I'm sure someone won't agree with this, but since my last post I got to thinking and I thought of a very valid point. Who are we to decide when the end of life of the system is? Should that not be up to the hardware developer?
I know enough of you are aware of this but the NES may have come out here in 1985 and the last game was in 1994 with support for some years after (not sure when it stopped.) Japan though that Famicom came out in 1983, and they did not discontinue support and actively kill the console up until 2007 yet they stopped retail sales in 2003 (20 years later.) Up until that time you could call in and get help, get repairs, and other related support. In Japan on the shelf life of the Super Famicom went from 1990 into 2003, but the support for it I can not find a stop date. Does anyone have that?
If anything I think that should be the official cut off date for a console's true lifetime. When a company no longer recognizes it active and no longer will provide any support or repairs. With that, if they still would take a SNES/SFC game in for repairs in Japan today, then I'd call any new game even if it is unlicensed fair game.
Can someone explain the time limit thing to me? Like, explain that, hypothetically, if Nintendo produced and sold physical copies of Star Fox 2 carts that worked in an SNES, how would that not count towards a full set? Literally the only difference is time, but why does time play a factor? I've yet to hear a good argument as to why.
If DC somehow got the old presses going, and printed superman #1 using all vintage setup and said it was jsut an extended print run, they never stopped making it, would that count?
If GM started making 1979 Trans-Ams to the exact same specs, and said they were just a normal run from the 1979 line, would they still be 1979 trans ams ?
The snes is over. Everything else after this is optional.
Also, there is no magic "set" like people always claim. Threads like this prove it. People can claim all you want that there is a set, but the fact that so many people disagree on what a set is, and there is no authority who can make a judgement, then you have to say what kind of set. If someone says they have a complete nes set, do you assume they have 6-in-one, SE, and Big Insect? (And if they don't have SE, I REALLY have to wonder wtf they think a set is)
Can someone explain the time limit thing to me? Like, explain that, hypothetically, if Nintendo produced and sold physical copies of Star Fox 2 carts that worked in an SNES, how would that not count towards a full set? Literally the only difference is time, but why does time play a factor? I've yet to hear a good argument as to why.
If DC somehow got the old presses going, and printed superman #1 using all vintage setup and said it was jsut an extended print run, they never stopped making it, would that count?
If GM started making 1979 Trans-Ams to the exact same specs, and said they were just a normal run from the 1979 line, would they still be 1979 trans ams ?
The comic and car arguments don't apply. A comic and a car are stand alone items. The "lifespan" of a system is directly correleated with the games released for the system. A copy of Superman #1 would be a reprint, plain and simple. No, the car wouldn't be a 79, because it's not built in 79. Those arguments don't make sense in regards to the "lifespan" of a game system argument.
Can someone explain the time limit thing to me? Like, explain that, hypothetically, if Nintendo produced and sold physical copies of Star Fox 2 carts that worked in an SNES, how would that not count towards a full set? Literally the only difference is time, but why does time play a factor? I've yet to hear a good argument as to why.
If DC somehow got the old presses going, and printed superman #1 using all vintage setup and said it was jsut an extended print run, they never stopped making it, would that count?
If GM started making 1979 Trans-Ams to the exact same specs, and said they were just a normal run from the 1979 line, would they still be 1979 trans ams ?
The comic and car arguments don't apply. A comic and a car are stand alone items. The "lifespan" of a system is directly correleated with the games released for the system. A copy of Superman #1 would be a reprint, plain and simple. No, the car wouldn't be a 79, because it's not built in 79. Those arguments don't make sense in regards to the "lifespan" of a game system argument.
For cars, remember that '79 models are not built or sold in '79. If you were buying a new car in 1979, most likely you'd be buying the 1980 model, produced in 1978. Now adays there's regulations that limit this so that you can only sell a model year one calander year ahead. You still have some odd model year junk though, like the 2009.5 Pontiac G8 vs the 2009 model.
A comic isn't a stand alone item. If someone was going for a complete set of superman comics, would the reprint count?
Also, you can have more than one print run without it being labeled "reprint", generally if it was printed after the date it has on a cover, it would be considered a repring. But "first editions" of my D&D collection for example are not the same as first prints. They had many runs with the exact same printing, so they're the same revision.
I also don't think you understood what I was saying. I didn't have "comic and car arguments", thoese were just thought exercises to point out things aren't always so cut and dry.
And as for the "lifespan", snes died years ago. I also disagree with the idea that 'The "lifespan" of a system is directly correleated with the games released for the system. ', because you imply then that by releasing a game, the system is now no longer end of life. But yet, you can not get your system repaired by the vendor. SNES was EoL decades ago.
