Company making indistinguishable reprints of rarities eg REZ

[PaCrappa]

Edited... angry jp rant begone!

Smart move.

Pa

[Acid King]

I mean, if games have no more collection value, what should keep people from downloading them instead of buying them?

Because the ethics of pirating games has nothing to do with "collection value".

[Ceph]

An employee of GQD claimed they do here:

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/sho ... ge=3&pp=20

I have little doubt that this guy really is working for GQD (aka Shady Inc.)

Did he show you his employee ID card, or what?

Did you even read the article Thunder Force linked to?

[PaCrappa]

No. You should start another thread or something.

Pa

[Twiddle]

Oh no, whatever will happen to Ceph's butter supply?

[doctorx0079]

An employee of GQD claimed they do here:

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/sho ... ge=3&pp=20

I have little doubt that this guy really is working for GQD (aka Shady Inc.)

Did he show you his employee ID card, or what?

Did you even read the article Thunder Force linked to?

I read it, but is Silicon Era on the level? Funny how "GQD Management" offered a coupon code, yet this article is never mentioned on the GQD website, nor nothing about the alleged reprints. Has anybody actually tried using the coupon code? I've never heard of a coupon code being offered in a forum before.

Also, I would think that reprints of some of these games would be big big news. Yet I haven't found any mention of it from the "big guys" (e.g. 1up.com).

[Turrican]

First off, stop reading in to things. Where did I say "fuck the collectors"? What wagon are you talking about? Jesus Chrust man, calm down.

I'm sorry man - only the first paragraph of my post was directed at you. I should have specified this somewhere.

Platinum releases are platinum releases. The "Greatest hits" release are different releases. Different packaging and altogether different releases. All gamequest is doing is reprinting previously out of print titles that are not different at all than the previous printing. It's not comparable to a platinum, greatest hits or "Best" release because it's not a new edition. It's the same thing. It's akin to a company putting out 20,000 copies, having all the copies sell, then printing another 20,000 a year or two later. How is it that people don't see that?

Sure - as long as they know their work, it's all ok. If they're burning new copies of Rez - I hope they are good at pressing the cds, and are using quality material and stuff - what if one of these rereleases proves faulty, let's say has a bug that wipes off your memory card? Things like that can happen.

Some years ago Buena Vista started to publish the long waited Miyazaki movies in our country. As first release, they went with Kiki's Delivery Service. The problem is, they completely ruined the first batch with some awful editing - probably the had used a wrong master or something like that.
Thankfully, they were kind enough to listen to the people who were angry at their forums, and decided to remaster the whole thing to eliminate the errors.
And, you bet, the new edition came to stores virtually identic to the first press - same cover and all - but luckily there was a new serial code, so informed customers did know which version to avoid and which one to go for.

That is the kind of stuff why I think there should be tiny difference, and has really nothing to do with collector's bullshit.

[umi]

I have no idea whether this company is doing legitimate (as they claim) business. I just don't know. What I do know is the ridiculousness of the collector market, created by their own minds. Games are not trading cards and (excepting the case of limited editions) their rarity is, like someone else already said, a miscalculation on the original publisher's part. If someone wants to come along and fill the gap, I think that's good for everyone but the collectors.

As for differentiating between and original and reprint: why? Unless there is a reason, an actual difference in the printing or performance of the product, I can't see the point. For the price they are charging for these reprints or back stock, it would be lame to brand them like budget or inferior releases in any way, like slapping an ugly logo on the back.

It's just... lame. Heard of traceability? When mass-producing products, this usually applies (in normal circumstances) in the form of an ID code or some such. It's not hard, is it? It wouldn't stop the games from selling. It's also necessary to enforce ACCOUNTABILITY. In any case, it's a small bitchslap in the face of the history of said games. Luckily, I care about none of those games :P Though they really should be marked as what they are (a reprint/budget[?] release), and as such it is glaringly obvious they are taking advantage of the state of the second-hand market... definitely not illegal, as that is what companies DO, but... the ethics are debatable, and if they really are indistinguishable, then that's also just bad manufacturing processes.

