Do We Need A Video Game Reserve List?

Magic the Gathering has a list of cards it has promised it won't reprint. This was largely done to ensure an active and healthy secondary market for their cards of a certain age. 



Given that there is now a strong secondary market for video games is it time that game companies also consider adopting such a practice? 



We've seen Yakuza 2 reprinted from the PS2 tanking what was once a $100 title. Capcom just sold out reprints of SF2. Square Enix is continuing to print additional copies of their RPGs on the PS1.



I imagine if Capcom re-released Mega Man 7 or X3 you could see quite a hit in the value of those carts. 
«1

Comments

  • From a business / company standpoint, I don't really see much incentive for any of these companies to do so. Why close a door or burn a bridge and limit your opportunities for the future?



    I don't personally have a problem with reprints. And I have a few 'somewhat-rare' and valuable games that would be affected. There are some games out there, that cannot be purchased and played for less than $100. And for the people who really actually want to play the game, if a reprint enables them to do that, even at the 'cost' of lowering the value on that game, I'm personally ok with that.



    People will have mixed opinions on this issue and not everyone is going to agree.



    A good example is Panzer Dragoon Saga. This is a game I know many people really want to play but don't really have the opportunity easily. And with games beyond 8 and 16-bit, emulation is nowhere near the same experience.



    I actually quite like digital re-releases for older games, because it kind of satisfies both sides. Digital releases for some expensive games may have a slight impact on the value/market, but not significant in most cases. But they also give people a legal and more smooth opportunity to play the games they've really been wanting to play.



    EDIT: In line with more recent events, let's look at the hypothetical scenario of an official repro of Earthbound (which isn't exactly rare but definitely expensive).  I think it could have some impact on the value of original SNES cartridges, but I don't think it would completely tank either, because there will still be some demand for the original.  Of course...given recent events perhaps they'd release it for over $100 anyway haha.



    Think about Greatest Hits / Player's Choice / etc.  They give people opportunities to play popular games at lower prices, but there still exists demand for the original releases as they are typically viewed as more collectible / desired.  Obviously there is some value impact, but I don't think it obliterates it either.
  • I really wasn't thinking of players choice / greatest hits etc as they are released contemporaneously within the console life. Panzer Dragoon Saga is a great example of what I meant. Even 5 or 10 thousand new copies would likely tank the market. Maybe smaller companies like ATLUS would do something like this.
  • I would welcome official reprints of any title that currently sells for $50 or more. Make the games cheaper and easier to acquire, my wallet would really appreciate it
  • MtG has a niche community with retailers who stocked massive inventory. So when Chronicles came out, their investments, and thus, willingness to spend so much more on future sets was called into question. WotC responded with the Reserve List and they are on record as saying they have regretted it ever since because it's not a healthy way to promise gaming by locking away pieces.



    There is no such inter-connectivity or high volumn buyers in video gaming that could ever command a player like EA or Nintendo to not print games. Do you think a few figures are going to stand up to Nintendo and say, because they own 6 sealed Earthbounds, they demand it never be reprinted? Haha sure. Games make more annual income than all of movies. The will of a couple dozen, hundred, even a thousand high end collectors mean nothing against the hoard of casuals who will just spend the money to play a game 5 minutes, just to say they did.



    In short, gaming will never have a reserve list as Star Fox 2 and companies like limited run illustrate (as in they can be printed at any moment even if they were never printed), and I forsee even WotC getting rid of their reserve list in time as well, they have already been circumventing it for years in creative ways.
  • I think it was smart for Magic to do that. A huge draw of their product is hoping to get this super rare limited print card. If that card can be re-printed at any time, you lose faith in their product.



    Video game companies just want people to buy their games. They have no interest in keeping a standard release "rare" because that means they didn't sell well.
  • Originally posted by: AtariJay



    I really wasn't thinking of players choice / greatest hits etc as they are released contemporaneously within the console life. Panzer Dragoon Saga is a great example of what I meant. Even 5 or 10 thousand new copies would likely tank the market. Maybe smaller companies like ATLUS would do something like this.



    Yeah, maybe the greatest hits component is a bit of a tangent, but I understand what you mean.



