Support NeoGAF

[The Faceless Master]

Why are yall babies crying about this dude wanting to waste 12k of HIS OWN money on a game?

Sounds like you guys worry about other people a little too much.

12k of his own money ok... but taking out a loan for it is :lol :lol :lol

 

[test_account]

fucking pathetic.

:lol

Why is it pathetic? I totally agree that like 20,000 US dollars is a lot of money to use one on NES game, but if the buyer can afford it and if the buyer is happy with the purchase, isnt that what matters the most?

 

[Skerj]

If you have to go ask your bank for the $12K it would have taken to buy a game if it had ended at that price, I really have to say that you might want to re-think your priorities in life.

I've always liked you and ECM, now I remember why.

 

[Whimsical Phil]

I think he was mocking you...

I know how AstroLad works.

 

[krae_man]

He's a taco collector. Got a problem with that?

Not at all, I collect Tacos Too:

 

[crops55]

Man, just think of all the pussy you could have scored with that cartridge. What a bummer you didn't sink your savings into it.

 

[SlayrUK]

Thanks for all the well-meaning advice, people! Phew, now I'm really glad I didn't sink into that hell of debt. Seriously, if I had asked the bank for that loan to cover part of the amount, it wouldn't affect my economy much outside having to give up a few other unnecessary things for a while. Like walking the three minutes to work instead of driving, and buying only five cds each month for a year instead of 20-30 (I collect music as well... and furniture, and books).

Probably best not to listen to the Taco buying advice too - Wii Fit's getting angry.

 

[GavinGT]

Hey guys I just lost an auction for a piece of toast with the face of Jesus on it. I guess I'll have to cancel those arrangements to sell my son into slavery.....

Probably best not to listen to the Taco buying advice too - Wii Fit's getting angry.

Unless you've got a full stock of Chipotle-away.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

I don't think many hear understand the purpose of collection.

 

[JCtheMC]

I just had to come in here and have a laugh about taking out a bank loan to pay for a Nintendo cartridge. :lol I'm surprised that trading in collectibles seems to be alive and well in this economic climate.

I wouldn't pay 143mil for a Pollock either, but atleast i'd enjoy that.

 

[Prime Blue]

Why is it pathetic? I totally agree that like 20,000 US dollars is a lot of money to use one on NES game, but if the buyer can afford it and if the buyer is happy with the purchase, isnt that what matters the most?

Buying something for the sake of owning and putting it in a shelf to collect dust, especially when other people could have some real use for it, is pathetic.

Don't know if that applies here, but that's what collecting is.

 

[test_account]

Buying something for the sake of owning and putting it in a shelf to collect dust, especially when other people could have some real use for it, is pathetic.

Don't know if that applies here, but that's what collecting is.

How is pathetic defined, what exactly does it mean? Honest question.

I totally agree that 20,000 US dollars is a lot of money to use one one game, i would never do it myself (or maybe if i had millions of dollars, which i unfortunately dont have hehe :\), but if people can afford it and if they are happy about it, what is the problem?

especially when other people could have some real use for it

Is "it" referred to the money or to the game? If it is the money, doesnt this apply to a lot of things though? If you (generally speaking, not referring to you personally) go to the store to buy a $60 game, i am sure that other people could have some real use for it, like to buy some food because they are really poor etc. You might play the game for a few hours and get tired of it, and then the game will collect dust. It is not like people need videogames to survive. I know that there is a big difference between using $20,000 and $60 on one game though, but isnt the principle kind of similar?

EDIT: I added some text.

 

[Brazil]

ITT: Poor people complain about rich people spending their money the way they want to.

 

[SlayrUK]

ITT: Poor people complain about rich people spending their money the way they want to.

ITT: People advise against not so rich people taking out a bank loan to fund a collectable video game cartridge

 

[Prime Blue]

How is pathetic defined, what exactly does it mean? Honest question.

There's a positive and a negative meaning. Here, it describes something (an action or ability) that makes you look down on someone.

Is "it" referred to the money or to the game? If it is the money, doesnt this apply to a lot of things though? If you (generally speaking, not referring to you personally) go to the store to buy a $60 game, i am sure that other people could have some real use for it, like to buy some food because they are really poor etc. You might play the game for a few hours and get tired of it, and then the game will collect dust. It is not like people need videogames to survive. I know that there is a big difference between using $20,000 and $60 on one game though, but isnt the principle kind of similar?

I was talking about the item, obviously. Everyone can do with their money what they want to, but collecting things is like stealing chances from other people to really gain something from an item (e.g., reading books, playing games), other than just owning it for the sake of owning it.

Collecting is like buying some highly sought-after concert tickets and throwing them away.

 

[Threi]

No, 20 thousand dollars.

:lol

 

[test_account]

ITT: Poor people complain about rich people spending their money the way they want to.

Hehe. But ye, i checked on dictionary.com and it seems that "pathetic" is defined as when someone does something that other people think is pitful, at least that seems to be one definition for it.

ITT: People advise against not so rich people taking out a bank loan to fund a collectable video game cartridge

Oh, i thought people ment that it was pathetic to use that much money on a video game even if they had enough money to use this much on a video game. But if you must take up a loan just to buy a game and if this loan affects your familiy in a bad way, then i agree that this isnt exactly a good thing to do.

But in thomaser's (the OP of this thread) case, he said that this load wouldnt have affect him that much. So i look at thomaser as being a very passion collector I dont look at it as being pathetic at least, because the load wouldnt affect him that much as he said, so it seemed to me that he could have afford to spent 11,200 US dollars on this game. But that is just my opinion

EDIT: I added some text.