But one must wonder how perfectly "duplicated" they really are/will be though? Different materials/inks used? Who knows. Maybe they will be distinguishable. Which would be both better for the collectors, and further prove the stupidity of not making batches from a different "era" discernable. Though overall it won't really make much difference.

As for the actual practice of bringing back older releases, I'm all for it. I just think it should be done right.

p.s. Who can really know what to believe/disbelieve in those articles...

[SAM]

However they could at least do everyone the courtesy of using a different barcode/serial number for a reprint, just so everyone knows exactly what they're getting. Books and music media almost always make some kind of attempt to do this, so why should games be any different?

They are using the same barcode/serial number for a reprint?!?!

How could they?

If they are licensed SCEA products, how is that they don't get a new SLPS-???? code?

Take a close look at the recently avaliable sealed copies, I think got actually got a new SLPS-???? code.

If I understanding correctly, everytime you print a PS2 game, you tell Sony how many copies you are going to print, and they give you a SLPS-???? code and charge you fee according to the size of your printrun.

So if you are to print more, you have to get a new SLPS-???? code from Sony and pay the fee again.

Otherwise the reprints would just be some "official bootleg", i.e. does not have Sony's permission.

[Turrican]

Otherwise the reprints would just be some "official bootleg", i.e. does not have Sony's permission.

I would marry you.

[cigsthecat]

I'll bet at some point a while ago I would have cared about this. Nice to know that I don't now.

[Acid King]

I'm sorry man - only the first paragraph of my post was directed at you. I should have specified this somewhere.

No prob, Bob... erm... Turrican

Sure - as long as they know their work, it's all ok. If they're burning new copies of Rez - I hope they are good at pressing the cds, and are using quality material and stuff - what if one of these rereleases proves faulty, let's say has a bug that wipes off your memory card? Things like that can happen.

Some years ago Buena Vista started to publish the long waited Miyazaki movies in our country. As first release, they went with Kiki's Delivery Service. The problem is, they completely ruined the first batch with some awful editing - probably the had used a wrong master or something like that.
Thankfully, they were kind enough to listen to the people who were angry at their forums, and decided to remaster the whole thing to eliminate the errors.
And, you bet, the new edition came to stores virtually identic to the first press - same cover and all - but luckily there was a new serial code, so informed customers did know which version to avoid and which one to go for.

That is the kind of stuff why I think there should be tiny difference, and has really nothing to do with collector's bullshit.

I see where you're coming from with that, but I don't know how much of a difference that would make to a digital medium where perfect replicas can be made. The biggest problem with them doing this is mentioned in the thread Ceph linked to, in that they don't have the white sticker sealed on them, so you know they weren't pressed by Sony. In that regard, it sucks because there's no official quality control or testing other than everyone bitching when the bad games get out to market, like with the Miyazaki movies. Then again, I don't think they would knowingly put out a bad product like that, especially not witha high profile reprint of a cult, highly sought after game. I don't think Sony has a monopoly on quality control.

[sethsez]

Just imagine you are a professional seller dealing with rare out-of-print games. GQD's reprints will no doubt cause you to lose a lot of money you invested- I think you'd have a legitimate claim against them.

This is really fucking stupid.

People who are in the business of selling products understand the risks of doing so. Dealing in products that can easily and legally be reprinted at any time (we're not talking about relics from centuries ago, we're talking about modern media that's mostly from within the past decade) carries with it a certain risk. They can't sue any more than any company can sue when any sort of advancement makes a product or sector obsolete. As long as the reprints are legal, then tough shit for the rare games seller but he'll just have to suck it up.

The same goes for being a collector. The pride and joy of your collection turned out to not be as rare as it once was? Well, to not put too fine a point on it, boo fucking hoo. That's one of the risks of being a collector. If a warehouse that contained 500,000 pristine, unopened copies of the first issue of The Amazing Spiderman was found the value of the comic would plummet, but that's an assumed risk when you're dealing in rarities. And frankly, the games that are being reprinted here are NOT extremely rare. Every self-proclaimed collector already has Rez, so it's not some holy grail.

I can't believe how little some gamers actually care about games.

