Price Charting ads

[Krejlooc]

"Retrogaming in general" is sort of a contradiction of terms

There's a reason niche groups exist. How much would you pay for Battlesphere Gold, for example, on the Atari Jaguar?

People in the Atari collecting scene will pay $1000+. It's impossible for one group to collectively know everything about every library. Further more, who decides which prices to honor?

You sound a bit idealistic and unrealistic. Your meaning is rooted in good intention, but it's not feasible and I don't think you're seeing the logistical road blocks in your way.

BTW - nobody is trolling. That's such a lazy deflection and I abhor seeing that. If we were trolling, we wouldn't be entertaining your opinion.

[Retrodude]

"We all" (which I assume, when you said it, relates to retro game collectors) are buying the games at what we find them worth. That you think "we all" would change our buying habits based on what you think is very self-centered.

All I'm saying is that there's a difference between "perceived value" and "actual value" and the actual value of most retro games is less than the perceived value, so feeding the system by buying games at an inflated price seems monumentally stupid to me. It seems I'm the only one sane enough to see that, though, because I hear the same bogus arguments everywhere I go whether it's sellers trying to justify overpricing or buyers trying to justify overpaying.

[dunpeal2064]

But why do YOU get to determain the "actual value" of video games.

Saying anyone who disagrees with you is insane is more troll-y than anything else that has been said in this thread.

What is the actual value of Mario 64 Retrodude?

[Krejlooc]

"We all" (which I assume, when you said it, relates to retro game collectors) are buying the games at what we find them worth. That you think "we all" would change our buying habits based on what you think is very self-centered.

All I'm saying is that there's a difference between "perceived value" and "actual value" and the actual value of most retro games is less than the perceived value, so feeding the system by buying games at an inflated price seems monumentally stupid to me. It seems I'm the only one sane enough to see that, though, because I hear the same bogus arguments everywhere I go whether it's sellers trying to justify overpricing or buyers trying to justify overpaying.

Value is perception. There is no such thing as "perceived value" since value is not absolute. There is no scientific measure of value, it's a subjective thing.

EDIT: You seem to be confusing value with market price. The difference you're looking for is consumer surplus. Again, these are economic terms. Value is 100% perceptive, though.

[o.pwuaioc]

"We all" (which I assume, when you said it, relates to retro game collectors) are buying the games at what we find them worth. That you think "we all" would change our buying habits based on what you think is very self-centered.

All I'm saying is that there's a difference between "perceived value" and "actual value" and the actual value of most retro games is less than the perceived value, so feeding the system by buying games at an inflated price seems monumentally stupid to me. It seems I'm the only one sane enough to see that, though, because I hear the same bogus arguments everywhere I go whether it's sellers trying to justify overpricing or buyers trying to justify overpaying.

Value is perception. There is no such thing as "perceived value" since value is not absolute. There is no scientific measure of value, it's a subjective thing.

I have no idea what Retrodude is referring to, but it could be in reference to anomalous prices. If a Super Mario 64 kart is easily found for $15, and yet someone pays $30 for it because they do not know better, there is a discrepancy in the buyer's perceived value of the item v. the market's perceived value of the item. Because the seller than makes a purchase of $30, he or she changes the market price, affecting everyone else who thought the game was worth $15. Without strict historical controls, people on ebay can be clueless about prices and end up overpaying.

And that's not to mention things like reproductions, which can be bought new for $70 on a repro site and sell used for $140 on ebay. But then I just smile and thing to myself, "A fool and his money are soon parted."

[Retrodude]

Dunpeal, why is it "troll-y" to argue that pricing should be based on scarcity? I said before, I understand paying more for legitimately rare games, but the vast majority of all retro games are nowhere near rare, so all the overpricing that goes on is pure greed and nothing else. I actually frequent a local retro shop specifically because they understand this and also understand that what they lose in per-unit pricing, they can make up through volume. If you want to talk economics, that seems to me like a great economic model because one would assume that by consistently selling for less, you'd build up a large number of happy repeat customers (as this shop seems to be doing considering it's a chain and presumably plans on expanding further).