If Starfox 2 was a physical release, and someone told you they had a complete snes collection, should you assume that they have starfox 2? Labels like "complete collection" should explain what someone has, but since there is no meaning everyone agrees with, and no authority that everyone sides with to state it, the idea of sets is a bit meaningless. If you said "I have a complete nes NA set per NintendoAge", then that would be much better. We know exactly what games are in there, we have a list. None of this "Oh is x y z a retail release or not?"
Can someone explain the time limit thing to me? Like, explain that, hypothetically, if Nintendo produced and sold physical copies of Star Fox 2 carts that worked in an SNES, how would that not count towards a full set? Literally the only difference is time, but why does time play a factor? I've yet to hear a good argument as to why.
If DC somehow got the old presses going, and printed superman #1 using all vintage setup and said it was jsut an extended print run, they never stopped making it, would that count?
If GM started making 1979 Trans-Ams to the exact same specs, and said they were just a normal run from the 1979 line, would they still be 1979 trans ams ?
The comic and car arguments don't apply. A comic and a car are stand alone items. The "lifespan" of a system is directly correleated with the games released for the system. A copy of Superman #1 would be a reprint, plain and simple. No, the car wouldn't be a 79, because it's not built in 79. Those arguments don't make sense in regards to the "lifespan" of a game system argument.
If Starfox 2 was a physical release, and someone told you they had a complete snes collection, should you assume that they have starfox 2? Labels like "complete collection" should explain what someone has, but since there is no meaning everyone agrees with, and no authority that everyone sides with to state it, the idea of sets is a bit meaningless. If you said "I have a complete nes NA set per NintendoAge", then that would be much better. We know exactly what games are in there, we have a list. None of this "Oh is x y z a retail release or not?"
I think most people could agree that it would be silly to say "Oh yea, I've got a complete NES set per NintendoAge" all the time. If my co-workers were asking me about my collection, I'm not going to say that, because they won't know what I'm talking about. You have to look outside the tiny window of collector's on the internet.
I can't think of a good reason why, if they did release a SF2 cart, it wouldn't be considered part ofthe full set, or, if you want to get technical, added to the "nintendo age full set". I've yet to hear a compelling argument for this.
I didnt read through the whole thread but ill throw my $.2 in. A consoles prime is when its being supported by the company producing it. I picture "support" being the time frame they produce and sell the product new regardless of selling medium (internet, retail, guy that opens his jacket in an alley) the company can still provide technical support like repairs and such after but once its no longer being produced for new sale the console is retired. Not dead.
If a game is produced after this time frame and is licensed to be on the platform than it is still part of the consoles "set" it just wasnt produced during the consoles working life.
Can someone explain the time limit thing to me? Like, explain that, hypothetically, if Nintendo produced and sold physical copies of Star Fox 2 carts that worked in an SNES, how would that not count towards a full set? Literally the only difference is time, but why does time play a factor? I've yet to hear a good argument as to why.
If DC somehow got the old presses going, and printed superman #1 using all vintage setup and said it was jsut an extended print run, they never stopped making it, would that count?
If GM started making 1979 Trans-Ams to the exact same specs, and said they were just a normal run from the 1979 line, would they still be 1979 trans ams ?
The comic and car arguments don't apply. A comic and a car are stand alone items. The "lifespan" of a system is directly correleated with the games released for the system. A copy of Superman #1 would be a reprint, plain and simple. No, the car wouldn't be a 79, because it's not built in 79. Those arguments don't make sense in regards to the "lifespan" of a game system argument.
If Starfox 2 was a physical release, and someone told you they had a complete snes collection, should you assume that they have starfox 2? Labels like "complete collection" should explain what someone has, but since there is no meaning everyone agrees with, and no authority that everyone sides with to state it, the idea of sets is a bit meaningless. If you said "I have a complete nes NA set per NintendoAge", then that would be much better. We know exactly what games are in there, we have a list. None of this "Oh is x y z a retail release or not?"
I think most people could agree that it would be silly to say "Oh yea, I've got a complete NES set per NintendoAge" all the time. If my co-workers were asking me about my collection, I'm not going to say that, because they won't know what I'm talking about. You have to look outside the tiny window of collector's on the internet.
I can't think of a good reason why, if they did release a SF2 cart, it wouldn't be considered part ofthe full set, or, if you want to get technical, added to the "nintendo age full set". I've yet to hear a compelling argument for this.
Sure you can think of good reasons. You just don't agree with it, and aren't giving other people's stances a thought; you're just dismissing your fellow collectors views.
People do not have the same idea of a system lifetime as you. Lots of collectors on this site do not agree with you on the lifetime. A "complete set" concept is created by collectors. So you're using an idea of a set that doesn't actually work to discribe what it represents; in otherwords by using the term "set" or general qualifiers, you MUST accept loss of information and the fact that the person you're telling most likely will not have the same idea of what that term means. And most likely, if they don't have a general idea of what "a nintendoage set" means, they also don't care if StarFox 2 is in your set or not.