    I guess that's where people just have disagreements of opinion about what should happen or what is 'good.'  Some people would be very upset if thousands of copies of Panzer Dragoon Saga were released (most likely because they own it).  And thousands of other people would be extremely happy with the release (if released at a reasonable price, that is).  I do actually understand people being disappointed or frustrated with a value tanking, but at the same time, I know a lot of people genuinely want to play this game.  So I wouldn't exactly be upset with it. 



    Atlus has done several reprints before (or I guess...reprints of Atlus games have occurred), but there are definitely some expensive Atlus games out there.  I just don't see the incentive to the company to making the committment you are referring to.  It is one thing when they are releasing a new game and advertising an expensive limited release as limited to xxxx, in order to sell it for more.  But I don't know that they would see the value in promising not to reprint older games.  Like I said, I imagine most would want to keep all options on the table.  



    It's probably more that they just have bigger things to worry about.  Heck, I contacted Atlus several years ago when I was doing research, and the US office at least didn't have a lot of information on many of their older games.  I mentioned I was a huge ATLUS fan and was looking to see if they had a list of the games they had published, and the person was actually very friendly and communicative, but said my list was probably more complete than anything he could get for me, hahaha.



     
  • A lot of companies in a way are already releasing older games in their own way. Since the gaming world is constantly changing, so are the ways to play games. A lot of harder to get games are digital and you can get them for cheap like Suikoden II and Tron Bonne. I see a lot of the older games just getting released digitally then physically. It would seem easier and more cost efficient.



    For people that just want to play a game like Earthbound. Now you have a few ways to play it legally, even on the SNES Classic if you get your hands on one. I think a lot of companies are aware of the rarity of certain games and leave them be. The newly announced .hack series that was fairly difficult to get on PS2 is now coming to PS4 all on one disc. I hope that Hideo Kojima gets the idea to dip into older titles and re-releases them to the public. (looking at Snatcher and Policenauts) Yeah I'll be disappointed that my copy of Snatcher on Sega CD will drop in rarity but I will still be happy that is another way to play those awesome games again. It's just how you want to look at it.
  • Games should be accessible; if you want an investment buy stock or real estate. If you want to play games, buy games. Should some kid not be able to play a great game because he wasn't around to grab it a year ago, or fifteen? It's ludicrous to think a company should worry about maintaining a second-hand market for their products when they can fill the gap, and really only makes sense with respect to the distribution and specific gameplay aspects of Magic
  • Originally posted by: Zero Insertion Force



    Games should be accessible; if you want an investment buy stock or real estate. If you want to play games, buy games. Should some kid not be able to play a great game because he wasn't around to grab it a year ago, or fifteen? It's ludicrous to think a company should worry about maintaining a second-hand market for their products when they can fill the gap, and really only makes sense with respect to the distribution and specific gameplay aspects of Magic





    1950s and 60s Baseball cards should be accessible. If you want an investment buy stock or real estate. Should some kid not be able to have great old baseball cards because he or she wasnt around to grab them years ago? 



    You can literally insert anything in there. Games are collectable commodity now. Not just games anymore. Your logic is flawed and your just going to have to accept it.



    Im not arguing for a game non reprint list either. Just pointing out that games are collectables and no one deserves access to a collectable.
  • No, let them reprint it. It doesn't affect collectors who want the original
  • Originally posted by: quest4nes

     
    Originally posted by: Zero Insertion Force



    Games should be accessible; if you want an investment buy stock or real estate. If you want to play games, buy games. Should some kid not be able to play a great game because he wasn't around to grab it a year ago, or fifteen? It's ludicrous to think a company should worry about maintaining a second-hand market for their products when they can fill the gap, and really only makes sense with respect to the distribution and specific gameplay aspects of Magic





    1950s and 60s Baseball cards should be accessible. If you want an investment buy stock or real estate. Should some kid not be able to have great old baseball cards because he or she wasnt around to grab them years ago? 



    You can literally insert anything in there. Games are collectable commodity now. Not just games anymore. Your logic is flawed and your just going to have to accept it.



