss and immediate cash (the way it is now), or

Since you're made improvements to the place; added trees, piggies, butterflies, milkers, etc, you list a price you think is fair and wait for it to sell to a buyer. 

If you sell the house back to the game, it immediately reverts back to "new" condition (no animals, unless a baby chick came with the place, etc) for the original selling price.

If you list the house for sale, you can purchase one additional house to live in (which would then exclude you from access to the old house - no living out of two houses by listing an exorbitant listing fee). After two weeks, if the house hasn't sold, the game purchases your old house at the 20% loss and reverts to "new" condition, thus not tying up tons of real estate.

Posted 18 months ago by Essie Kitten Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • +1 Oooh, this is a really neat idea. Fantastic! Doesn't seem as if it would be so hard to implement either (but then I am a total technidiot). 
    Posted 18 months ago by RM Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Sc, seem very reasonable and would make moving MUCH easier :)
    Posted 18 months ago by Joni Mitchell Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 Although, to reduce the risk of houses becoming too expensive maybe there should be a cap on the max price for each house, based on it's non-portable features. Also, how about the option to negotiate the price up or down by agreeing to leave specific resources in the property?
    Posted 18 months ago by martian-b Subscriber! | Permalink
  • So you either want a player run economy (ability to set price, sell directly to players, chance of over or undervaluing items)

    ... or you don't (game gives you money for housing, game does things to backstop your bad decisions)

    The suggestions in here read to me like they're crisscrossing that line, carving out the easiest possible scenario for the individual player.
    Posted 18 months ago by Another Chris Subscriber! | Permalink
  • yay! let's play housing bubble!

    simple little economic rule - players shouldn't be able to independently set prices on something unless players are also able to independently increase supply of that thing.

    you figure out why that is a good idea.
    Posted 18 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Ugh, no.  I don't need more real-life in-game and a housing bubble sounds awful.  Just another way for players to be greedy (let's see how long it takes for one player to buy up housing, upgrade it and re-list to wipe out any inexpensive housing).

    You pay for changing your mind about the house you bought.  The game handles the transaction.  It's working just fine now.  The cost of your house is sunk, period.  Decisions you make (where to live, what skills to learn, how many pigs to get) affect your later life.  This is a good thing.

    I've switched housing 5x or so during beta, it all worked out just fine, I have a pile of currants that continues to grow.  I'm not sure what problem this solves, but it introduces many.
    Posted 18 months ago by zeeberk Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @striatic - in this case they are increasing the supply of improved houses. I agree a unimproved home should sell at the 20% loss. But one I have improved on is a new product I feel it's fair to expect to expect some return on my investment.
    Posted 18 months ago by Fokian Fool Subscriber! | Permalink
  • If we take a 20% loss on a house perhaps we could automatically have our livestock and possessions transferred to our new house.

    I have lost count of the pigs, chickens, butterflies and bags I have had to leave behind each time I move, and it seems unfair that we should lose them as well as the loss on the house.
    Posted 18 months ago by Cassandria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • there is no such thing as an "improved house".

    trees die. stuff laying on the ground can be moved or sold individually. produce in gardens dies.

    the only things that stick around and can't be moved and might persist if maintained are pigs and butterflies, and even they all die after a time. that, and with the new caps on animal density there is a pretty strict limit on how much you can improve a house though collecting animals.

    .. and what if i don't want a bazillion pigs roaming around or want to set it up my own way? you've actually decreased the value of the house for me despite tying up a particular location i might want.

    what i see happening here is people buying up housing, adding quasi-desirable "improvements" and pricing out the low end of the market.

    i'd much rather see the ability to move [herd?] animals en masse, or sell them en masse, which could be useful for other purposes as well.

    you might figure i'm arguing for price controls here, though i'm not. there are two ways this can swing.

    one is price controls which won't really work coz we can always make sales under the table.

    the other is the ability to independently create housing supply.
    Posted 18 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • In the real world, housing may be an investment, in Glitch it is a sunk cost.

    You also recoup that cost in the benefit of having a place to store crap and having a way to solo farm and ranch.  You recoup your sunk costs in pig feeders and collectors (or in just the animals) as you and you alone reap their harvests.  Maybe you lose 10 butterflies when you leave, but over the life of your time in that house, how much XP did you get by singing to them (I've leveled up over 5x thanks to butterflies I've had, surely that is more than they cost me).  How much meat or produce did you get?  How many quests did you complete thanks to the patches?  You got money out of that house already.

    Changing housing to be an investment in the game opens housing to be as grossly manipulated as the auctions.  Why do we need this?