If you're talking to non-collector friends, just say "complete set", if you have the game or not. If you yourself count it, then you can append it if you think it would be realavant to the conversation. But don't think that there is a universal set that two people agree on any more than the fact that pizzas must have pepperoni to count as pizzas.
Can someone explain the time limit thing to me? Like, explain that, hypothetically, if Nintendo produced and sold physical copies of Star Fox 2 carts that worked in an SNES, how would that not count towards a full set? Literally the only difference is time, but why does time play a factor? I've yet to hear a good argument as to why.
If DC somehow got the old presses going, and printed superman #1 using all vintage setup and said it was jsut an extended print run, they never stopped making it, would that count?
If GM started making 1979 Trans-Ams to the exact same specs, and said they were just a normal run from the 1979 line, would they still be 1979 trans ams ?
The comic and car arguments don't apply. A comic and a car are stand alone items. The "lifespan" of a system is directly correleated with the games released for the system. A copy of Superman #1 would be a reprint, plain and simple. No, the car wouldn't be a 79, because it's not built in 79. Those arguments don't make sense in regards to the "lifespan" of a game system argument.
If Starfox 2 was a physical release, and someone told you they had a complete snes collection, should you assume that they have starfox 2? Labels like "complete collection" should explain what someone has, but since there is no meaning everyone agrees with, and no authority that everyone sides with to state it, the idea of sets is a bit meaningless. If you said "I have a complete nes NA set per NintendoAge", then that would be much better. We know exactly what games are in there, we have a list. None of this "Oh is x y z a retail release or not?"
I think most people could agree that it would be silly to say "Oh yea, I've got a complete NES set per NintendoAge" all the time. If my co-workers were asking me about my collection, I'm not going to say that, because they won't know what I'm talking about. You have to look outside the tiny window of collector's on the internet.
I can't think of a good reason why, if they did release a SF2 cart, it wouldn't be considered part ofthe full set, or, if you want to get technical, added to the "nintendo age full set". I've yet to hear a compelling argument for this.
Sure you can think of good reasons. You just don't agree with it, and aren't giving other people's stances a thought; you're just dismissing your fellow collectors views.
People do not have the same idea of a system lifetime as you. Lots of collectors on this site do not agree with you on the lifetime. A "complete set" concept is created by collectors. So you're using an idea of a set that doesn't actually work to discribe what it represents; in otherwords by using the term "set" or general qualifiers, you MUST accept loss of information and the fact that the person you're telling most likely will not have the same idea of what that term means. And most likely, if they don't have a general idea of what "a nintendoage set" means, they also don't care if StarFox 2 is in your set or not.
If you're talking to non-collector friends, just say "complete set", if you have the game or not. If you yourself count it, then you can append it if you think it would be realavant to the conversation. But don't think that there is a universal set that two people agree on any more than the fact that pizzas must have pepperoni to count as pizzas.
I am absolutely giving it thought. Why do you think I've asked for reasons and explanations to go along with them? If someone presented a comeplling argument, I'd absolutely consider rescinding my statement.
You are right that it's all about opinion, however. I agree completely. I think that a lot of collector's on this site would agree with me as well. I never expected everyone to agree with me. All I asked for was anyone who would say that, in the hypothetical situation I presented, that it would not be counted a part of a full set, to explain why.
Many, many, many collectors agree on what a full SNES set is. It is much more clear cut then say, NES. That's why I find the debate of this particular scenario interesting.
sell the product new regardless of selling medium (internet, retail, guy that opens his jacket in an alley)
To me, a coimplete set is short for "complete retail set", hence we do not have homebrews, rom hacks, and the like. And by retail, I'm using the "brick and mortar" meaning of retail, which isn't a strict meaning. So to me, no Sachen\Thin chen since they wern't in the US stores. But if you say you have a "complete nes set", and don't have Klax, I'm not sure how well I can trust your full set.
Action 52 however is kind of a "meh" case. Sure, it wasn't in walmart, but it was heavely advertised for mail order in gaming mags.
I am absolutely giving it thought. Why do you think I've asked for reasons and explanations to go along with them? If someone presented a comeplling argument, I'd absolutely consider rescinding my statement.
You are right that it's all about opinion, however. I agree completely. I think that a lot of collector's on this site would agree with me as well. I never expected everyone to agree with me. All I asked for was anyone who would say that, in the hypothetical situation I presented, that it would not be counted a part of a full set, to explain why.
Many, many, many collectors agree on what a full SNES set is. It is much more clear cut then say, NES. That's why I find the debate of this particular scenario interesting.
And people are telling you why. The console has been dead for years. Consoles do not come back from the dead unless the physical console is re-released. I'm not sure what you consider a compelling argument other than that, plus that fact that so many other collectors do NOT agree with it being in the set.
