Seth

Is this just a list of things no one here ever said? I'm confused.

Dude, it was 100% the answer to your question. But I'll try again: the buyer class in this market, long term, comprises not investors but collectors. Investors move on to other asset classes, collectors who are also gamers stay. So Dragon Warrior will be preferred over other games, long term, only to the extent a buyer likes the game more—as a game—than other games, and they will make that assessment with a much more robust knowledge of the NES game library than any investor has. That brings the relative value of DW1 and Arkista's Ring much closer than you think. Even if you like DW1 more than Arkista's Ring (which I don't), you don't need a 9.6 or 9.8 copy to either display or collect or (for that matter) resell. So the demand for DW1 is lower than you think, and higher for the games gamers love that you consider obscure than you think. And the need for high-grade DW1s is lower than you think. So there is no reason to expect a grade or "historical significance" premium for DW1 over the long run, while getting the highest-ever WATA-graded Low G Man for just $240 is smart because the gamers and collectors who will stay in the market long-term will want that game in higher numbers than you seem to understand. Those five categories were not intended to encapsulate every imaginable possibility and I think you know that. This is a discussion board and we are aware of the little, unmentioned infelicities all conversation is heir to.

I hear you, GPX. But I need to make some clarifications. First, I think you mean the data is biased toward the lower-end of the collecting pool—which it is, and intentionally. The main thing I take high-end resellers to task for is that they do nothing to welcome newer people into the hobby by making the hobby more affordable and maintaining a robust three-figure market (instead, they have done all they can to destroy that market). My data is geared toward the 90% of a healthy and stable collectibles market that is not high-end. By design. I will never seek to cater to high-end resellers. It's for this reason that I don't need high-end sellers to "take me seriously"—I don't really care if they do, as I don't believe their conduct can be amended. Why? Because it's born of what I deem to be a deficient value system, not a lack of data. I agree wholeheartedly that the highest end of the market comes largely in private sales, where everyone is getting gouged because everyone is a sucker eventually. I don't want or need this to stop because the fact that it isn't and won't means I am getting games quite easily for a tenth of what people "in the know" are paying. They are punking themselves, and I'm happy to have them keep doing it if that's what they want. In this view, the fact—and yes, I agree, it's a fact—that the highest-end sales are just going higher and higher means that the high-end resellers are just punking themselves worse and worse and more and more over time, as everything they want gets more expensive even though none of it is rare and much won't appeal to the market this collectible will ultimately have (gamers who actually love the game library of what they're buying and know it well, and therefore aim to move way, way beyond just SMB3). It is important to say that I don't need or seek the respect of people whose conduct I don't respect or want to encourage. Could they save tens of thousands of dollars by listening to me? Sure—I know this because I know what games are in my collection and what I paid for them, and I know the research that led me to those buys, and I knew what the pop reports would say before they came out. But do I care if the high-enders listen to me? Not really. My ethos requires that I try to provide them with data, but not that I care if my words are heeded. I did enough—by publicly saying things that would have been to my detriment financially—to execute my sense of what is moral. Please don't misunderstand: there is absolutely price growth (not buyer-base growth) in the high-end market, all of it absolutely terrible for those who operate in that market because they ultimately will neither be able to buy or sell games (i.e., they are squeezing their buyer base while pricing themselves out of their own market). I am embarrassed for the market manipulators as well as angry at them; I don't need their approval.