    Im not arguing for a game non reprint list either. Just pointing out that games are collectables and no one deserves access to a collectable.



    How is his logic flawed when there's no incentive for the game company to bolster a secondhand market they see zero return on?



    edit: Game companies make money when games remain accessible to new audiences. Forget the word "deserved", but games are not primarly "collectable" objects. Yes a collectable card game capitalizes on scarcity and limited availablity by driving hype and creating a frenzy for new product. Video games for the most part don't (products like the NES classic being a huge exception - that's a game-related collectable by design). 



    Look at limited run games, they've made money selling games as collectibles but this buisness model is creating hype for products that wouldn't sell very well on their own. Cheap indie games with low consumer interest. When they extend this model to desirable games like Night Trap, and Wonderboy they were literally turning away money and fueling the secondary market with no benefit to themselves. That's why Ys was released as a preorder. And even these games can be released again - just not by limited run. 
  • Originally posted by: quest4nes

     
    Originally posted by: Zero Insertion Force



    Games should be accessible; if you want an investment buy stock or real estate. If you want to play games, buy games. Should some kid not be able to play a great game because he wasn't around to grab it a year ago, or fifteen? It's ludicrous to think a company should worry about maintaining a second-hand market for their products when they can fill the gap, and really only makes sense with respect to the distribution and specific gameplay aspects of Magic





    1950s and 60s Baseball cards should be accessible. If you want an investment buy stock or real estate. Should some kid not be able to have great old baseball cards because he or she wasnt around to grab them years ago? 



    You can literally insert anything in there. Games are collectable commodity now. Not just games anymore. Your logic is flawed and your just going to have to accept it.



    Im not arguing for a game non reprint list either. Just pointing out that games are collectables and no one deserves access to a collectable.

    well, how about expensive literature? The earlier the print, the more its worth. If nintendo came out and produced a 1 to 1 replica of super mario bros, official, exactly the same, is it going to be worth as much as an old one in the same condition? fuck no. Collectors want the originals. So who cares if its reprinted? It wont matter in the long run.



     
  • Video games weren't intended as a collectible, so there's no reason for companies to need to do anything assure collectors their "investments" are safe. No one is going to lose confidence buying new Sega games as some kind of collectible vehicle if Sega re-releases Panzer Dragoon Saga.



    The point is moot though, because all the high end collectible "Black Lotus" type games are piles of garbage instead of the best trading cards ever printed. Stadium Events, Outback Joey, Exertainment, companies would never reprint this crap. That's why we got Street Fighter II.
  • Originally posted by: zi



    nope.





     
  • As far as collectors wanting the original anyway, that's a very good point; I can think of a few exceptions though, one of which is some freaking Kirby game for the Wii that I bought for msrp new, and maybe a year later saw copies going for maybe three times that. I recently checked up on it and found the price had dropped again; why? Turns out it got a reprint and was available on Amazon and other retail websites again, so everyone stopped being OMG about it. I guess the re-release was in close enough memory to the "original" that no one cared. So if any collector bought this $30 game for $100 or so, should they complain to Nintendo? I choose not to speculate in markets like this; if you do, good luck.
  • Originally posted by: Zero Insertion Force



    As far as collectors wanting the original anyway, that's a very good point; I can think of a few exceptions though, one of which is some freaking Kirby game for the Wii that I bought for msrp new, and maybe a year later saw copies going for maybe three times that. I recently checked up on it and found the price had dropped again; why? Turns out it got a reprint and was available again on Amazon and other retail websites again, so everyone stopped being OMG about it. I guess the re-release was in close enough memory to the "original" that no one cared. So if any collector bought this $30 game for $100 or so, should they complain to Nintendo? I choose not to speculate in markets like this; if you do, good luck.



    Oh for sure, there is plenty of factors that influence the market and if you're speculating, and you end up losing, tough shit. I'm saying for something like the Panzer Dragoon Saga reference earlier. Say LRG comes out with a new copy for PS4, I highly doubt that will affect the Saturn versions pricing. Or say Nintendo releases Earthbound for 3DS, same thing. 
  • Originally posted by: DefaultGen



    Video games weren't intended as a collectible



    Almost nothing collectable was ever meant to be collectable, and that's why they are now rare, ie collectable: Golden age comics, rare coins, old baseball cards, old magic cards, NES games etc.