(Note: This part is just to get you thinking, not provbe any point) Is 3D Ark part of the snes set? What about the stand alone version, is it part of the set? And what if the passthrough version wasn't released, would the stand alone one be part?
What about if Atari released new 2600 games? Sure, it's Atari doing it.... but it's not even the same atari...
sell the product new regardless of selling medium (internet, retail, guy that opens his jacket in an alley)
To me, a coimplete set is short for "complete retail set", hence we do not have homebrews, rom hacks, and the like. And by retail, I'm using the "brick and mortar" meaning of retail, which isn't a strict meaning. So to me, no Sachen\Thin chen since they wern't in the US stores. But if you say you have a "complete nes set", and don't have Klax, I'm not sure how well I can trust your full set.
Action 52 however is kind of a "meh" case. Sure, it wasn't in walmart, but it was heavely advertised for mail order in gaming mags.
I was focused more on licensed sets. If a company were to release a game licensed by the console maker even if its way afer the console has been retired than it would count for that set. I didnt really look into it but that SFII release would count if it was licensed by Nintendo for the Super Nintendo. I do mean currently licensed and not "they licensed it back then." Although that particular game would just be a revision/variant. If it was a new game they put out on cart, licensed by Nintendo, then you would have another game in the licensed set.
edit. Looking up a picture of the new street fighter II release looks like there is no seal of quality which would mean its not licensed so no go there.
I don't know, for me, if Nintendo were to release an actual CIB official release of a new game for an old system. I would count it.
I know it is years later, but if it is released and it is official, why NOT count it? Just because it was made later in the systems life. Maybe it should have an asterisk or something, because this would be a new concept to the hobby to figure out
It depends on what your relationship is with the system. I'm sure most manufacturers would agree that a product has reached "end of life" on the date that they will officially no longer manufacture new units with no exceptions. I bet internally Nintendo probably considers the day that the last SNES rolled off the line as the official end of life date.
For the developers, they probably consider it as end of life when software sales get so low that they can't justify making new games for the system.
For the collectors, it's whatever time makes them feel best about their collection.
I would say even if Nintendo made a new SNES cart game today, they wouldn't be considering it as breathing new life into the system as much as it just being a novelty thing to make some fans happy
I don't know, for me, if Nintendo were to release an actual CIB official release of a new game for an old system. I would count it.
I know it is years later, but if it is released and it is official, why NOT count it? Just because it was made later in the systems life. Maybe it should have an asterisk or something, because this would be a new concept to the hobby to figure out
It is not that new of a concept. You already have a clear distinction between unlicensed and after market games.
There is one characteristic and only one characteristic that separates those classifications of games and that is date of release.
Logic dictates that the same rules apply to licensed games. Now you could create a new category if you please ( generation 2 releases etc) or place them with the other after market games but the one place that they don't belong is with the licensed games released during the lifespan of the system.
Appreciate your input and i see where you are coming from. Hence i said it would need an asterisk. But it doesn't change that i personally still would count it
Appreciate your input and i see where you are coming from. Hence i said it would need an asterisk. But it doesn't change that i personally still would count it
By the same token do you see a distinction between unlicensed games produced during the day and modern homebrews?
Appreciate your input and i see where you are coming from. Hence i said it would need an asterisk. But it doesn't change that i personally still would count it
By the same token do you see a distinction between unlicensed games produced during the day and modern homebrews?
I think that's an apples to oranges comparison. Nintendo making a game would not be considered a holiday.ebrew by anyone.
Appreciate your input and i see where you are coming from. Hence i said it would need an asterisk. But it doesn't change that i personally still would count it
By the same token do you see a distinction between unlicensed games produced during the day and modern homebrews?
I think that's an apples to oranges comparison. Nintendo making a game would not be considered a holiday.ebrew by anyone.
Do you see a distinction between Street Fighter II released for the SNES in 1991 and the red Street Fighter II SNES carts released in 2017.
I think there are many angles in which to answer such a question. Examples:
- can be taken in the perspective of "are the consoles for X platform still working? If yes, then it's still alive!"
- can be taken in the perspective of "are the games still being produced by the gaming companies?"
- can be taken in the perspective of "are consumers/gamers still buying the games on X platform from retail stores?"
- can be taken in the perspective of "are games for X platform still being sold/traded as second hand games?"
In my opinion, the console X is like a body/machine, and the consumers/gamers are the blood/fuel that feeds X console. Without the consumers, the consoles don't really have a meaninful existence. So therefore my opinion is that when retail stores cease to sell X console/games, then that's when I consider it a "dead" console.
We need to let go of the word collector from this topic, because if we use collectors as part of this debate, then technically, no console has an end point (because anything old becomes a collectible).
Comments
A console's lifetime is when no amount of hot glue or duct tape will bring it back to life.