I see why we're talking past one another. OK, so here are the categories of people who collect video games: 1. THE GAMER. Collects video games by buying, opening, and playing any game they want to own. They are not interested in games they don't enjoy playing, or sealed/graded games in any capacity. 2. THE CASUAL COLLECTOR. Collects graded but unsealed games (CIBs) because they are more accessible financially. They tend to be three-figure collectors and tend to buy games they love. 3. THE COMMITTED COLLECTOR. Collects sealed and graded games but, because they aren't a reseller, they have to be frugal—as every purchase is a straight "loss" of money. They tend to be three-figure collectors and tend to buy games they personally love. 4. THE RESELLER. Will buy anything they can profit from, for whatever console and in whatever condition and in whatever submarket (CIB or sealed). A small number of games they personally love they hold back for their PC (personal collection), but they would pretty much sell anything for the right price so they always want and need the market to go up—they can't keep buying games otherwise (because they need the money from sales to do so). 5. THE INVESTOR. Only buys high-grade sealed because they are seeking a high middle- or long-term profit. So, let's imagine someone who loves DW1. 98% of the time (estimate) that means they're a gamer, and they "collected" DW1 by buying and opening and playing it. Maybe 1.5% of the time, a DW1 lover is a collector-class individual—which means they either bought a CIB or a sealed copy that was nice enough for display (say WATA 8.5 and above, but no need whatsoever for a 9.6 or 9.8 investment-grade article). Maybe 0.5% of the time, the DW1 lover is a seller or investor. The seller just needs something they can sell at a profit, which is likely (like the collector, albeit for different reasons) anything above an 8.5 WATA. Only the investor needs that 9.6 or 9.8, but they should also realize that their consumer base is almost non-existent. It's also only the investor who really cares about "historical significance," as everyone else either buys a game because they love it (THE GAMER, THE CASUAL COLLECTOR, and THE COMMITTED COLLECTOR) or because they think others do, regardless of the game's "historical significance" (THE RESELLER). I would take Arkista's Ring over Dragon Warrior 10 times out of 10 because I'm a collector and I like Arkista's Ring way more as a game. Like way more. Most sealed and graded video game buyers are like me: they buy what they like. And with 700+ NES games, the chance that Dragon Warrior is among their favorites is still quite low statistically.

Not even close. But happy to clarify what I've already made clear here repeatedly: 1. Video games are the most important new art form of my lifetime. 2. Video games deserve to be preserved and collected and displayed the way fine art is. 3. Because unlike conventional fine art video games were mass-produced, they have a good chance to become a fine art collecting category accessible to middle-class folks. 4. The chance of a healthy, stable, long-term sealed-and-graded collecting market is being destroyed by a small cadre of market predators who enable and encourage unethical grading, auctioneering, and selling practices and have formed discrete cabals online. 5. I approach all this as a gamer, collector, journalist, consumer advocate, and academic who does not sell sealed and graded games but does collect them, who believes a healthy market is based in data and not high-end resellers' Big Important Feelings and greed, and who takes ethics seriously because he has been an attorney for 20+ years without experiencing a single professional conduct complaint. S.

.

.

Fair point—to a point. Over 70% of eBay sales of sealed NES games (and prices are actually higher on eBay than for comparable games at HA) are three-figure sales. So is starting the bidding for DW1 at $500 when it's the #8 most common sealed and graded NES game (out of 700+ games) consistent with the fact that this is a three-figure market with only occasional higher sales (but those sales just happen to be the ones obsessed over)? I don't think so. At this point, relative to all titles in the NES library, DW1 should be on the cheapest end, which means maxing out at $500 (at the most), not starting there. I would argue that DW1 is already overpriced at this auction starting point, though I've no doubt that many would buy it at $500 out of either (a) instinct, or (b) love of the game (DW1, not collecting).

Thank you for this. I love hard data. And I do think this proves my point.

Don't do this. You and your friends are price-gougers bilking people for thousands. Don't attack data being sold (as part of a massive publication with much other content) for $2.90. It's sick.

Why do you refuse to use PriceCharting.com? More VGA Hydlides came to market in *just 2013 and 2014*—when WATA wasn't even a glimmer in Deniz's eye—than WATA has ever graded. How do you benefit from refusing to do research? I'm asking seriously.

Oh, I wasn't referring to anyone here specifically. I was referring to the Facebook "High-End" group. Some of them lurk here. I have clarified this before, but perhaps should have done so in my last post, sorry. I don't know what I am besides a collector and a journalist. All I know is that I don't sell games—ever—let alone speculate in this market or try to hype up the market. But I do collect (I have many WATA and VGA games) and I do follow the market as a journalist.

Code Monkey, I am glad you have clarified your perspective. Here is mine: I track games in 25 markets, not just one, as you say you do. VGA games continue to make up about half the market, not the 0% you are seeing by only using HA. So the idea that VGA would grade fewer uncrossed games in 13 years than WATA has in 3 years (as Gulag Joe insisted) is ludicrous.