[PaCrappa]

they don't have the white sticker sealed on them, so you know they weren't pressed by Sony

I'm not gonna reread all this crap to find it, but I think it was mentioned that Sony isn't doing the stickers anymore either. It seemed that way when I was at the store today as well. Some games had the sticker and some didn't.

Pa

[BulletMagnet]

I guess you can toss me on the pile of those who don't have a problem with the reprints, but believe that there should be SOME way to distinguish the new print run from the original one...how much trouble could it be to put some small thing on the case, honestly? And even if you're not a collector and don't care how much the game's worth, how does having it there affect you, anyways, if all you care about is playing it?

I can't help but chuckle at the fact that some of those who are most loudly decrying the "prissy collector types who should care about playing games instead of their value" find the possibility of "an ugly stripe on the packaging" utterly unacceptable, heh heh.

[Acid King]

I'm not gonna reread all this crap to find it, but I think it was mentioned that Sony isn't doing the stickers anymore either. It seemed that way when I was at the store today as well. Some games had the sticker and some didn't.

Pa

Ahh... in that case, ignore that part of my post.

[Twiddle]

I can't believe how many people here have a problem with more people being able to play games these collectors themselves are scared of death of playing just because it would be worth less in butter if they had opened the packaging.

Sony, Capcom, Sega, etc do not give one shit about your unopened rareass game's resale value as seen in the article. They're more than happy to print more copies that don't look at all different to the originals (keep in mind, the publishers (not GQD) are doing this, not GQD) when commissioned to do so (which, GQD paid them to do). It's hilarious seeing people calling fair business like this shady and something worth suing over.

[Rob]

I can't help but chuckle at the fact that some of those who are most loudly decrying the "prissy collector types who should care about playing games instead of their value" find the possibility of "an ugly stripe on the packaging" utterly unacceptable, heh heh.

I don't find it "unacceptable." I find it stupid. I would be reluctant to pay $45 for a game that looked like a $20 budget release of the $45 game that came out the year before. When you don't intend on keeping games (i.e. not collecting), short term resale value actually is important.

[BulletMagnet]

When you don't intend on keeping games (i.e. not collecting), short term resale value actually is important.

Well, yeah, but now if you're saying that the dollar value attached to the game DOES matter (just in the short term rather than the long), as opposed to solely the "gameplay factor," then there definitely ought to be a way to tell what print it is...look at it as a way of keeping all those legions of whiny collectors from complaining, heh heh.

[Rob]

then there definitely ought to be a way to tell what print it is

Not seeing the connection. $45 = $45, a "first print" of Rez is not a rookie card. What am I missing?

[Randorama]

As long as there are disturbed freaks who care about pristine conditions, i keep my potentially sellable games in good conditions. That's why my Ikaruga copy was in excellent state and my Border Down case must be changed.

True gamers have coffee stains on their booklets!*


*Please change "coffee" with any beverage you drink when playing videogames. If you play them, of course!

[BulletMagnet]

Not seeing the connection. $45 = $45, a "first print" of Rez is not a rookie card. What am I missing?

What I mean is, no matter who says what, there are always going to be collectors out there who want to own the "higher value" or "rarer" version of a cart/disc/whatever, even if the actual game is the same, and will start complaining if the value of their games is threatened; on the other end of the spectrum, there will be the "I only care about gameplay" types who will throw hardcore stones at the former group, and drive everyone in between out of their minds. I tend to think that making certain print runs of games easily recognizable from others will keep both groups happy.

As I said before, if you only care about playing the game, what do you care what the cover art looks like? The collectors are free to bid their brains out for the first-edition copy of game XYZ, while anyone else who just wants to play the thing can save their cash and buy a cheaper, more numerous later print, with each one being easily distinguishable from the other, so as to avoid confusion/conflict between the two groups (as seen in this thread). However, if you're talking about "short term resale value" and lobbying against a way to tell the old and new games apart, like you do above, then the real motivation behind your support of the reprints is not "broader access to gamers," but simply the monetary side of it. In short, you don't want to lower the value of the collectors' games so you can play them more easily; you want to do so because it will keep the going price of your copy higher, so you can sell it for more in the short term.

