I love retro games, I always have. Despite my childhood being the 2010's, I grew up with a gameboy color, and I would emulate GBA, GB, and even N64 games on my crappy android I had at the time.
Because of the power of emulation I was able to grow up with classics like Silent Hill, Megaman Zero, Pokemon Crystal, Metal Gear, so on and so forth. But when I turned 16, and I was able to get my first job, I became especially interested in collecting games, games that I actually like to play. But now that i'm older and I actually have financial responsibilities, and don't even get me started on how the retro gaming market just continues to inflate, its getting to a point where its just not feasible for me to continue collecting.
Silent Hill 3 is literally my favorite horror game ever, and I will never be able to afford a copy, or even if I did have the money to spare I could never justify the absurd price. I will never own a legitimate copy of Megaman Legends, Pokemon Platinum, Rule of Rose, or so many of these games that I really do care about and want to be able to experience on authentic hardware.
But whats even more frustrating about it all to me are the types of collectors that want something specifically because it is rare. The type of people to buy a game and shove it in a plastic box on a shelf where it will collect dust and never be played or appreciated beyond it's box art. It is so frustrating to me because collectors of games, as opposed to people who actually want to play and appreciate these games and make memories off them and share those experiences with their friends, are driving up the market values of games to unaffordability.
Anyways I think I am going to give up collecting games. I still have a large collection of PS2, Gameboy, Gameboy Advance, MSDOS, and PS1 games, but I am done trying to get more. I might occasionally shell out a little bit on the occasional cheaper game that catches my eye, but trying to get a lot of my favorite titles is a sisiphusian endeavor.
I think that scarcity of art is a rather bourgeois thing, that the more available art is to everyone the better. Video games were always art the moment someone figured out how to make two pixels move across a screen. We don’t need to prove that to anyone.
Scarcity isn't a bourgeois construct. There are a finite amount of originals in both famous Renaissance paintings and original releases of video games. Its a macroeconomic function. When there are fewer of an item that is in higher demand, the price rises.
I own zero Monet originals, but I have lithographs of them I quite enjoy. The fact that the original painting hangs at the Art Institute in Chicago doesn't prevent me from enjoying the copy of it on my wall. Video games are even better as copies are perfect copies, always, and every time. The only thing you don't get to have (without parting with the money) is the original ROM IC etched in 1996 or the original disc pressed in 1997.
Your view was not universally held with others in the early days of video games.
Its not an effort one undertakes, its a measurable metric of acceptance in society. You can choose to ignore its significance, but not its consequence. Originals will be more expensive, especially the groundbreaking titles from decade ago.
I don’t think you understand the principle of what I’m saying at all.
I do not believe that failure rests with them. Their comment was a coherent and thoughtful reply.
What I'm taking from your posts is that you don't like that people are liking and buying what you like, which is driving up the price. Additionally, a part of the people that are buying what you like, you don't like the reasons they're buying them.
I can't figure out what you want done though.
What is different from in my post from what you're trying to communicate?