OK, market predators, the time of testing has come. Dragon Warrior (NES) is a great game. It was critically acclaimed. It has historic significance. It has many fans—in fact the Dragon Quest series is one of the most popular video game franchises in the world. But we now know that WATA has graded eighty-nine Dragon Warriors in the last 36 months, making it (as RETRO said it was months ago, per hard data market research) one of the Top 10 most common NES titles in sealed and graded condition. We don't know how many additional sealed Dragon Warriors are still unlogged in WATA's year-long backlog; we don't know how many sealed un-crossed-over Dragon Warriors were graded by VGA in the last 13 years (including the 10 years before WATA existed and the three years during which PriceCharting.com shows that VGA-graded games continue to be about half the total market); we don't know whether sealed Dragon Warriors will continue to be graded at the frantic, almost lunatic pace they have been since 2018; we only know that the number of Dragon Warriors will be in the hundreds (at least) by 2026, and possibly the very (very) low thousands. We also know that about 40% of WATA-graded Dragon Warriors reach near-mint status, a pretty typical breakdown for an NES game, per RETRO research. $500 is the starting price for this VGA Dragon Warrior just listed on eBay. How high will you bid it up now, market predators? Or will you stay away altogether, as the data would suggest you should? What do you think one of hundreds of near-mint Dragon Warriors is worth in a market where only 5-10 buyers appear to bid on any one item?

You are correct. The market predators can't be stopped. That's probably why I'm so angry—because I know that nothing, not even my deliberately provocative self-righteousness and condescension to them (coupled with facts, data, and research) can slow their dishonest roll. They will continue on as they have until this market or its reputation are destroyed, likely both. And the whole time they'll say they're "not motivated by money."

I already conceded to Adam, above, that we can't know if 234 SMB3s in 36 months for WATA equals 234 (or more) SMB3s graded by VGA over 13 years. I just know that PriceCharting.com shows VGA sales as about 50% of sealed-and-graded NES sales since WATA was founded, and definitionally VGA was 100% of sales for the decade before that, so a conservative—in fact highly conservative—estimate for those who need to make hard buying decisions now is that at least as many VGA graded copies of SMB3 stayed as VGA-graded items over 13 years as WATA produced in its first, backlog-plagued 36 months (recall that that 234 figure does not include any as-yet unlogged copies in WATA's massive, year-long backlog). At issue here is not my "feelings," but necessary speculation based on the hard data we have. The folks working off their "feelings" are led by Jonas and his crew. ON EDIT: Linear math (arithmetic math) would have caused me to say that there are 433% the VGA copies of SMB3 as WATA copies (13/3 = 4.33; 4.33 x 234 copies equals 1,000+ copies). I did not do that. I was wildly conservative in my math—even irresponsibly so—and still got attacked.

I think we're getting to the crux of it here, as you say. "Rarity" only has meaning relative to the matter of supply and demand. Demand for the highest end of each NES title has been provably small—most auctions have 5-10 bidders—while this WATA pop report suggests that supply of the games that even get 5 to 10 bidders (most get fewer) is at least in the hundreds. That presents a massive market issue, as for high prices to be maintained you can't have one copy for each person who wants one, you need a multiple (i.e., 2x or 3x or 4x or whatever the number of buyers as compared to copies available). So far, WATA has (a) raised prices for the highest-end items, but critically (b) not expanded the market in terms of buyers (indeed, I'd argue it has priced many people out and brought bad press to the hobby, artificially depressing demand in terms of number of buyers—a distinct "demand" metric as compared to "top price paid"). The result is that when high-end resellers say the number of buyers will explode—when it hasn't for 15 years—it rings hollow. But I agree with you that if you suddenly had 10x or 20x the number of buyers for the highest-end items, it would at least give that niche market a chance to survive as it is (with regular four-figure sales and semi-regular sales above that). Where you're wrong is that a 10x or 20x buyer increase is not small and shows no sign of happening.

You have been told over and over and over that top-end sales don't represent a market. Even Dave Robbins concedes this. You ignore what you are told because you don't want to hear it. Your ignorance on this point is no basis for gloating.