A console's lifetime is when no amount of hot glue or duct tape will bring it back to life.
I know enough of you are aware of this but the NES may have come out here in 1985 and the last game was in 1994 with support for some years after (not sure when it stopped.) Japan though that Famicom came out in 1983, and they did not discontinue support and actively kill the console up until 2007 yet they stopped retail sales in 2003 (20 years later.) Up until that time you could call in and get help, get repairs, and other related support. In Japan on the shelf life of the Super Famicom went from 1990 into 2003, but the support for it I can not find a stop date. Does anyone have that?
If anything I think that should be the official cut off date for a console's true lifetime. When a company no longer recognizes it active and no longer will provide any support or repairs. With that, if they still would take a SNES/SFC game in for repairs in Japan today, then I'd call any new game even if it is unlicensed fair game.
A CONSOLES lifetime is till they stop making it. A SYSTEMS lifetime is till all publishers stop publishing on it.
A console's lifetime is when no amount of hot glue or duct tape will bring it back to life.
Heh. I saw this post and was going to make a Drakon joke, but I see that's what this was...
Can someone explain the time limit thing to me? Like, explain that, hypothetically, if Nintendo produced and sold physical copies of Star Fox 2 carts that worked in an SNES, how would that not count towards a full set? Literally the only difference is time, but why does time play a factor? I've yet to hear a good argument as to why.
If DC somehow got the old presses going, and printed superman #1 using all vintage setup and said it was jsut an extended print run, they never stopped making it, would that count?
If GM started making 1979 Trans-Ams to the exact same specs, and said they were just a normal run from the 1979 line, would they still be 1979 trans ams ?
The snes is over. Everything else after this is optional.
Also, there is no magic "set" like people always claim. Threads like this prove it. People can claim all you want that there is a set, but the fact that so many people disagree on what a set is, and there is no authority who can make a judgement, then you have to say what kind of set. If someone says they have a complete nes set, do you assume they have 6-in-one, SE, and Big Insect? (And if they don't have SE, I REALLY have to wonder wtf they think a set is)
Originally posted by: Ozzy_98
Originally posted by: beardcore84
Can someone explain the time limit thing to me? Like, explain that, hypothetically, if Nintendo produced and sold physical copies of Star Fox 2 carts that worked in an SNES, how would that not count towards a full set? Literally the only difference is time, but why does time play a factor? I've yet to hear a good argument as to why.
If DC somehow got the old presses going, and printed superman #1 using all vintage setup and said it was jsut an extended print run, they never stopped making it, would that count?
If GM started making 1979 Trans-Ams to the exact same specs, and said they were just a normal run from the 1979 line, would they still be 1979 trans ams ?
The comic and car arguments don't apply. A comic and a car are stand alone items. The "lifespan" of a system is directly correleated with the games released for the system. A copy of Superman #1 would be a reprint, plain and simple. No, the car wouldn't be a 79, because it's not built in 79. Those arguments don't make sense in regards to the "lifespan" of a game system argument.
Originally posted by: beardcore84
Originally posted by: Ozzy_98
Originally posted by: beardcore84
Can someone explain the time limit thing to me? Like, explain that, hypothetically, if Nintendo produced and sold physical copies of Star Fox 2 carts that worked in an SNES, how would that not count towards a full set? Literally the only difference is time, but why does time play a factor? I've yet to hear a good argument as to why.
If DC somehow got the old presses going, and printed superman #1 using all vintage setup and said it was jsut an extended print run, they never stopped making it, would that count?
If GM started making 1979 Trans-Ams to the exact same specs, and said they were just a normal run from the 1979 line, would they still be 1979 trans ams ?
The comic and car arguments don't apply. A comic and a car are stand alone items. The "lifespan" of a system is directly correleated with the games released for the system. A copy of Superman #1 would be a reprint, plain and simple. No, the car wouldn't be a 79, because it's not built in 79. Those arguments don't make sense in regards to the "lifespan" of a game system argument.
For cars, remember that '79 models are not built or sold in '79. If you were buying a new car in 1979, most likely you'd be buying the 1980 model, produced in 1978. Now adays there's regulations that limit this so that you can only sell a model year one calander year ahead. You still have some odd model year junk though, like the 2009.5 Pontiac G8 vs the 2009 model.
A comic isn't a stand alone item. If someone was going for a complete set of superman comics, would the reprint count?
Also, you can have more than one print run without it being labeled "reprint", generally if it was printed after the date it has on a cover, it would be considered a repring. But "first editions" of my D&D collection for example are not the same as first prints. They had many runs with the exact same printing, so they're the same revision.
I also don't think you understood what I was saying. I didn't have "comic and car arguments", thoese were just thought exercises to point out things aren't always so cut and dry.