 

[test_account]

There's a positive and a negative meaning. Here, it describes something (an action or ability) that makes you look down on someone.

Ok, i understand, thanks for the answer! In this case, why should people look down at someone who wants to use much money on a video game?

I was talking about the item, obviously. Everyone can do with their money what they want to, but collecting things is like stealing chances from other people to really gain something from an item (e.g., reading books, playing games), other than just owning it for the sake of owning it.

I think i know what you mean, but i beg to differ. The collectors who are willing to spend much money on something also gain something from this as well. The satisfaction/enjoyment of owning a rare and/or special game is something that most collectors gain/gets when they buy a rare game, or else i dont think that they would have been willing to spend this much money on a game (at least when we talk about video game collecting). So it is not just the people who want to play the game (when we are talking about video game collecting) for fun that gain something from owning the game, at least in my opinion.

By the way, doesnt this goes both ways? If someone decide to sell a rare game cheap to someone because they want to play it instead of selling the game to a collector that are "just" going to put the game on the shelf, doesnt the seller in this case steal the chances to the collector for adding this game in his/her collection?


On of the common reasons why things sell for a high price is because the supply is low and several of people wants it. In cases like this, who decides who that have the most "right" (or what i shall say) to get the item? Is it the people who are willing to pay the most or is it the people who are going to use the item?

To take another example, Ferrari cars are quite expencive. One of the reasons for this is because that several of people are willing to pay what a Ferrari cost (another reason is because that Ferraris arent mass produced though, but still, if people are willing to pay much money for a Ferrari, then it isnt that much reason to lower the price on a Ferrari, at least in my opinion). Seeing that many people wants to pay what a Ferrari car costs, does this mean that these people are stealing the chance for people who have less money to buy a Ferrari? If people wasnt willing to pay the current price that a Ferrari car cost, then Ferrari would have to drop the price so people would buy their cars. And a lower price means that more people could afford the car Maybe this example isnt exactly the same as you mention though, but i think that the principle is a bit the same, that some people are willing to pay a higher price, which means that other people with less money might have a less chance to buy it.


Is there any reason why some people should be more entitled to own something just because they want to use it for other things than "just having it on the shelf"? Honest question. Some people might gain just as much (or perhaps even more?) by knowing that they have something rare in their collection compared to those who gain the enjoyment from playing the game(s).

And people who really wants something might be more likely to spend much money on something, so i guess that it might be possible to say in some cases that those who are willing to spend much money on something have more to gain from it compared to people who are willing to spend less money on something (of course, there are also people who really, really want something, but unfortunately they cant afford it).


You might say that the result of collectors buying expencive games will result in that people who really wants to play the game, but who cant afford it, wont be able to get the game, and in this way it might the same result as "stealing", i agree. But using the world "stealing" in this context, in my opinion it sounds a bit like the collectors are the bad guys. And i dont think that collectors are the bad guys just because they want to spend more money on a game compared to what other wants to spend on a game. So i wouldnt exactly say that collectors are people who steals chances from others to own something, but that is just my opinion It is a free market (in most cases at least), so everyone who wants has a chance to buy games if they want and/or can. Maybe this isnt what you ment though, so please correct me if i missunderstood what you ment

If someone has a different opinion about this, then that is no problem for me, i think that it is good that people have different opinions about things, at least in most cases


There are probably some collectors who also plays their rare games, so it is not sure that they buy an expencive game just to put it on the shelf and never play it, at least when we are talking about video game collecting I am sure that this happends several of times though, that people mostly buys an expencive game "just" to have it in their collection, but i also belive that some collectors also takes the time to play the game some time as well


By the way, in this case about the 20,000 US dollar video game, this game contains 3 games which are all common games (Super Mario Bros 3, Pin-Bot and Dr. Mario). What makes this cart valuable is that it is pretty much a one of a kind item. But if people wants to play the games that are on this rather unique cartridge, then they can just buy Super Mario Bros 3, Pin-Bot and Dr. Mario seperately for a much cheaper price

Collecting is like buying some highly sought-after concert tickets and throwing them away.

I know what you mean, but i would say that there is a difference. Those concert tickets would probably be rather useless once the concert is over. Video games are things that can last for a long long time.

And collecting doesnt always have to be about buying rare and valuable stuff by the way. I am sure that there are several of people who are collecting, but that mostly buys the more common and cheaper things instead. I guess that you are mostly thinking about people who spend a lot of money on something to add something to their collection though, but i just wanted to mention this anyway

EDIT: I added some text.

EDIT 2: I am sorry for the very late edit here :\ But there were some more text that i wanted to add

I am sorry for the quite lenghty post here, but i just had much that i wanted to say

 

[crazygambit]

You make no sense. The OP didn't know it was going to sell for 20 grand or if it even would make any profit at all-- that didn't become apparent until after the fact. He was expecting to buy it for $2000 less than what the original owner paid for it.

I think this is exactly the point. He thought he could get something that once had a value of 14 grand for around 10 because of the economic climate today, hoping it would return and surpass its original value. In other words, buying it cheap. I think at that price it probably would have made a decent investment, at 20? definitely less good.

You honestly think this cartridge would appreciate in value at even a fraction of the interest appreciation of the loan he would take out to buy it?

OP should only buy it if he has cash on hand.

You are completely wrong in assessing the value of an investment. The rate of interest of the loan matters very little, since the value of the investment per se is not affected by whether or not he uses his own money to pay for it.

Even if he paid with his own money he has to expect a return on the investment according to the risk he's taking, which is higher than that of a loan for example. Basically investment decision are generally independent of financing decisions.