Stupid Things You Hear Collectors Say

[Keatah]

Been dead since the DVD came out.

[EdwardK]

Been dead since the DVD came out.

 

As someone who loves laserdisc, they were only barely alive to begin with. Honestly they were impossible to find down here (with the exception of online or random garage sales) long before DVD hit the market.

Still have alot of love for laserdisc. the stepkids scratch the hell out of my DVD's (still not sure, it goes from the case, to the player, then back to the case, how does it manage to get ripped up?) but they're afraid to touch the laserdisc for whatever reason. Gotta love stuff the stepkids are afraid to destroy.

[Seob]

Also sold my small collection of laserdiscs because of bitrot. I really loved those big shinny discs. The artwork on those covers is just amazing. I kept a few disc to frame in. Makes great wall art.

[+FujiSkunk]

I've lost a handful of laserdiscs to bit rot, but generally if they're still working now, they'll likely keep working for a long time to come. The most common cause of bit rot isn't due to any inherent flaw in the design of laserdiscs, it's due to bad manufacturing. Double-sided laserdiscs, which describes pretty much all discs sold for home use, were made basically by gluing two individual discs together. In some cases air bubbles would get trapped in the glue. These bubbles would then cause layers within the discs to oxidize or "rust". Once that started, the disc's days would be numbered.

 

Fortunately I have only seen this in a relatively small percentage of discs. Most of the bad laserdiscs I've seen got that way because of bad care, or, in exactly one case so far, some other manufacturing problem.

 

Incidentally, HD DVD collectors are running into the same problem. A lot of HD DVD's, Warner Brothers titles in particular, are going bad because of bad manufacturing, while HD DVD's from other studios still play without issue.

[LaserCat]

I average about one LD purchase every 15 months or so. The last 3 discs I purchased were from Pioneer's ANIMATION! ANIMATION! collection. An amazing series of discs btw. Other than this I am done with the format. I love the large, deluxe LD boxes and the audio was, on occasion, superior to dvd but blu-ray is just so superior to LD or dvd that my affinity for the format has all but disappeared.

[EdwardK]

For me laserdisc wasn't really about any superiority over any other format. More about just hating to buy my movies over again because a new format is out. As far as i'm concerned, if it's watchable to me, it's good and I'll replace it with a different format when it's not.

Also they make amazing conversation pieces. Got my copy of Flash Gordon signed yesterday. Meanwhile, Sam Jones is freaking tall.

 

Anyhow, back on topic, i'm sure a collector somewhere will say that I ruined the value of the laserdisc because there is writing on the case now. I like it that way, and if i ever meet a designer of a game i like, i'll have them sign that too.

[Osgeld]

I havent seen laserdisc since it was still in production, but recently I bought and sold a CED player purely based on I saw one in the wild, I grabbed it cause someone here wanted to buy it, and so I played with it. (I sold it at cost + postage to pretty much the middle of nowhere, great plains USA)

 

While its not on the same level as LD, I can completely understand the appeal of such formats, even that crusty old CED which needed a new stylus absolutely blew me away with its above DVD quality and richness ... even on a 720P HDTV connected though composite. The new owner who took the machine apart and juiced it down with lube and replaced the stylus was absolutely blown away BTW!

 

DVD is very nice on a CRT, especially an EDTV model with 720p /1080i component input, but even in the early days when my pride n joy was a laptop with DVD playback direct digital to LCD, the colors were lacking, and even today popping in a DVD into my BR player with all its fancy upscaling and video processing, still doesnt look as good as "analog video on a disc" formats

 

and frankly it looks atrocious with its compression on modern TV's at close range, the stupid late 1960's tech of CED looked like liquid sex with a phone camera pointed at it 18 inches away

Edited May 30, 2016 by Osgeld

[Professor Gull]

 

 

and frankly it looks atrocious with its compression on modern TV's at close range, the stupid late 1960's tech of CED looked like liquid sex with a phone camera pointed at it 18 inches away

 

 

and frankly it looks atrocious with its compression on modern TV's at close range, the stupid late 1960's tech of CED looked like liquid sex with a phone camera pointed at it 18 inches away

Funny you mention CED I saw this this weekend and vaguely remembering it back form the day.

 

 

I miss my laser disks though at times but understand the degradation of technology. Too bad they did not just put movies on carts like Atari ha ha.

[CrazyChris]

I have completed my collection.

 

Help me to complete my collection.

 

All I need is X & Y to complete my collection.

 

[Troy_Whelan]

 

Indeed. Bullshit on the NES saving computer gaming. If it wasn't NES then some other console would have come along and accomplished the same thing.

 

Not sure I agree with that, or the post about the PlayStation saving gaming. Some other console might have come along and accomplished the same thing, but timing is important here. No other company was pursing a home console, the NES took everyone by surprise, and if another company stepped in it would have been a few years later and likely had a very different outcome as PCs would have evolved a lot during this time.