And as for the "lifespan", snes died years ago. I also disagree with the idea that 'The "lifespan" of a system is directly correleated with the games released for the system. ', because you imply then that by releasing a game, the system is now no longer end of life. But yet, you can not get your system repaired by the vendor. SNES was EoL decades ago.
If Starfox 2 was a physical release, and someone told you they had a complete snes collection, should you assume that they have starfox 2? Labels like "complete collection" should explain what someone has, but since there is no meaning everyone agrees with, and no authority that everyone sides with to state it, the idea of sets is a bit meaningless. If you said "I have a complete nes NA set per NintendoAge", then that would be much better. We know exactly what games are in there, we have a list. None of this "Oh is x y z a retail release or not?"
Originally posted by: Ozzy_98
Originally posted by: beardcore84
Originally posted by: Ozzy_98
Originally posted by: beardcore84
Can someone explain the time limit thing to me? Like, explain that, hypothetically, if Nintendo produced and sold physical copies of Star Fox 2 carts that worked in an SNES, how would that not count towards a full set? Literally the only difference is time, but why does time play a factor? I've yet to hear a good argument as to why.
If DC somehow got the old presses going, and printed superman #1 using all vintage setup and said it was jsut an extended print run, they never stopped making it, would that count?
If GM started making 1979 Trans-Ams to the exact same specs, and said they were just a normal run from the 1979 line, would they still be 1979 trans ams ?
The comic and car arguments don't apply. A comic and a car are stand alone items. The "lifespan" of a system is directly correleated with the games released for the system. A copy of Superman #1 would be a reprint, plain and simple. No, the car wouldn't be a 79, because it's not built in 79. Those arguments don't make sense in regards to the "lifespan" of a game system argument.
If Starfox 2 was a physical release, and someone told you they had a complete snes collection, should you assume that they have starfox 2? Labels like "complete collection" should explain what someone has, but since there is no meaning everyone agrees with, and no authority that everyone sides with to state it, the idea of sets is a bit meaningless. If you said "I have a complete nes NA set per NintendoAge", then that would be much better. We know exactly what games are in there, we have a list. None of this "Oh is x y z a retail release or not?"
I think most people could agree that it would be silly to say "Oh yea, I've got a complete NES set per NintendoAge" all the time. If my co-workers were asking me about my collection, I'm not going to say that, because they won't know what I'm talking about. You have to look outside the tiny window of collector's on the internet.
I can't think of a good reason why, if they did release a SF2 cart, it wouldn't be considered part ofthe full set, or, if you want to get technical, added to the "nintendo age full set". I've yet to hear a compelling argument for this.
If a game is produced after this time frame and is licensed to be on the platform than it is still part of the consoles "set" it just wasnt produced during the consoles working life.
Originally posted by: beardcore84
Originally posted by: Ozzy_98
Originally posted by: beardcore84
Originally posted by: Ozzy_98
Originally posted by: beardcore84
Can someone explain the time limit thing to me? Like, explain that, hypothetically, if Nintendo produced and sold physical copies of Star Fox 2 carts that worked in an SNES, how would that not count towards a full set? Literally the only difference is time, but why does time play a factor? I've yet to hear a good argument as to why.
If DC somehow got the old presses going, and printed superman #1 using all vintage setup and said it was jsut an extended print run, they never stopped making it, would that count?
If GM started making 1979 Trans-Ams to the exact same specs, and said they were just a normal run from the 1979 line, would they still be 1979 trans ams ?
The comic and car arguments don't apply. A comic and a car are stand alone items. The "lifespan" of a system is directly correleated with the games released for the system. A copy of Superman #1 would be a reprint, plain and simple. No, the car wouldn't be a 79, because it's not built in 79. Those arguments don't make sense in regards to the "lifespan" of a game system argument.
If Starfox 2 was a physical release, and someone told you they had a complete snes collection, should you assume that they have starfox 2? Labels like "complete collection" should explain what someone has, but since there is no meaning everyone agrees with, and no authority that everyone sides with to state it, the idea of sets is a bit meaningless. If you said "I have a complete nes NA set per NintendoAge", then that would be much better. We know exactly what games are in there, we have a list. None of this "Oh is x y z a retail release or not?"
I think most people could agree that it would be silly to say "Oh yea, I've got a complete NES set per NintendoAge" all the time. If my co-workers were asking me about my collection, I'm not going to say that, because they won't know what I'm talking about. You have to look outside the tiny window of collector's on the internet.
I can't think of a good reason why, if they did release a SF2 cart, it wouldn't be considered part ofthe full set, or, if you want to get technical, added to the "nintendo age full set". I've yet to hear a compelling argument for this.
Sure you can think of good reasons. You just don't agree with it, and aren't giving other people's stances a thought; you're just dismissing your fellow collectors views.