[MrPopo]

All I'm saying is that there's a difference between "perceived value" and "actual value" and the actual value of most retro games is less than the perceived value, so feeding the system by buying games at an inflated price seems monumentally stupid to me. It seems I'm the only one sane enough to see that, though, because I hear the same bogus arguments everywhere I go whether it's sellers trying to justify overpricing or buyers trying to justify overpaying.

Value is perception. There is no such thing as "perceived value" since value is not absolute. There is no scientific measure of value, it's a subjective thing.

I have no idea what Retrodude is referring to, but it could be in reference to anomalous prices. If a Super Mario 64 kart is easily found for $15, and yet someone pays $30 for it because they do not know better, there is a discrepancy in the buyer's perceived value of the item v. the market's perceived value of the item. Because the seller than makes a purchase of $30, he or she changes the market price, affecting everyone else who thought the game was worth $15. Without strict historical controls, people on ebay can be clueless about prices and end up overpaying.

Right, that's part of the natural ebb and flow of prices. Ideally we would have perfect information with regards to who's selling what for how much and could make our choices that way. In practice we don't, so you will have anomalous purchases for more than the average market price. If that ends up bumping up the average market price across the board then you'll see one of two things:

1. Sales velocity remains unchanged; turns out the buyers were undervaluing their merchandise, so them raising their prices was a good strategy for them
2. Sales drop off; after a period of time the prices should start to creep down until sales pick up again.

Dunpeal, why is it "troll-y" to argue that pricing should be based on scarcity? I said before, I understand paying more for legitimately rare games, but

Because it's more than just scarcity. I have two games: AwesomeMcCoolgame and ShitSandwich. Out in the wild there are 1000 copies each across all sellers. AwesomeMcCoolgame is going to sell for more than ShitSandwich because it has a higher demand across the same supply.

[o.pwuaioc]

Dunpeal, why is it "troll-y" to argue that pricing should be based on scarcity? I said before, I understand paying more for legitimately rare games, but the vast majority of all retro games are nowhere near rare, so all the overpricing that goes on is pure greed and nothing else. I actually frequent a local retro shop specifically because they understand this and also understand that what they lose in per-unit pricing, they can make up through volume. If you want to talk economics, that seems to me like a great economic model because one would assume that by consistently selling for less, you'd build up a large number of happy repeat customers (as this shop seems to be doing considering it's a chain and presumably plans on expanding further).

Because pricing on scarcity doesn't take into account demand.

[dunpeal2064]

Its torll-y to say that since you are the only one with your opinon, that you are the only sane one, and that everything everyone else is saying is total bogus garbage being spewed by resellers (as if we are all resellers)

Price should be based on demand. Qix is a rarity 7 NES game iirc, and yet it sells for less than Ducktales 2 does, which is a 6 rarity. So, should QiX be raised in price? No, because it is not in demand. There are very rare games that do not sell for a lot of money, as are shown in pretty much every "Rarest and Most Valuable" guide on racketboy.

Again, I ask you, what is the value of Mario 64, and how did you determain this?

[BoneSnapDeez]

Dunpeal, why is it "troll-y" to argue that pricing should be based on scarcity? I said before, I understand paying more for legitimately rare games, but the vast majority of all retro games are nowhere near rare, so all the overpricing that goes on is pure greed and nothing else. I actually frequent a local retro shop specifically because they understand this and also understand that what they lose in per-unit pricing, they can make up through volume. If you want to talk economics, that seems to me like a great economic model because one would assume that by consistently selling for less, you'd build up a large number of happy repeat customers (as this shop seems to be doing considering it's a chain and presumably plans on expanding further).

Because pricing on scarcity doesn't take into account demand.

Yup.

I own Tandy Color games that I'm positive no one else on this board owns. Would anyone give me more than $1 for each one? I would guess not - there is zero demand.