 

In the early 80's everyone was trying to cash in on the gaming craze so the market was flooding with garbage that was poorly designed and released too quickly. No company wanted to touch the gaming industry. Nintendo was originally in discussions with Sony where Sony was supposed to design and build the console that became the NES, but Sony backed out. Nintendo was the only company willing to take the plunge and rekindle the gaming market, and the NES was far superior in graphics and gameplay to anything before it. Including Super Mario Bros. didn't hurt either. So it may be that the PlayStation was the driving force outside of the US, but Sony would not have created the PlayStation if Nintendo had not created the NES; that is proven by Sony backing out of the console creation deal with Nintendo. Also, to be clear, the gaming market had moved to personal computers instead of home consoles so I believe that if not for the NES that the gaming market would have continued mainly on PCs with no company moving towards a home console for years to come and then playing catch up with PCs.

[S1500]

"I"m S1500 on AtariAge"

[Troy_Whelan]

Some that I have been guilty of:

1. “I just found ____ and paid a fortune for it, only to find that I already had a copy.”
2. “Don’t touch that, it is a collectable.”
3. “This game is awesome on the Intellivision and I play it a lot. I hope someone makes it for the ColecoVision so I can play it there too.”
   1. ​Note that the console direction can go either way.

For people who collect for modern consoles:

1. “Argh! Game ____ just came out and I wish it was a console exclusive! Now I have to buy the same game for 3 consoles!”
2. “Game ____ is a GameStop exclusive. It looks awesome and I would buy it if it wasn’t a GameStop exclusive.”

[Keatah]

Videogames would likely have evolved to where they are today regardless of nintendo (or not). There is no groundbreaking technology or techniques in the NES that were required for things to turn out as they have today.

[Osgeld]

 

Not sure I agree with that, or the post about the PlayStation saving gaming. Some other console might have come along and accomplished the same thing, but timing is important here. No other company was pursing a home console, the NES took everyone by surprise, and if another company stepped in it would have been a few years later and likely had a very different outcome as PCs would have evolved a lot during this time.

 

In the early 80's everyone was trying to cash in on the gaming craze so the market was flooding with garbage that was poorly designed and released too quickly. No company wanted to touch the gaming industry.

 

you do know we are talking a gap of months not decades, most consumers never even noticed the crash other than cheap prices

 

Looking at the big list, your talking massive gaps from 5200 and colecovision in 1982 to the NES in 1983, as well as the 7800 in 84 and the SMS in 85, and even sega had 2 consoles in between 83 and 84 (the Sg1000 and 1000 mk2 sms being mk3) so yes companies were pushing home consoles before during and after the NES, its not some massive black hole where the universe just ceased to exist and savior nintendo came back from generations of exile to become the new king

[BassGuitari]

I somehow doubt the guy was a collector, but one of the weirdest things I've ever heard somebody say was a couple of years ago at MGC when a crusty-looking older guy looked at my Sears Video Arcade in the Museum and said that videogames went to shit after the Fairchild Channel F. I kinda laughed a little and played it off, thinking he was joking or something--you know, the way you don't really want to engage somebody but you don't want to be rude, either--and he just stared back at me.

I was looking over my shoulder for that guy the rest of the weekend.

[+davidcalgary29]

I somehow doubt the guy was a collector, but one of the weirdest things I've ever heard somebody say was a couple of years ago at MGC when a crusty-looking older guy looked at my Sears Video Arcade in the Museum and said that videogames went to shit after the Fairchild Channel F. I kinda laughed a little and played it off, thinking he was joking or something--you know, the way you don't really want to engage somebody but you don't want to be rude, either--and he just stared back at me.

 

I was looking over my shoulder for that guy the rest of the weekend.

 

That guy rules!

Edited May 31, 2016 by davidcalgary29

[Troy_Whelan]

 

you do know we are talking a gap of months not decades, most consumers never even noticed the crash other than cheap prices

 

Looking at the big list, your talking massive gaps from 5200 and colecovision in 1982 to the NES in 1983, as well as the 7800 in 84 and the SMS in 85, and even sega had 2 consoles in between 83 and 84 (the Sg1000 and 1000 mk2 sms being mk3) so yes companies were pushing home consoles before during and after the NES, its not some massive black hole where the universe just ceased to exist and savior nintendo came back from generations of exile to become the new king

 

 

I was there and it was years for people in in the US, not months; nobody ever said decades. Consumers did notice it. Most people had pretty much given up on any new games as they all sucked. Some played what they had while most simply put the consoles and games in the closet and moved on. The time between the CV release and the NES was 3 years, and granted the CV had a good run in the beginning but the well went dry. Also, when you are younger periods of time feel longer than they actually are. Years seem to fly by now.