People do not have the same idea of a system lifetime as you. Lots of collectors on this site do not agree with you on the lifetime. A "complete set" concept is created by collectors. So you're using an idea of a set that doesn't actually work to discribe what it represents; in otherwords by using the term "set" or general qualifiers, you MUST accept loss of information and the fact that the person you're telling most likely will not have the same idea of what that term means. And most likely, if they don't have a general idea of what "a nintendoage set" means, they also don't care if StarFox 2 is in your set or not.
If you're talking to non-collector friends, just say "complete set", if you have the game or not. If you yourself count it, then you can append it if you think it would be realavant to the conversation. But don't think that there is a universal set that two people agree on any more than the fact that pizzas must have pepperoni to count as pizzas.
Originally posted by: Ozzy_98
Originally posted by: beardcore84
Originally posted by: Ozzy_98
Originally posted by: beardcore84
Originally posted by: Ozzy_98
Originally posted by: beardcore84
Can someone explain the time limit thing to me? Like, explain that, hypothetically, if Nintendo produced and sold physical copies of Star Fox 2 carts that worked in an SNES, how would that not count towards a full set? Literally the only difference is time, but why does time play a factor? I've yet to hear a good argument as to why.
If DC somehow got the old presses going, and printed superman #1 using all vintage setup and said it was jsut an extended print run, they never stopped making it, would that count?
If GM started making 1979 Trans-Ams to the exact same specs, and said they were just a normal run from the 1979 line, would they still be 1979 trans ams ?
The comic and car arguments don't apply. A comic and a car are stand alone items. The "lifespan" of a system is directly correleated with the games released for the system. A copy of Superman #1 would be a reprint, plain and simple. No, the car wouldn't be a 79, because it's not built in 79. Those arguments don't make sense in regards to the "lifespan" of a game system argument.
If Starfox 2 was a physical release, and someone told you they had a complete snes collection, should you assume that they have starfox 2? Labels like "complete collection" should explain what someone has, but since there is no meaning everyone agrees with, and no authority that everyone sides with to state it, the idea of sets is a bit meaningless. If you said "I have a complete nes NA set per NintendoAge", then that would be much better. We know exactly what games are in there, we have a list. None of this "Oh is x y z a retail release or not?"
I think most people could agree that it would be silly to say "Oh yea, I've got a complete NES set per NintendoAge" all the time. If my co-workers were asking me about my collection, I'm not going to say that, because they won't know what I'm talking about. You have to look outside the tiny window of collector's on the internet.
I can't think of a good reason why, if they did release a SF2 cart, it wouldn't be considered part ofthe full set, or, if you want to get technical, added to the "nintendo age full set". I've yet to hear a compelling argument for this.
Sure you can think of good reasons. You just don't agree with it, and aren't giving other people's stances a thought; you're just dismissing your fellow collectors views.
People do not have the same idea of a system lifetime as you. Lots of collectors on this site do not agree with you on the lifetime. A "complete set" concept is created by collectors. So you're using an idea of a set that doesn't actually work to discribe what it represents; in otherwords by using the term "set" or general qualifiers, you MUST accept loss of information and the fact that the person you're telling most likely will not have the same idea of what that term means. And most likely, if they don't have a general idea of what "a nintendoage set" means, they also don't care if StarFox 2 is in your set or not.
If you're talking to non-collector friends, just say "complete set", if you have the game or not. If you yourself count it, then you can append it if you think it would be realavant to the conversation. But don't think that there is a universal set that two people agree on any more than the fact that pizzas must have pepperoni to count as pizzas.
I am absolutely giving it thought. Why do you think I've asked for reasons and explanations to go along with them? If someone presented a comeplling argument, I'd absolutely consider rescinding my statement.
You are right that it's all about opinion, however. I agree completely. I think that a lot of collector's on this site would agree with me as well. I never expected everyone to agree with me. All I asked for was anyone who would say that, in the hypothetical situation I presented, that it would not be counted a part of a full set, to explain why.
Many, many, many collectors agree on what a full SNES set is. It is much more clear cut then say, NES. That's why I find the debate of this particular scenario interesting.
Originally posted by: leatherrebel5150
sell the product new regardless of selling medium (internet, retail, guy that opens his jacket in an alley)
To me, a coimplete set is short for "complete retail set", hence we do not have homebrews, rom hacks, and the like. And by retail, I'm using the "brick and mortar" meaning of retail, which isn't a strict meaning. So to me, no Sachen\Thin chen since they wern't in the US stores. But if you say you have a "complete nes set", and don't have Klax, I'm not sure how well I can trust your full set.
Action 52 however is kind of a "meh" case. Sure, it wasn't in walmart, but it was heavely advertised for mail order in gaming mags.
Originally posted by: beardcore84
I am absolutely giving it thought. Why do you think I've asked for reasons and explanations to go along with them? If someone presented a comeplling argument, I'd absolutely consider rescinding my statement.