If that's what you're after, then that's your business, but at least be honest about it. If "getting to play it is all that matters," then being able to distinguish your later copy from an older one, and the influence it might have on its resale value, should make no difference whatsoever.

[sethsez]

Games do not work like books. They have never had "second edition" or anything of the sort on the case, and the only time this is different is when it's a Greatest Hits release, which does not apply to all, or even most, reprints. And even then, the Greatest Hits release might actually be the third or fourth run, not the second.

If someone is anal about collecting rare things (especially first editions), maybe they should collect items where having a first edition actually means something, because games don't work that way and it's ridiculous to expect them to change any time soon. Collectors don't get to call the shots and say "well, now that I've decided to collect your products you're going to have to start printing and tracking them differently to better suit me." You decide to collect videogames, you accept everything that goes with that.

[BulletMagnet]

Point taken about the "editions" thing, but methinks that this sort of situation could pretty easily fall under circumstances which would make these newer prints different than "second editions" of most games. IIRC, this company is specifically looking to reproduce games that have become especially expensive for one reason or another, some of them several years old and long out of print. This is a bit different than printing up a new bunch of copies of a game while it's still selling; while the latter is meant simply to keep a supply of stuff to sell at the same price as the last bunch, this sort of reprint is a direct attempt to influence going prices for the games, regardless of their edition.

As for "collectors getting their way," who was it that decided that the first print of a book "means something" while that of a game does not? Obviously many books have been around longer than games and can be more easily filed as "antiques" or what have you, but in most cases, perhaps with a few minor differences, an original edition book and a modern reprint contain the same content, same as a "greatest hits" game is usually the same basic thing as its original run. Where's it written that "games don't work that way?" It sounds much the same to me.

I'm not a collector myself, but the fact stands that no matter what it is, if there's a lot of different things that fit under one heading, people WILL collect them, and there's not much that "the true and loyal fans" can do about it: if buyers are willing to fork out a certain amount of dollars for something, the sellers are going to take it from them, the true and loyal fans be damned. Booksellers and readers seem to have learned to deal with it; a modern edition of "Great Expectations" sure as anything doesn't look anything like a copy from the 1800's, and doesn't try to, but you can get it for a lot cheaper and read the exact same thing, and neither collectors or casual readers seem to have any problem with it. My prediction is that gamers are going to have to learn to do the same thing, in one manner or another.

[sethsez]

As for "collectors getting their way," who was it that decided that the first print of a book "means something" while that of a game does not? Obviously many books have been around longer than games and can be more easily filed as "antiques" or what have you, but in most cases, perhaps with a few minor differences, an original edition book and a modern reprint contain the same content, same as a "greatest hits" game is usually the same basic thing as its original run. Where's it written that "games don't work that way?" It sounds much the same to me.

First editions became collector's items because publishers kept track of editions first, for their own benefit. It didn't happen the other way around.

Also, to briefly reply to people who are comparing games to special coins, stamps and baseball cards: stop it. Those are all made with the sole purpose of being collectable. Games are not in any way designed for this.

Look, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being a game collector if that's your thing, but I am saying that collectors should at least have a basic understanding of how games are printed and tracked, and should understand that unlike baseball cards, first edition books or whatever else, companies are not particularly interested in catering to them. Again, if you don't want to deal with collecting like this, find something else to collect that better suits what you want.

Also, collectors should use some common sense. If you bought Rez as some sort of investment, you were fooling yourself. The game has a pretty large cult following and every collector worth a damn has a copy, in addition to the creator gaining more popularity with Lumines and Meteos, so it was risky to assume it would remain "rare" forever. The risk, in this case, did not pay off as the demand eventually garnered a reprint. Dust yourself off and better luck next time, but don't cry about it.

[BulletMagnet]

First editions became collector's items because publishers kept track of editions first, for their own benefit. It didn't happen the other way around.

Perhaps, but, if you want to stay with book publishers as an example, did they keep track of editions with the specific purpose of making them collectible or valuable? At least until relatively recently, anyway, I doubt it...then again, I'm not an expert on the publishing industry. But as far as original intentions go, read on:

Also, to briefly reply to people who are comparing games to special coins, stamps and baseball cards: stop it. Those are all made with the sole purpose of being collectable. Games are not in any way designed for this.

