Value of games...

[bjybjy]

With all the recent talk about the value of the McDonalds prototype, and the Beagle Brothers games, etc. A simple idea crossed my mind. People were talking about being "ripped off" or paying too much for games. I'm not gonna state my opinion either way, but just have this idea to say. An atari game is physically worthless... it has maybe a couple cents in chips and plastic to it. So the only reason people pay money for it is to play the game or add to a collection. So how can people be ripped off? I know if you were to sell an inexperienced colletor Combat for $45 that would be ripping him off, but if suddenly everyone in the world wanted a copy, $45 might become cheap (If this happened I'd become a millionaire ). For rarer games I think it someone is buying something, especially in auction format, the cart is worth WHATEVER anyone will pay for it. After all in an auction someone else had to be willing to pay one increment less. Its supply vs demand that creates value, and thus I think its hard to affix a value on rarer items. Feel free to flame away

 

Tad

[Callipygous]

the cart is worth WHATEVER anyone will pay for it. After all in an auction someone else had to be willing to pay one increment less. Its supply vs demand that creates value, and thus I think its hard to affix a value on rarer items.

 

Tad, you are correct Let people spend their money anyway they please. IMHO, its a waste of time argueing about it. Thats why I tend to stay out of those kinds of threads. Oops, so what am doing here . So, for me, its "caveat emptor" all the way. In Latin, I think this means "Dick Cavett's glass is empty"

 

 

Going to get another beer,

[Pitfall Harry]

With all the recent talk about the value of the McDonalds prototype, and the Beagle Brothers games, etc. A simple idea crossed my mind. People were talking about being "ripped off" or paying too much for games. I'm not gonna state my opinion either way, but just have this idea to say. An atari game is physically worthless... it has maybe a couple cents in chips and plastic to it. So the only reason people pay money for it is to play the game or add to a collection. So how can people be ripped off? I know if you were to sell an inexperienced colletor Combat for $45 that would be ripping him off, but if suddenly everyone in the world wanted a copy, $45 might become cheap (If this happened I'd become a millionaire ). For rarer games I think it someone is buying something, especially in auction format, the cart is worth WHATEVER anyone will pay for it. After all in an auction someone else had to be willing to pay one increment less. Its supply vs demand that creates value, and thus I think its hard to affix a value on rarer items. Feel free to flame away    

 

Tad

 

Yes, an Atari cartridge is just a hunk of plastic with a paper label and a quarter cent worth of silicon inside. From a raw materials viewpoint, it is worthless. But then again, every material object under the sun can be perceived as worthless. It all depends on the point of view. A brick of gold, it is generally agreed, is quite valuable. But that is only by agreement. It's a worldwide agreement, but an agreement nonetheless. Sure, gold is shiny. But so is aluminum foil. Gold is an awful building material, whereas iron and steel are much stronger and far cheaper. Gold is an excellent conductor of electricity. But so is copper. Gold has excellent corrosion resistance, but so does plastic and turnips. The only reason gold is as valuable as it is -- because people agree that it is. How do they agree? By the amount of money they are willing to cough up to get some. Since any hunk of unworked, pure gold is as good as any other (a commodity), the value of gold is easily determined by the laws of supply and demand. There ain't much of it, everybody likes it, and the price of it is high.

 

An Atari cartridge, like gold, is also only as valuable as how much someone is willing to pay to get it. But unlike gold bullion, not all Atari cartridges are alike. Some titles are FUN (Pitfall!) and some titles SUCK (Skeet Shoot). Some show signs of heavy wear and abuse, others look as prisine as the day they were produced. Some games have special interest to certain sectors of collectors (prototypes, label variations, etc.), while other collectors couldn't care less. Some games are patently unavailable in certain geographic regions, yet plentiful in others. These considerations and many others factor into the Demand for any particular Atari game, and ultimately influence its value.

 

The other side of the coin is Supply. Given any two desirable material objects which are comparable in every other respect, you can bet the rarer of the two will always command a higher selling price. This, quite simply, is the Law of the Jungle. Whenever there's not enough meat [rare games] to go around, the mightiest [bankrolls] shall rise to claim the prize.

 

So it all boils down to Supply and Demand. How badly something is desired, and how much of it there is to go around. When everybody understands both sides of the Supply&Demand equation, that's when a sale is "Fair." Understanding both sides of the equation is the responsibility of both the buyer and the seller. If either party doesn't take the time to understand the information that is publicly available, then it's their tough luck (or learning experience) if they later experience buyer's or seller's remorse.