    I like the simplicity of housing in Glitch and can't see what benefit this provides given that by the time you sell the home, you've already used its resources to recoup the costs you put into the home.  The 20% hit is one of the few ways the game has to make players make choices and to self-determine your play via the consequences of your earlier decisions.
    Posted 18 months ago by zeeberk Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Hmm, not sure how I feel about this...might be interesting, or might be a pain.  I think once we get decorating/home construction skills then I might buy off on there being an improved house.  

    Right now, I just consider whatever I leave behind as gifts to the new home owner...sort of a welcoming package.  I actually try to stock up the cabinet with some starter seeds and usually leave behind some drinks as well...moving in is hard work after all.  

    I guess I could buy off on the idea to move our critters, but you can hog tie your piggies and take them with you now. And frankly with all the hatch this, grow that achievements, having to do it from scratch at your new location really isn't that big of a deal - gets a few of those out of your way, and is a drop in the bucket towards keeping our streets from being overrun with people's badge accomplishments.  

    I'm with striatic on this too...too many critters and I'm setting a ton of them free to get them out of my way, so it actually depreciates the house to me if there are too many animals left behind.  At this point, I don't see houses having "value increased" yet just by leaving animals behind.
    Posted 18 months ago by b3achy Subscriber! | Permalink
  • This is why I post ideas; so they can be discussed :D

    I don't see how it would drive up the market, because, as I stated, if unsold, the house would sell to the game at the 20% loss after a period of time - I just arbitrarily picked two weeks, but maybe one week would be better - if the price was unrealistically high, just like auctions revert to the seller if they go unsold. It would give players options, they can take the easy road for the fast cash, or try to recoup their animal & tree investments by listing a different price. 

    Alternately, it also gives players the ability to buy a home for a friend that may be out of their price range by purchasing it, and then re-listing it for them at a price they can afford. 
    Posted 18 months ago by Essie Kitten Subscriber! | Permalink
  • the only things that stick around and can't be moved and might persist if maintained are pigs and butterflies, and even they all die after a time.

    Not true - as of a few tests ago, we can 'set free' butterflies and chickens (which I think is was you meant by pigs) :)
    Posted 18 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "I don't see how it would drive up the market, because, as I stated, if unsold, the house would sell to the game at the 20% loss after a period of time"

    you don't put your house up on the official market.

    you find a buyer through chat or the forums or a group or something, agree on a price and then and only then, when you are guaranteed your profit, do you sell.

    which is something that you can do right now if you really feel you improvements are worth the profit.
    Posted 18 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • stri, you can privately sell your house now for an agreed upon price? I thought selling it back to the game for a loss was the only option. Can you please educate me on the hows? If it's already possible, I retract my idea.
    Posted 18 months ago by Essie Kitten Subscriber! | Permalink
  • What if you list your house for sale and a buyer buys it at your higher price while you are offline? What about all the stuff you would be intending to move out? This game is played by people in all time zones. This brings in all the joys of housing chains and exchanging contracts *yawn*

    I come to Glitch to escape from RL not to re-create it.
    Posted 18 months ago by Momo McGlitch Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Once house customization is in place, selling a house at a price you set might make more sense. If customizing a house takes a lot of resources and perhaps certain skills in the skill tree, some people might want to buy a customized house without having to do it themselves.
    Posted 18 months ago by FrankenPaula Subscriber! | Permalink
  • In my theory, you'd have to vacate the house as soon as it was listed, just like now. You couldn't live in both houses. As soon as you listed the house for sale, it would be excluded to you, just as if you had sold it, so you couldn't use it as additional storage space by listing it at an exorbitant selling price in the theory that no one would buy it and you could keep two houses. So, it wouldn't matter if you were online or offline, the currents would deposit to your account when it was sold, regardless of your status.
    Posted 18 months ago by Essie Kitten Subscriber! | Permalink
  • That 20%, along with the subway fee and the commission for auctions is the source of all the currant quoins in the world. What, did you think that these currants just appear out of thin air? Please.
    Posted 18 months ago by Tofu Casserole Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Well, ok, now that many people put it this way, and since houses can't be created by us, I guess my image of some property investment is off. But personally, I'd still like being able to rent. When I first got into the world, I wanted to be able to rent a place for a cheap price, without my papers. Just so I could have somewhere to put stuff I can't carry instead of having to chuck it. I'm thinking, maybe you get to rent a place for a week, for free when you first get it. Then after that, you have to pay rent, or your access is denied. Or something like that.
    Posted 17 months ago by KitkatCat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The giants need to imagine storage lockers. 
    Posted 17 months ago by Lelu Subscriber! | Permalink
  • ++1 Lelu.. Think we've been down this road before.. Renting storage lockers or paying for a Mover.. something like that.  It's really great that there are so many Glitches that are willing to help.. but maybe some would be shy about asking or maybe it's just spur of the moment and we don't have time to "organize" a planned move.
    Posted 17 months ago by Joni Mitchell Subscriber! | Permalink