They're not 'high in demand' if people can't/won't pay enough to buy those shops from the players who own them.
Chargers shop has been unstocked for months. It's not fair to people that want a shop. The market is not great partly becuause half of the top shops don't even stock stuff
But, in reality, who has the 6.5 million on hand upfront to pay for his shop? If it's a problem where 3-4 people are looking to buy a front row, then yeah, he should restock. But if not, what harm is done? Stations 18, 66, 17, 64, 63, 67, 16, and 72 are always stocked it seems, amongst others. Just go there if you want to sell. I've changed my mind after looking at the spawnshop market. This isn't necessarily the best idea to fix the problem at hand.
There only as expensive as the player market allows.... So if they lose it, it goes to auction and is sold for how ever much it raises. Doesn't matter about paying enough. It matters about the winning bid, which will never be a set price estimate. Especially on auctions.
Thing is, in the last 5 months, there have been 3 auctions (I think) for 1st-3rd row spawnshops. People just don't let them expire willy-nilly, so you have to buy. Hence, the market becomes dictated by the players and whatever people want/desire to pay.
Which is why a increase in price for renting will encourage those people who forked out a load of money to own these, will actually use them to their potential. Its prime real estate, a company doesnt usually buy a prime location for its shop and then just not use it so now one else can have it....they use it for its potential to start with? If you understand where im coming from, it may have a higher rent, but for good reason.
I do understand. I co-ran and co-purchased station26, and I recognize the fact that it is prime real estate. The thing is, why are we upping rates for everyone when, out of the 24 shops, only 5 aren't stocked properly? Shouldn't we go to them and deal with the issue on a case-by-case basis than imposing a greater on everyone, offending or not?
Isn't this a capitalistic economy? Answer that question for me and you'll reqlize why this won't happen.
True, Currently the users arent doing anything wrong, they are going by the rules that are on the guidelines, So im not that fussed Im saying a price rise for the front shops should happen in general, doesnt matter if everyone was stocking there shop or not As its prime real estate, you should be paying a slightly increased price for that luxury. Will it encourgae peopel to stock there shops on rows 3+ increase rent fro 5k to 10k a week, not a chance, being you earn 10k through voting a week, so its not even hard to make that kind of money.
Right, you get charged more... up front, to get it in the first place. I don't see why 'through voting' is a valid argument tbh - I get that it's 'easy' money but there's just no way to spin it, the cost of business goes up 5k a week. The only decent reasoning is to adjust the market for inflation since the 5k/week rate was established - but that should happen marketwide, not just targeted at 3 specific rows in the market.
Just because its a flat rate for all currently doesnt mean it cant be changed into a tiered system... Its never been mentioned that it will never change from a flat rate, so i dont see the why dont all go up' is a valid argument either. Take the appeal system for example, Some punishments are harsher then other because of variables such as severity of actions, number of times that have done it etc. Put that model into the spawn shop rent, then the first few rows would be more because they are, a.prime market locations, b.get better returns per week.
I never mentioned that it's because it's a flat rate - what I'm saying is those who have prime shops shouldn't be charged more than everyone else just because a few shops don't suit peoples needs (the reasoning behind the suggestion). Adjusting the cost because of inflation makes sense, but if we did that it would be marketwide as inflation doesn't only affect a few shops.
Look the thing is most people paid a lot for their front row shops. And they won't sell it Unless they get most of their money back. That's why some people hold on to it so lond because as of now there aren't alot of people looking to buy these shops
Tbh if that's the complaint, shouldn't we just raise the minimum trade signs to make the users actually run them, and then evict them and auction the shop if they fail to comply? That fixes the inactivity and the "money out of the economy" argument, too.
It will hopefully deter me from doing that. Anyway, a lot of you have found faults with my suggestion but the problem is still there without a fix, what do we do about these spawn shops which are as near to empty as allowed? I'd really appreciate it if instead of just bashing my suggestion you could find a better alternative. (This isn't directed at you nicit, it's directed at everybody who's given feedback to this thread)
I second Nicit's response, and also have on thing to add. I ran station10 for around 12 weeks, and made a weekly profit that could be compared with 3rd rows in the" offseason" via advertising and competitive pricing. Just because you are in a "bad" location by the current standards, doesn't mean you can make equal/better returns than front row. Heck, I've heard that some back rows make just as much. In reality, all spawn shop locations are "prime". All 96 plots are connected to spawn via a portal. They all have equal opportunity. It's dependent on how the owner runs it. Therefore, I think it should be all or nothing. Either it goes to 10k for all, or 5k for all.