 

A transaction is "Unfair" or a "Rip-off" if the seller misrepresents the attributes of whatever it is he is selling. Physical misrepresentation of an Atari cartridge may include condition, functionality, identity or authenticity. In the case of the Beagle Brothers cartridge which recently sold on eBay, it was a "Rip-off" because the buyer would have certainly bid less for it had he known the cartridge was a forgery. Other interested parties who witnessed the sale would be wise to dismiss the sale price as representative of an authentic Beagle Brothers cartridge for two reasons: 1) It was a forgery. 2) Other savvy and well-heeled collectors recognized it as such and kept their purse strings drawn tight.

 

Can AtariAge be blamed for making a buyer and seller believe an Authentic Beagle Brothers cart has more value or less, based on the fact that they had it listed with rarity 10 in their 2600 Rarity Guide? No. That's absurd. AtariAge states rather clearly they make no attempt at assigning Value to the cartridges listed in their database. Rarity is only half the equation and every thinking capitalist should know it by now. If you pull something out of your shorts and autograph it, you have a one-of-a-kind rarity (unless you do it again). But if there is no Demand for it, you'll be hard pressed to convert your ultra ultra rarity into cash. A lot of collectors have good reason to believe the Beagle Brothers carts are just that -- something a software pirate pulled out of his shorts twenty years ago. It's as worthless to them now as it ever was. Others disagree.

 

Value is subjective and changes almost at whim's desire. Ebay prices for Atari carts, like the DOW Jones Industrials, fluctuate constantly, sometimes dramatically over very short time intervals. Rarity is much more consistent and easier to quantify than Value. For these reasons, a Rarity Guide is much closer to fact than a yearly published Price Guide can ever dream of aspiring. To me, a Rarity Guide and the application of common sense to daily observations beats a Price Guide hands down. To me, a Rarity Guide has value, and a Price Guide is worthless. Your mileage may vary.

 

Can AtariAge be blamed for contributing to the delinquency of an eBay Seller? That is, did the mere listing of Beagle Brothers carts in their online Rarity Guide with a rarity of 10 inspire the seller to make his forgery for a fast and easy buck? This is a little trickier. I don't believe it is an "all or nothing" proposition. Clearly, AtariAge cannot be directly faulted for anyone's decision to commit consumer fraud. Yet as a leader in disseminating information to the classic gaming community, AtariAge must realize they now carry an ominous responsibility to the community to get the facts straight. Because there are passionate members out there who look at the Rarity Guide in much the same way that DOW theorists track the daily stock ticker. Buying and selling decisions are based not only on Rarity assignments, but on the LEGITIMACY of the cartridges in question. By listing the Beagle Brothers cartridges under the Beagle Bros. corporate logo, AtariAge lent the trio of cartridges an air of legitimacy by granting them equal footing with the rest of the cartridges coming from known manufacturers. They did this, even though by their own admission the connection to the established Beagle Bros. software company was very much in question. In short, they made a trivial mistake, an honest mistake, but one which could very well have convinced many collectors that the Beagle Brothers cartridges were worth more than they would otherwise have believed had the disclaimers about the cartridges' legitimacy been more clearly stated. Further investigation revealed that the Beagle Bros. connection was no longer in doubt, but rather nonexistant. AtariAge never really "misrepresented" anything. What they were guilty of was "mis-posturing" the Beagle Brothers carts. But I believe that even that little misstep had an affect, that it influenced collectors decisions, may have cost somebody something now or sometime in the future.

 

It was an honest and trivial mistake. But it underscores my point about the responsibility which AtariAge shoulders by virtue of their influence. As a long standing member of this messageboard with very little influence of my own, I am proud to see that AtariAge has not grown too big to listen to their own boards, and to correct a situation which they could have successfully argued was not in need of correction. That they bothered to take the step to reduce the slightest possibility of somebody getting "screwed" as a result of the format of their presentation is just one more reason why AtariAge is the greatest!

 

Geepers. I hope I answered your question!

 

 

Ben

[RangerG]

Wow Ben -- nice reply. Sorta unfair that this post counts the same as yours did toward the almighty post totals.

[Philflound]

Well, let's see. I have to say that Ben is a well spoken individual who definitely knows his stuff. Before reaching his post, I was going to say similar items.

 

So here goes. As far as Atari being a hunk of plastic. A stamp is a piece of paper with ink. A car is a bunch of metal, grease, gas, plastic, glass, etc, etc. A coin is a piece of metal. A painting is a canvas with of course paint on it.

 

So what gives value is you do, I do, and everyone else who desires an item. What's the difference between a porche and a volkswagon... a penny vs a quarter... a Defender vs a Music Machine (Sorry folks, had to throw this in since I just got it for $50)... etc, etc.

 

Desire, desire, desire. One car probably runs relatively the same as the other. One coin looks as shiny as the other. And one cart is as square as the other.