And all I'm saying is that the "cross-over" phenomenon is one pushed by a small group of resellers who think—not incorrectly—that WATA games sell for more, all things being equal (which they shouldn't, but they do, even though VGA has fewer grading errors and grades slightly more strictly). So I believe that, to you, it seems like "most" VGA games get crossed over, but I think you've also been directed to the fact that your set is not representative and you deny that. So we're at an impasse. But if you want to find hard data and get the facts right, I can at least try to point you in the right direction in a friendly way. Consider: if all VGA games from 2018 onward—this wouldn't cover the decade from 2008 to 2018, but you're ignoring that decade of VGA grading anyway—were immediately crossed to WATA before going on the market, PriceCharting.com should probably show few VGA games coming to market post-2018. Now look up, say, Boulder Dash (a randomly chosen NES game) on PriceCharting.com. Does your theory, which requires almost no VGA games at market from 2020 or 2021, hold up?

Adam, this is fair. I agree that there are factors we don't know that could reduce the VGA population to something other than an arithmetic multiple of the WATA pops. These factors include cross-overs, VGA gaining in popularity only after WATA was founded, increased interest in the hobby over time (even if it has stayed very small overall), and so on. As you note, I'm only speaking to/of (maybe rarely for) those trying to make buying decisions. So we have to go with probabilities. But I don't disagree with what you say here as a philosophical/hypothetical matter.

I suspect he'll say that he was right—because he has been and is.

I'm sorry, but you and your crew don't get to police minor addition or multiplication errors when you deny the utility of any math to this scenario by wishcasting figures that have no bearing in reality.

You don't even realize how insanely cultish this fact-free claim sounds. Yes, there are cross-overs, but to use that as proof that WATA data is total population data is so dishonest that it's breathtaking. So if you're not motivated by facts and you're not motivated by money, you're going to have to clarify why you feel the need to spread disinformation. Because I don't get it, otherwise.

OK, let's put it on the table. You have been wrong about everything and you acknowledge none of your errors. You are a WATA shill who enables that company's unethical conduct. You are a price-gouger who takes advantage of people lacking hard data and then attacks anyone who provides hard data. You are motivated purely by profit, as proven by the fact that you do nothing to expand the consumer base in this hobby and appear to have no interest in doing so. I am angry at rich liars without ethics, so I come in hot over and over. I am being provocative—but accurate—because the high-end reseller community deserves to be provoked. It is ruining what could be an amazing hobby and denigrating an art-form I value and teach at the university level. I believe in advocating for vulnerable people and wrongly disfavored ideas and you and your crew believe in self-enrichment, whatever you may self-mythologize about yourselves. But since you want to go into specifics, OK. It is not market analysis to disappear the entire data-set below high-near-mint condition for each NES title, especially when you and your crew do this on the supply end but not the demand end—which is dishonest as hell. If you're going to erase 70% of the WATA-graded SMB3s (which is likely a minuscule fraction of the total population due to the current data not including 13 years of VGA grading or WATA's backlog), you also have to erase all the buyers who can't afford or don't care to pay for high-near-mint sealed and graded copies. We can judge how many such buyers exist because we can see how many people track auction sales at HA and elsewhere and how many actually show up to bid. If there are 70 highest-end SMB3s from WATA in 36 months, it is reasonable to imagine at least another 70 from VGA in 13 years. And a market can only support high prices if there are few copies available relative to those who want them. If there are 140 highest-end sealed SMB3s, you have to show proof that there are (say) 420 to 560 buyers for such games for the market to bear continued high prices due to a supply-demand imbalance, and you can't establish that data-point because there aren't buyers in anything like those numbers. In fact, we have lots of hard data to show that that specific buyer pool is about 30 people strong and isn't growing. You and your crew have been told these facts over and over and over and over and you never respond to them intelligently, which is why I presume bad faith and get angry. Because I do not think you are stupid—so deceitful is the only option. In other words, stop pretending you don't understand what I'm upset about—and who I'm upset at, and why I'm speaking with this tone—because you understand perfectly well.

Driftwood gets it. The Jackals have been promising an explosion in buyers for years now. It's never happened. The auctions are still ghost towns in terms of total numbers, and there's no sign that that's changing.