Looking at the timeline of video game console releases I see dates that differ from what you stated.

• JUN-82 ColecoVision & Vectrex released, followed soon thereafter by Atari 5200
• The Famicom was released in ’83 to Japan only
• SG1000 released in '83 and discontinued in '84
• SG1000 II released in '84 and discontinued in '85 due to the success of the Famicom and NES
• NES was in the US in OCT-85, 3 years after the CV was released
• SMS released in JUN-86
• Atari 7800 released in '86

NES had a huge impact, not sure why you are disputing it. Other consoles were trying to get into the game, but they could not compete with the NES. Most were simply trying to cash in rather than deliver fun games or quality products. I remember being so excited that Pac-Man was coming out for the Atari 2600 and then being so disappointed when I played it. Many people returned the game as it was not as good as it could have been. The NES took the industry in a new direction and gaming became much more mainstream.

[Osgeld]

NES had a huge impact, not sure why you are disputing it.

 

Never disputed it, I think the remembrance of the crash and gap are overstated, console generations cycle roughly 5 years, people dont need one every year to keep the industry alive

 

 

Other consoles were trying to get into the game, but they could not compete with the NES.

 

 

Heh not legally but N's shady contracts aside sega did just fine in many countries, and atari managed to hang on selling the same tired old arcade ports into the early 90's

 

I remember being so excited that Pac-Man was coming out for the Atari 2600 and then being so disappointed when I played it.

 

So your entire argument is based on personal spite, mk

 

The NES took the industry in a new direction and gaming became much more mainstream.

 

Maybe, maybe the industry was starting to head there already given the nature of the arcade scene of the time, but we will never know

Edited May 31, 2016 by Osgeld

[HoshiChiri]

We got any UK/European gamers who wanna weigh in on 'the NES did/did not save console gaming'? I'm curious because a British guy I watch on Youtube has stated more than once that, due to a late & bungled release, NES didn't take off over in Europe. They mostly played home computers. I'd love to hear some other perspectives on that- I don't want to take one guy's word for it. If it's true though, it really emphasizes the NES being a 'right place right time' product for the American market, as opposed to a worldwide game changer. (Since, as I understand it, Sega ruled Latin America.)

[atarifanboi]

I don't even recall being aware of the NES growing up in the UK. I had a ZX81, followed by a Spectrum, after which I went down the Atari 8 bit path, and then the 16 bit Atari/Amiga route. I can honestly say that the first console I was really aware of was the Sega Megadrive, which I sold all of my computers to fund the purchase of. Well, nearly all, I somehow hung on to an Atari 65XE, which I still have to this day. In fact, the first Nintendo I was aware of was the SNES, which a friend owned, but I never did until much more recently.

 

So NES never really showed up in my childhood. Makes me laugh that I can emulate all of the above on my tablet these days.

[EdwardK]

Per my perspective, the only thing that Nintendo did that could possibly be construed as "saving the game industry", atleast here in the US, was they had tighter quality control on the games for their system. Had Atari/Mattel/Coleco etc had the same, the crash might not have occurred. Think about it. What was the percentage of games for the Nintendo vs games for the Atari VCS that were complete and utter crap? Had any company done the same at the same time and advertised like Nintendo did (speaking for the US here still) they too would have outsold their competition by similar margins and everyone would claim that they saved video games.

 

And now i've probably just started a NES vs the world flame war, and won the title for dumbest thing said by a collector at the same time.

 

Also, recently got told "Why would you ever use the RF adapter for your Sega Genesis? Seriously, it looks horrible" To which i replied, "because it's the cable I have and it looks good enough to me". That guy might have me edged out for dumbest thing ever said by a collector.

[Troy_Whelan]

So your entire argument is based on personal spite, mk

LOL - maybe, but my point was more that the corporate greed of the existing console and game manufacturers was causing "the crash" by delivering a LOT of poor quality product and turning people away from gaming.

 

Maybe, maybe the industry was starting to head there already given the nature of the arcade scene of the time, but we will never know

True, the only point here is that Nintendo went there first so they get some degree of credit. Atari had demonstrated on many occasions that they were not learning from their mistakes, but maybe others were.

 

Per my perspective, the only thing that Nintendo did that could possibly be construed as "saving the game industry", atleast here in the US, was they had tighter quality control on the games for their system. Had Atari/Mattel/Coleco etc had the same, the crash might not have occurred. Think about it. What was the percentage of games for the Nintendo vs games for the Atari VCS that were complete and utter crap? Had any company done the same at the same time and advertised like Nintendo did (speaking for the US here still) they too would have outsold their competition by similar margins and everyone would claim that they saved video games.

