prfsnl_gmr wrote:I am very excited about this game. I am sad that it is not coming out for the 3DS, which would be awesome.
Indeed. It would probably look fabulous on the 3DS, but I'm not going to complain. Instead, I'm going to cross my fingers and hope they do the same thing for the sequel and the other Disney-related Capcom games. To have Chip and Dale look more like their animated counterparts would make me squee.
I know...In prfsnl_gmr fantasy world we would get a physical release containing remakes of all the Capcom Disney games...on the 3DS...with the original titles as unlockable bonuses...
I almost can't believe it. Freaking amazing. Way to go Capcom.
And since it was brought up, I'm even more excited for the possible resurrection of the Illusion series. Bring 'em all back! Especially Quackshot.
Kinda makes me wonder, who would have to do the work to get a new release of the unrelated Mickey Mania? Funny enough, Sega and Capcom both published it in Japan, but every where else it was Sony. I know (or rather, I've heard, never confirmed it) the ps1 version of the game has been released on PSN in Europe.
GameSack wrote:That's right, only Sega had the skill to make a proper Nintendo game.
ninjainspandex wrote:I'm not sure what your trying to argue
What I'm trying to argue is the same thing I've been trying to argue all along:
While there are some things that are legitimately rare and hard to find, if you can check ebay on any random day and see dozens of whatever it is you're looking for, then it is neither rare nor valuable and there is more than enough supply to meet whatever demand there might be. Therefore, all this free market BS is just that and overpricing stuff just because you can is wrong, period. Please understand, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but seriously, am I the only one who understands this?
I'm not a glitch, I just have pixlexia.
Raiiban wrote:That's a moral dilemma. Capitalism has no morals.
ninjainspandex wrote:I'm not sure what your trying to argue
What I'm trying to argue is the same thing I've been trying to argue all along:
While there are some things that are legitimately rare and hard to find, if you can check ebay on any random day and see dozens of whatever it is you're looking for, then it is neither rare nor valuable and there is more than enough supply to meet whatever demand there might be. Therefore, all this free market BS is just that and overpricing stuff just because you can is wrong, period. Please understand, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but seriously, am I the only one who understands this?
Actually, the thing is...you don't really understand it. The value of any object in our society is based purely on perception: if I think something is worth it, then it is. If a large group of sellers think an item is worth something, then it is. It does not really matter how common the item is or who is providing it. Everything's monetary value is based on a perception of value made somewhere, be that perception be based on the value of other objects related to it, based on an estimation of the work required to get it, or based on an arbitrary limit imposed by those people who have either claimed or been granted legal/moral authority to do so in a group.
Ack wrote: If a large group of sellers think an item is worth something, then it is.
No. It really isn't. If every seller suddenly decided that SMB/Duck Hunt was the most valuable cart ever and started charging $500 for it, that wouldn't mean it actually was worth that. Unfortunately, in that scenario, if someone pointed out how stupid that was, all they would hear is "free market, supply and demand, free market, supply and demand" as if those words actually meant something.
I'm not a glitch, I just have pixlexia.
Raiiban wrote:That's a moral dilemma. Capitalism has no morals.
Ack wrote: If a large group of sellers think an item is worth something, then it is.
No. It really isn't. If every seller suddenly decided that SMB/Duck Hunt was the most valuable cart ever and started charging $500 for it, that wouldn't mean it actually was worth that. Unfortunately, in that scenario, if someone pointed out how stupid that was, all they would hear is "free market, supply and demand, free market, supply and demand" as if those words actually meant something.
So let's take your hypothetical scenario. There are two outcomes:
1. No one wants to pay $500 for it. The sellers have to foot the opportunity cost of keeping the items in inventory and listed for sale. After a period of time they will lower the price to attempt to get the units moving. 2. People buy it for $500. Seems like the item's value to me.
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
Ack wrote: If a large group of sellers think an item is worth something, then it is.
No. It really isn't. If every seller suddenly decided that SMB/Duck Hunt was the most valuable cart ever and started charging $500 for it, that wouldn't mean it actually was worth that. Unfortunately, in that scenario, if someone pointed out how stupid that was, all they would hear is "free market, supply and demand, free market, supply and demand" as if those words actually meant something.
The irony of all this is without capitalism we wouldn't have video games at all
ninjainspandex wrote:I'm not sure what your trying to argue
What I'm trying to argue is the same thing I've been trying to argue all along:
While there are some things that are legitimately rare and hard to find, if you can check ebay on any random day and see dozens of whatever it is you're looking for, then it is neither rare nor valuable and there is more than enough supply to meet whatever demand there might be. Therefore, all this free market BS is just that and overpricing stuff just because you can is wrong, period. Please understand, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but seriously, am I the only one who understands this?
I can go online any day of the week and find a copy of Shinrei Jusatsushi Taromaru on ebay. However, it is factually, actually rare - only 4000 copies exist. All that proves is that the internet is great at aggregate data, and that collectively culling the entire planet for a product makes for a terrible indicator of scarcity.
not that I don't agree with your general point, though.
Ack wrote: If a large group of sellers think an item is worth something, then it is.
No. It really isn't. If every seller suddenly decided that SMB/Duck Hunt was the most valuable cart ever and started charging $500 for it, that wouldn't mean it actually was worth that. Unfortunately, in that scenario, if someone pointed out how stupid that was, all they would hear is "free market, supply and demand, free market, supply and demand" as if those words actually meant something.
A seller is free to charge whatever he desires for an item, but he or she cannot control demand. As a result, he or she cannot control an item's market price.
I will emphasize this again...you really, really need to take a basic course in microeconomics. You do not yet have a grasp of how prices are set in a free market or the distinction between "price" and "value". Accordingly, while you may very well have some good points regarding the market value of videogames or the benefits of socialism, your ignorance of basic economics currently prevents you from making them.