    Ironically it's the things that are overproduced as "collectable" that tank ie, 90's comics.

     
  • The companies don't make any money off the secondary market.



    From their POV - Why should some dbag reseller make money off their old games when they can just re-release them and make more money for themselves.
  • Originally posted by: Daria

     
    Originally posted by: quest4nes

     
    Originally posted by: Zero Insertion Force



    Games should be accessible; if you want an investment buy stock or real estate. If you want to play games, buy games. Should some kid not be able to play a great game because he wasn't around to grab it a year ago, or fifteen? It's ludicrous to think a company should worry about maintaining a second-hand market for their products when they can fill the gap, and really only makes sense with respect to the distribution and specific gameplay aspects of Magic





    1950s and 60s Baseball cards should be accessible. If you want an investment buy stock or real estate. Should some kid not be able to have great old baseball cards because he or she wasnt around to grab them years ago? 



    You can literally insert anything in there. Games are collectable commodity now. Not just games anymore. Your logic is flawed and your just going to have to accept it.



    Im not arguing for a game non reprint list either. Just pointing out that games are collectables and no one deserves access to a collectable.



    How is his logic flawed when there's no incentive for the game company to bolster a secondhand market they see zero return on?



    edit: Game companies make money when games remain accessible to new audiences. Forget the word "deserved", but games are not primarly "collectable" objects. Yes a collectable card game capitalizes on scarcity and limited availablity by driving hype and creating a frenzy for new product. Video games for the most part don't (products like the NES classic being a huge exception - that's a game-related collectable by design). 



    Look at limited run games, they've made money selling games as collectibles but this buisness model is creating hype for products that wouldn't sell very well on their own. Cheap indie games with low consumer interest. When they extend this model to desirable games like Night Trap, and Wonderboy they were literally turning away money and fueling the secondary market with no benefit to themselves. That's why Ys was released as a preorder. And even these games can be released again - just not by limited run. 





    No, i said his logic is flawed in the aspect of, people deserve to get to play games" . Games are collectable now and peoplein this hobby unlike other hobbies cant accept it.



    my post was nothing to do with companies or reprints. Just this members core idea
  • Why would any of these companies actively sabotage themselves by limiting what they can and can't sell?
  • It already exists with limited editions and limited run games.
  • Originally posted by: XYZ



    It already exists with limited editions and limited run games.

    Totally different from what WOTC did with the reserved list.



    The reserved list for MTG came about after several sets of cards were printed, there was never a notion that the sets would be limited and none of the cards reprinted at first.  They even went as far as to call the 3rd printing "Unlimited" which is perhaps the worst name in the history of any hobby consider even those cards are very rare today.



    With LRG, they are making it known in advance what the print runs are, they aren't releasing something then coming back around later and saying they will never reprint it like WOTC did.
  • Nah that's dumb, games shouldn't be exclusive to those with money or time to snatch up limited releases.



    Studios that make games want as many people as possible to play their work.
  • Originally posted by: quest4nes

     
    Originally posted by: Daria

     
    Originally posted by: quest4nes

     
    Originally posted by: Zero Insertion Force



    Games should be accessible; if you want an investment buy stock or real estate. If you want to play games, buy games. Should some kid not be able to play a great game because he wasn't around to grab it a year ago, or fifteen? It's ludicrous to think a company should worry about maintaining a second-hand market for their products when they can fill the gap, and really only makes sense with respect to the distribution and specific gameplay aspects of Magic





    1950s and 60s Baseball cards should be accessible. If you want an investment buy stock or real estate. Should some kid not be able to have great old baseball cards because he or she wasnt around to grab them years ago? 



    You can literally insert anything in there. Games are collectable commodity now. Not just games anymore. Your logic is flawed and your just going to have to accept it.



    Im not arguing for a game non reprint list either. Just pointing out that games are collectables and no one deserves access to a collectable.