 

The difference is brand name, rarity, and of course desire. There has to be people wanting things in order to have a market for it. There may be only 60 Cubicolor, but if no one wants it, then it is $1.00 vs $1000. Sometimes I don't see the reasoning behind collecting things, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Of course if you are buying awesome things like video games, you can play them and get enjoyment out of it, or frustration if you just miss a high score, or come short of finishing the game and throw the controller... Um, I never did that.

 

But it all boils down to someone wanting it and willing to pay a price for it. Most of us that post here do not have spendable cash over say $100 for one game or a batch of games. That's ok. Maybe luck will smile upon us (uhhhh Music Machine) and we'll get a deal. Maybe we'll have to Win for Life and then pay high for it. Maybe we'll never acquire those certain games. I personally don't expect to see a Cubicolor hit my collection, but you never know. But I'm happy collecting games and am happy when I get a deal, and sometimes am happy when I pay high for something I want (ok, not happy I pay high, but at least getting something).

 

So smile when someone pays $1k for a McD's Proto. It wasn't you so you'll know that you'll have next month's bills safely paid for with the $1k that you didn't spend.

 

Ok, I'm rambling. So buy what you like, but don't go overboard unless you have the extra spending cash. Happy collecting.

 

Phil

[NE146]

Well all I know is that I spent anywhere from 20-40 bucks EACH for almost EVERY SINGLE ONE of my 2600 cartridges (even crap like Home Run!).

 

So my collection of a couple hundred carts (even though it's 7000 miles away) is ULTRA valuable in my humble opinion.... irrelevant "price guides" that come 20 years later be damned.

[bjybjy]

LOL ben, thats a 1264 word post. It must have taken you forever to write! I'm humbled But anyways, I agree with what you said. I totally understand that something is only worth what someone pays for it when its represented properly. I've sold on eBay for 5 years now and I've reported many sellers for selling illegal items, bidding on their own auctions and cheating the bidders.

 

I've just always found it funny when some people get upset when others pay (in my opinion) extremely high prices for any collectible item. That doesn't mean I wouldn't mine owning a MIB quadrun though. I think $500 is a crazy price to pay for a game, and all I can do is just scratch my head and say wish I had 2 of those to sell. If it makes the person happy, more power to em. I've always been more than willing to sell stuff on eBay for what I concieve to be high prices, knowing I list the stuff accurately I have no qualms about selling a Tooth Protector to a guy for $125, or an old microphone for $990, or an old can of tooth powder for $225. Yeah those are all things I've sold on eBay that I thought were junk prior. Well, except for the tooth protectors, but it was percieved as junk by the guy I got it from.

 

What I'm just saying is that I agree with you, and I think that some people get overly upset about silly things like the McDonalds cart. I agree the Beagle Brothers ordeal was very positive for the hobby (discovering the fake), and I don't think that Atari age should be blammed at all.

 

People shouldn't get mad if Mr. Joe Farmer pays more for a game than they think its worth.

 

Just my 2 cent piece worth

Tad

[Philflound]

Paying $20-40 each for games you bought back when they were released doesn't count.

 

What we're determining is a market now. If you own a PS2 or Gamecube or Xbox, you've been spending an average of $50-60 per game when they are released. Every one of those games will come down in price, even if it is $25-40, but regardless, they come down. Your value is the time you spend playing, not the current retail or resale price.

 

I always liked to explain these things to people. If you buy comics, buy them to read. If you can get more money for them later on, it's a bonus. You goto the movies, but you can't sell back the empty tub of popcorn and container of soda. You ate it, you drank it, you watched it. You spent $15.00 in the meantime, but you got something out of it. Maybe heartburn, but something came out in return. You can't get ANYTHING back on that night at the movies. Maybe you even got to cop a feel on your date in the dark. But you have nothing left after you leave the theater except a memory.

 

But your game is there and can be played over and over and over. Or of course you can sell your Home Run for a buck and say that game sucks.

 

Back in the day, I thought it was cool, then came Bases Loaded for the C64 and my view changed.

 

Phil

[Room 34]

For rarer games I think it someone is buying something, especially in auction format, the cart is worth WHATEVER anyone will pay for it. After all in an auction someone else had to be willing to pay one increment less.

That's not entirely accurate in the case of eBay auctions. (I can't speak of "real" auctions since I've never participated in one.)

 

There are 3 factors in eBay auctions that can manipulate the "value" of an item in favor of an unscrupulous seller when dealing with uninformed bidders: the opening bid, the reserve price, and the "Buy It Now" price.

 

Some bidders don't do their homework. I would guess that's a lot more common on eBay than in "real" auctions. And even if the bidders do do their homework, if they limit that homework to a potentially -- if unintentionally -- misleading rating and review on AtariAge, they may get a grossly inaccurate impression of the value of an item.