Agreed 100%. The whole problem was the flood of poor quality games was making people less interesting in playing, so Nintendo comes out with Super Mario Bros. that came with the console, was easy to pick up and play, and was challenging to truly master.

 

My whole point to begin with is that some were discounting Nintendo and the NES as if they had no impact. They were at the right place, at the right time, and the impact is undeniable. Granted it is relative to where you were living and how old you were at the time, but history and statistics show that the impact is there.

 

In a different area of gaming, virtual reality was big for a brief period and then kind of faded away as there was nobody there at the right time with the right product. Now Oculus Rift has come out, gotten major money from Facebook, and may take that into areas that we can only dream of (at least I hope). Sure the window of time is larger here, but the idea is the same. When something is floundering around there has to be something that makes it take off again.

[98PaceCar]

 

 

I was there and it was years for people in in the US, not months; nobody ever said decades. Consumers did notice it. Most people had pretty much given up on any new games as they all sucked. Some played what they had while most simply put the consoles and games in the closet and moved on. The time between the CV release and the NES was 3 years, and granted the CV had a good run in the beginning but the well went dry. Also, when you are younger periods of time feel longer than they actually are. Years seem to fly by now.

Looking at the timeline of video game console releases I see dates that differ from what you stated.

• JUN-82 ColecoVision & Vectrex released, followed soon thereafter by Atari 5200
• The Famicom was released in ’83 to Japan only
• SG1000 released in '83 and discontinued in '84
• SG1000 II released in '84 and discontinued in '85 due to the success of the Famicom and NES
• NES was in the US in OCT-85, 3 years after the CV was released
• SMS released in JUN-86
• Atari 7800 released in '86

NES had a huge impact, not sure why you are disputing it. Other consoles were trying to get into the game, but they could not compete with the NES. Most were simply trying to cash in rather than deliver fun games or quality products. I remember being so excited that Pac-Man was coming out for the Atari 2600 and then being so disappointed when I played it. Many people returned the game as it was not as good as it could have been. The NES took the industry in a new direction and gaming became much more mainstream.

 

Having been there myself as well, it was absolutely not years. I did pick up a lot of 2600 titles for .25 or .50 a piece, but that was a short period of time before I moved on to bigger and better platforms. There may have continued to be fire sales on console gaming, but that wasn't the entirety of the market at that time.

 

I'll make the somewhat unpopular statement that the whole concept of a "crash in video gaming" is pure BS. There was absolutely a crash in console gaming, but not video gaming. The release of the Commodore 64 in September of 82 changed the market quite a bit and a lot of people, fed up with poor quality releases on the Atari and others, moved to the newer and more versatile technology that was home computing. The NES just happened to be the console that was able to bring a new and exciting style of game play (read, Super Mario Bros) to the masses that at the time, computers were not doing.

 

Video gaming was alive and well all throughout the early-mid 80's. It just wasn't happening on dedicated consoles for the entire time.

[BassGuitari]

 

That guy rules!

Eh, not so much. He gave off the vibe of somebody who has pieces of human beings in his freezer.

[Troy_Whelan]

Having been there myself as well, it was absolutely not years. I did pick up a lot of 2600 titles for .25 or .50 a piece, but that was a short period of time before I moved on to bigger and better platforms. There may have continued to be fire sales on console gaming, but that wasn't the entirety of the market at that time.

I guess it depends on where you were living at the time. For me, I lived in a very rural area and there were no stores nearby that sold video games. All I had was the Sears mail order catalog, so only new and advertised games were available to me and that catalog was only updated once a year. So it seems my impression is based off of "new and advertised games" and where I was living and not "game availability." Fair enough. So it seems the "console crash" may have lasted anywhere from a few months to several months (1-3 years) depending on availability to purchase games in your area. Also, some people, probably myself included, consider "the console crash" period to have started when games began to be rushed to market, be of poor quality, and basically sucked. Pre-existing good games for bargain prices would be included in the crash period.

 

I'll make the somewhat unpopular statement that the whole concept of a "crash in video gaming" is pure BS. There was absolutely a crash in console gaming, but not video gaming. The release of the Commodore 64 in September of 82 changed the market quite a bit and a lot of people, fed up with poor quality releases on the Atari and others, moved to the newer and more versatile technology that was home computing. The NES just happened to be the console that was able to bring a new and exciting style of game play (read, Super Mario Bros) to the masses that at the time, computers were not doing.

 

Video gaming was alive and well all throughout the early-mid 80's. It just wasn't happening on dedicated consoles for the entire time.

That I entirely agree with, and I don't think it is unpopular. The term has always been generalized as it was focused on marketing and popularity of console gaming and the decline of arcades when consoles first became available. As I mentioned in my first post on this (#135), the console gamers and gaming market had in large part moved to PC and computer gaming for the reasons stated in earlier posts and that you also state above. We agree entirely here.