Price Charting ads

[Ack]

Dunpeal, why is it "troll-y" to argue that pricing should be based on scarcity?

I should also make note that his "troll-y" comment might be aimed more as a retaliation against your debate style. He started by making counter arguments, and you instantly accused him of being a troll. I asked you a question and finally got a response on the third time asking(thank you for which, by the way. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I'm glad you set it forth for the general discussion), but you did tell me at one point that you were basically going to ignore me for pointing out something I thought you should consider. And then you ended up trying for some kind of morality argument using a film character, which I did not appreciate.

Anyway, short criticism of the self over, back to the regular discussion.

[Krejlooc]

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."

I covered that in my edit. Market price isn't value, and that discrepancy you described is called consumer surplus.

The point is that the term "value" is intrinsically perceptive. When speaking about economics, of course.

[SpoonyBard]

but didn't really see anything that suggested to me that "capacitor plague" is a universal looming problem for all old consoles.

I tried for a few minutes and I can't find a source either. But there was an influx of bad capacitors in the late 80's and early 90's that were used in a lot of consumer electronic devices. I forget the long and short of it, but I believe some Taiwanese company got a corner on the market and sold them to just about everyone. The devices made in that era are quite prone to failure because of it.

Most Sega Game Gear's i've run are non-functioning due to bad capacitors.


As stated earlier though, it's a gradual problem, well known and very simple and inexpensive to fix. I highly doubt it will impact the common consoles resale value. The systems effected have been failing for years, yet it's not uncommon to find working Game Gears and Genesis' for less than $15. Broken units are practically give-aways to whoever wants to invest a few dollars in parts and 20 minutes of time to fix them - and people certainly do.

It may be a service that should receive compensation, but most people buying them have no idea about their failure rate, probably have no idea what a capacitor is, and are probably unwilling to pay more for a "fixed/improved" unit than a working one. Unless by some odd circumstance they all fail on the same day, your common units will probably see no real price increase from it.

[Krejlooc]

but didn't really see anything that suggested to me that "capacitor plague" is a universal looming problem for all old consoles.

I tried for a few minutes and I can't find a source either. But there was an influx of bad capacitors in the late 80's and early 90's that were used in a lot of consumer electronic devices. I forget the long and short of it, but I believe some Taiwanese company got a corner on the market and sold them to just about everyone. The devices made in that era are quite prone to failure because of it.

Most Sega Game Gear's i've run are non-functioning due to bad capacitors.


As stated earlier though, it's a gradual problem, well known and very simple and inexpensive to fix. I highly doubt it will impact the common consoles resale value. The systems effected have been failing for years, yet it's not uncommon to find working Game Gears and Genesis' for less than $15. Broken units are practically give-aways to whoever wants to invest a few dollars in parts and 20 minutes of time to fix them - and people certainly do.

It may be a service that should receive compensation, but most people buying them have no idea about their failure rate, probably have no idea what a capacitor is, and are probably unwilling to pay more for a "fixed/improved" unit than a working one. Unless by some odd circumstance they all fail on the same day, your common units will probably see no real price increase from it.

It's a range. There will be a period when they will all start falling enmass. Like you said, it's gradual, but there will come a point in 5 to 10 years when we will reach the apex. Eventually, there will be more failed consoles than working consoles.

The problem isn't how easy the fix is. The problem is that most people won't know how to fix it, or that it can be fixed. Working hardware will get rarer, this is an absolution.

And that also doesn't take into account normal capacitor death, fuses blowing, etc.

[Retrodude]

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

But that's the thing: Retrogaming as a whole is a niche hobby, yes? So say System X has two games-Game Y produced 500,000 copies while Game Z only produced 5000. Even if there's a high demand for Game Y, there were enough made that it should be easy to meet that demand because there are only so many people collecting for System X, so the price should be in a lower range. Game Z, on the other hand, doesn't have enough to go around so the price would naturally be higher. Ack, you seem to be the economic whiz here, help me out. Is there a name for this idea?

Edit: Yes I realize this model only works for so long, but you understand what I'm going for, right?

[MrPopo]

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

But that's the thing: Retrogaming as a whole is a niche hobby, yes? So say System X has two games-Game Y produced 500,000 copies while Game Z only produced 5000. Even if there's a high demand for Game Y, there were enough made that it should be easy to meet that demand because there are only so many people collecting for System X, so the price should be in a lower range. Game Z, on the other hand, doesn't have enough to go around so the price would naturally be higher. Ack, you seem to be the economic whiz here, help me out. Is there a name for this idea?

Produced is not the same thing as copies available at market. Some number of copies are lost/thrown away/destroyed, some number are sitting happily in a collection and won't move from that spot, and the remaining are in the market. What if the number in market are actually only 3000, while game Z has 5000 in market because it was an absolute shit-show of a game that's barely playable and no one wants it?

[o.pwuaioc]

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

But that's the thing: Retrogaming as a whole is a niche hobby, yes? So say System X has two games-Game Y produced 500,000 copies while Game Z only produced 5000. Even if there's a high demand for Game Y, there were enough made that it should be easy to meet that demand because there are only so many people collecting for System X, so the price should be in a lower range. Game Z, on the other hand, doesn't have enough to go around so the price would naturally be higher. Ack, you seem to be the economic whiz here, help me out. Is there a name for this idea?

Edit: Yes I realize this model only works for so long, but you understand what I'm going for, right?

Now refer to this post: http://racketboy.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 98#p738398

[dunpeal2064]

But see, Game X and Game Y were both made almost 20 years ago, so the 500,000 and 5,000 copies, respectively, are hidden throughout the world. So it only makes sense that if a ton of people wanted Game X, and no one wanted Game Y, that game X should be priced higher.

Now, if people want them both on the same level, it only stands to reason that Game Y would be of a higher value, which proves to be absolutely true when you compare Super Mario Bros 3 (an in-demand, common game that can probably fetch $20), to Little Samson (which could easily fetch $500)

[the King]

"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.

The actual value of something is what someone will pay or what the market will bear. You obviously have a preceived value of most retro games which is less than what the actual value is at this time.

[o.pwuaioc]

Now, if people want them both on the same level, it only stands to reason that Game Y would be of a higher value, which proves to be absolutely true when you compare Super Mario Bros 3 (an in-demand, common game that can probably fetch $20), to Little Samson (which could easily fetch $500)

</thread>

Listen, Retrodude, none of us, except perhaps Mr Popo, likes paying $20 for a common NES or N64 game, but what you're suggesting, what you want, just isn't realistic.