 

As it turns out, there were 9 bids on the McDonalds prototype. The winning bid was at the Buy It Now price of $999.01, but the previous bid was $666, well below an "incremental" bid less.

 

Now I don't want to rehash either the McDonalds prototype debate or the Beagle Brothers issue. I think both have largely been resolved. The point is, the economic factors influencing perceived value of Atari cartridges, especially on eBay, are far more convoluted and complicated than a simple matter of supply-and-demand.

 

It all comes down to being rational and level-headed when you are going to make a purchase. Think about how badly you really want something, and whether you really believe it is worth the price you will have to pay.

[Pitfall Harry]

The point is, the economic factors influencing perceived value of Atari cartridges, especially on eBay, are far more convoluted and complicated than a simple matter of supply-and-demand.

 

It all comes down to being rational and level-headed when you are going to make a purchase. Think about how badly you really want something, and whether you really believe it is worth the price you will have to pay.

 

I don't think of Supply and Demand as a simple matter at all. Rather, it is an elegant and deceptively simple statement of an extremely complex interactive social dynamic -- especially on the Demand side.

 

Desire to possess a given material object is what ultimately determines its Demand, and it comes in two distinct flavors: personal desire and market desire. Personal desire is what makes an individual decide for himself whether an object is worthy of purchase. When someone's desire to possess an object exceeds his desire to possess an amount of money equal to the sticker price, that object is going to get sold. The value of the purchased object to a rational buyer at the time of sale is somewhat greater than what he paid for it, whereas the value to the rational seller is somewhat less than what he sold it for. An outside observer might average the somewhat's and say the value of the exchanged item is equal to the sale price. But herein a fallacy lies. The sale price represents the average value to the two parties of the transaction at the time of sale ONLY. To suggest that a single sale is representative of market desire is somewhat akin to examining a single vote in a national election and projecting a winner. Every vote counts. Every sale counts.

 

The national election analogy to a market is imperfect, however. Voters are not permitted to examine election counts as they come in to prevent the numbers from influencing voter decisions. A market, on the other hand, reacts to every sale. And every sale brings a slew of variables into play. Was the buyer crazy? Was the seller crazy? Were both of them sane but one of them was deluded or misinformed about the rarity, condition or authenticity of the item? Was the buyer or seller inexperienced? Some potential buyers will take all of these considerations and more into account (in addition to the average sale price) when they make their own personal assessments of "market value." Others may take into account only a few of the above considerations. Still others may simply average all sale prices and be done with it. There will even be those who will consult an ouija board and cast chicken bones into a pentagram for guidance. Every potential buyer in a market will have his own personal idea of the market value of an item, and that idea will fluctuate just as sale prices do. If a downward trend in sale price is noted, some market watchers will lower their personal estimation of value and sell before the price drops lower. Others will see the lowered trend as a buying opportunity and try to buy at a bargain before the market "wisens up." Both choices are logical, both happen. Complexity such as this borders on pure chaos.

 

Ultimately, the true market value of an object will be an expression of market desire, or how badly the average buyer desires it and therefore is willing to pay for it. Averaging the recent sale prices is the only logical way to attain true market value.

 

It's important to remember that true market value is NOT the ultimate measure of an object's value. Think of it as the average opinion. When it comes to averaging recent sales, how recent is recent? That's anybody's and everybody's opinion. If everyone believed True Market Value was dead on, neither investors nor speculators would ever be particulary motivated to buy or sell anything. Wall Street would close up shop out of sheer ambivalence.

 

Convoluted as it is, the proof is in the pudding. Genius and whack-o, research fanatic and coin-flipping tyro cancel each other out. The grand average of recent sale prices is the vote count of the collective market. This is what determines the True Market Value of something, and not "whatever a [one] person is willing to pay for it," and not what is printed in a price guide.

 

True Market Value is a LARGE collective opinion which changes from day to day. A published Price Guide, by comparison, is at best a comparatively TINY collective opinion which may change only once a year. Although an annual price guide may influence some buyer and seller decisions, it would be foolish to deny that a large and dynamic market has a life of its own. Those who understand the nature of markets, who understand the Law of Supply and Demand, know instinctively that an anual price guide published by an insignificantly tiny and self-invested subset of the market isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Unless it has pretty pictures.

 

Ben

[Room 34]

Good points, Ben.

 

I was just too lazy when writing my post to completely explain what I meant. I don't believe economics and supply-and-demand theories are simple at all.

 

What I was referring to as simple was the situation outlined by bjybjy where it was simply that there were two (or more) buyers, and whichever one was willing to pay one increment more than any other, was the winner of the item.

 

Supply-and-demand is very complicated, as evidenced by any of the thousands of auctions daily on eBay!