You are right that it's all about opinion, however. I agree completely. I think that a lot of collector's on this site would agree with me as well. I never expected everyone to agree with me. All I asked for was anyone who would say that, in the hypothetical situation I presented, that it would not be counted a part of a full set, to explain why.
Many, many, many collectors agree on what a full SNES set is. It is much more clear cut then say, NES. That's why I find the debate of this particular scenario interesting.
And people are telling you why. The console has been dead for years. Consoles do not come back from the dead unless the physical console is re-released. I'm not sure what you consider a compelling argument other than that, plus that fact that so many other collectors do NOT agree with it being in the set.
(Note: This part is just to get you thinking, not provbe any point) Is 3D Ark part of the snes set? What about the stand alone version, is it part of the set? And what if the passthrough version wasn't released, would the stand alone one be part?
What about if Atari released new 2600 games? Sure, it's Atari doing it.... but it's not even the same atari...
sell the product new regardless of selling medium (internet, retail, guy that opens his jacket in an alley)
To me, a coimplete set is short for "complete retail set", hence we do not have homebrews, rom hacks, and the like. And by retail, I'm using the "brick and mortar" meaning of retail, which isn't a strict meaning. So to me, no Sachen\Thin chen since they wern't in the US stores. But if you say you have a "complete nes set", and don't have Klax, I'm not sure how well I can trust your full set.
Action 52 however is kind of a "meh" case. Sure, it wasn't in walmart, but it was heavely advertised for mail order in gaming mags.
I was focused more on licensed sets. If a company were to release a game licensed by the console maker even if its way afer the console has been retired than it would count for that set. I didnt really look into it but that SFII release would count if it was licensed by Nintendo for the Super Nintendo. I do mean currently licensed and not "they licensed it back then." Although that particular game would just be a revision/variant. If it was a new game they put out on cart, licensed by Nintendo, then you would have another game in the licensed set.
edit. Looking up a picture of the new street fighter II release looks like there is no seal of quality which would mean its not licensed so no go there.
I know it is years later, but if it is released and it is official, why NOT count it? Just because it was made later in the systems life. Maybe it should have an asterisk or something, because this would be a new concept to the hobby to figure out
For the developers, they probably consider it as end of life when software sales get so low that they can't justify making new games for the system.
For the collectors, it's whatever time makes them feel best about their collection.
I would say even if Nintendo made a new SNES cart game today, they wouldn't be considering it as breathing new life into the system as much as it just being a novelty thing to make some fans happy
I don't know, for me, if Nintendo were to release an actual CIB official release of a new game for an old system. I would count it.
I know it is years later, but if it is released and it is official, why NOT count it? Just because it was made later in the systems life. Maybe it should have an asterisk or something, because this would be a new concept to the hobby to figure out
It is not that new of a concept. You already have a clear distinction between unlicensed and after market games.
There is one characteristic and only one characteristic that separates those classifications of games and that is date of release.
Logic dictates that the same rules apply to licensed games. Now you could create a new category if you please ( generation 2 releases etc) or place them with the other after market games but the one place that they don't belong is with the licensed games released during the lifespan of the system.
Appreciate your input and i see where you are coming from. Hence i said it would need an asterisk. But it doesn't change that i personally still would count it
By the same token do you see a distinction between unlicensed games produced during the day and modern homebrews?
Appreciate your input and i see where you are coming from. Hence i said it would need an asterisk. But it doesn't change that i personally still would count it
By the same token do you see a distinction between unlicensed games produced during the day and modern homebrews?
I think that's an apples to oranges comparison. Nintendo making a game would not be considered a holiday.ebrew by anyone.
Appreciate your input and i see where you are coming from. Hence i said it would need an asterisk. But it doesn't change that i personally still would count it
By the same token do you see a distinction between unlicensed games produced during the day and modern homebrews?
I think that's an apples to oranges comparison. Nintendo making a game would not be considered a holiday.ebrew by anyone.
Do you see a distinction between Street Fighter II released for the SNES in 1991 and the red Street Fighter II SNES carts released in 2017.
- can be taken in the perspective of "are the consoles for X platform still working? If yes, then it's still alive!"
- can be taken in the perspective of "are the games still being produced by the gaming companies?"
- can be taken in the perspective of "are consumers/gamers still buying the games on X platform from retail stores?"
- can be taken in the perspective of "are games for X platform still being sold/traded as second hand games?"
In my opinion, the console X is like a body/machine, and the consumers/gamers are the blood/fuel that feeds X console. Without the consumers, the consoles don't really have a meaninful existence. So therefore my opinion is that when retail stores cease to sell X console/games, then that's when I consider it a "dead" console.
We need to let go of the word collector from this topic, because if we use collectors as part of this debate, then technically, no console has an end point (because anything old becomes a collectible).