    How is his logic flawed when there's no incentive for the game company to bolster a secondhand market they see zero return on?



    edit: Game companies make money when games remain accessible to new audiences. Forget the word "deserved", but games are not primarly "collectable" objects. Yes a collectable card game capitalizes on scarcity and limited availablity by driving hype and creating a frenzy for new product. Video games for the most part don't (products like the NES classic being a huge exception - that's a game-related collectable by design). 



    Look at limited run games, they've made money selling games as collectibles but this buisness model is creating hype for products that wouldn't sell very well on their own. Cheap indie games with low consumer interest. When they extend this model to desirable games like Night Trap, and Wonderboy they were literally turning away money and fueling the secondary market with no benefit to themselves. That's why Ys was released as a preorder. And even these games can be released again - just not by limited run. 





    No, i said his logic is flawed in the aspect of, people deserve to get to play games" . Games are collectable now and peoplein this hobby unlike other hobbies cant accept it.



    my post was nothing to do with companies or reprints. Just this members core idea





    So in other words, if I'd left out the opinion piece of "games should be accessible" then the rest of the statement surrounding it being ludicrous would still be incontestible. Nevertheless "games should be accessible" is a strong opinion of mine. This isn't a hippy ideal of "games for all!" In fact, it only goes as far as "it's a positive thing when a company markets/makes a profit off of a game by releasing it to the public when prudent, rather than keeping it locked in the Walt Disney VHS vault to keep some people happy who think they're 'investors' because the game they got for Christmas in 1992 is now worth something.



    The arete of a game is to be played even though it makes people happy to have sealed games that never get played and might as well be a rock. I can't argue with that; whatever makes you a happy and productive member of society and keeps you a contributor to the economy. But asking that the company who made the game not release it to others at the same time as basically hording the limited stock that is left, is selfish and ultimately counter-productive. Tell a game company they can't release their games = soon they might as well box rocks, because they'll be out of the game business shortly, and there will be no more to collect (and fewer left who care.)
  • I think the answer to the OP question is neither a "yes" or a "no", but a "depends". The video games consumer community consists of buyers, sellers, gamers, collectors, resellers, flippers, investors. You can make the argument that "gamers" are the core group in the aforementioned. However, it's the total parts of all groups that is currently what's making the video games industry as popular as it is today. Gaming companies therefore needs to look after all fields, rather than making at least a million copies for every game that has ever been produced or to be produced.

    Collectors are not entitled to limited game stocks, just as gamers are not entitled to unlimited game stocks. Gaming companies need to weigh up a relative balance.
  • Originally posted by: GPX

    I think the answer to the OP question is neither a "yes" or a "no", but a "depends". The video games consumer community consists of buyers, sellers, gamers, collectors, resellers, flippers, investors. You can make the argument that "gamers" are the core group in the aforementioned. However, it's the total parts of all groups that is currently what's making the video games industry as popular as it is today. Gaming companies therefore needs to look after all fields, rather than making at least a million copies for every game that has ever been produced or to be produced.

    Collectors are not entitled to limited game stocks, just as gamers are not entitled to unlimited game stocks. Gaming companies need to weigh up a relative balance.






    Great response.

    I'd love to see a company like Working Designs turn out high quality video games with amazing manuals and top notch packaging.
  • I am heavily into MtG, and own pretty much everything on the reserve list. If you follow the scene, buyouts are happening these days, and a handful of people have been known to corner the market on specific cards for a long while. I believe a reserve list of sorts would be horrible; it's not exactly as if Taito could "reprint" 100% legit Samson copies on OEM chips/carts. I don't see this happening. The announcement of such a list alone would have everything skyrockey to Kingdom Come, even if it would do very little in the end. Are we scared of official releases being mass produced and identical to the old product? I know I'm not, despite owning quite a lot of the old, rarish stuff.
  • is this like a wild duck reserve? I never thought old games needed to be protected.
  • An owner/author/publisher can do what they want with their IP. If they see a chance to make money with a re-print/release, because fans will be happy to buy it , both win. I think increasing the audience also increases value of the first run. If a collector or reseller says otherwise... as my math teachers always said, "show your work."
Sign In or Register to comment.