I note your use of the word "special"...I know what kinds of items you're talking about, but the fact remains that the vast majority of coins, stamps, etc. (baseball cards are a bit of a different story, I'd suppose) were, and are, NOT made purely as collectibles, but are collected anyway, in much the same manner as most games are not specifically intended to be collectible. The original intentions of the makers of the product don't matter all that much to this end: if a demand manages to develop for it, the item still becomes "collectible," no matter what it is, or was (or wasn't) intended to be.

Look, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being a game collector if that's your thing, but I am saying that collectors should at least have a basic understanding of how games are printed and tracked, and should understand that unlike baseball cards, first edition books or whatever else, companies are not particularly interested in catering to them.

For sure, when video games first appeared they were not intended as collectible items, but, as was noted above, neither were (and are) lots of other things that are currently widely collected. Not to mention, there are more and more signs of publishers catering more to the collecting crowd specifically: heck, look at the "Limited Editions" and "Special Boxes" and such that are released even right here in the niche shmup genre.

As far as this trend goes, I'm pretty much neither here nor there about it: in general, and especially so as long as there are efforts like those of the publisher putting out these reprints and whatnot, I doubt that collectors will influence the video game market to the extent that the purchasing power of non-collectors is significantly lessened or anything like that. However, I will argue that, even though video games are a relatively new commodity, this shift IS happening, and will likely have to be accomodated to some small extent, at least. As I said earlier, though, I really don't think that doing so will have much of an effect on the majority of us who just want to play this stuff.

[Rob]

As I said before, if you only care about playing the game, what do you care what the cover art looks like?

This is the great paradox then. Again, I don't consider myself a collector and in parting with games the resale market is decided by collector value/supply and demand. Of course games have value, as assigned by the companies who make and distribute them. Of course money is an issue for a non-rich person like myself. I don't care if a game has no cover art, no disc art, no manual, etc. Put the title in black letters on the disc, really. But all of them would have to be like that because I'm not shooting myself in the foot, throwing away money, however you want to put it - to make a collector feel better about himself. I think that's just common sense.

buy a cheaper, more numerous later print, with each one being easily distinguishable from the other

See, now you're changing the rules! If it's cheaper, that's one thing, but why would a company do that if they can get away with full retail? This is not like Greatest Hits, which companies can afford to "give away" since they were runaway successes. Rare games could use the extra profit.

[Twiddle]

Don't you all see the real reason for this thread? One man's butter supply is at stake and Game Quest Direct needs to be torched for this transgression!

[sethsez]

if a demand manages to develop for it, the item still becomes "collectible," no matter what it is, or was (or wasn't) intended to be.

But a company has absolutely no obligation to cater to this demand. If a company's reprint screws up demand, then tough shit for the collectors. This happens pretty frequently with other collector's items (a warehouse full of something "rare" is found and the price bottoms out), but nobody calls for lawsuits or ridiculous things like that. Collecting is a gamble, and it's a gamble that doesn't particularly benefit the company producing the product, since a game becoming a collector's item pretty much relies on low production and sales.

[BulletMagnet]

But all of them would have to be like that because I'm not shooting myself in the foot, throwing away money, however you want to put it - to make a collector feel better about himself. I think that's just common sense.

How are you throwing money away on buying a less expensive copy of a game, exactly? Because your reprint isn't worth as much as the collector's original and thus won't re-sell for as much? If that's the case, then it's (again) got nothing to do with "feeling good about oneself," it's about the money value, for both yourself and the proverbial collector: you don't want his item's value to stay high, because yours will then be lower. In similar fashion, I'm sure the collector's not going to want to watch the value of his item fall so yours stays higher. What's the x factor that makes you "right" and him "wrong" on this, when you both, when you get right down to it, want the same thing?

And believe me, I definitely qualify for the "not rich" category, so I'm not speaking as someone who has loads of cash to throw around on this stuff as it is.

See, now you're changing the rules!

I meant "cheaper" as opposed to the prices of the "originals" which have to date been driven up by collector demand or whatnot, not the price at the time of its original release, when it's likely to have cost about the same as any other game. Sorry if I worded it badly.