36 replies to this topic

[navy09]

#@!#@! I had the box for this, but I didn't have the game and I threw the box out when it got a small tear on one of the flaps. I wish you still could order it, I definitely would.

[navy09]

Albert, on Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:06 PM, said:

homerwannabee, on Thu May 18, 2006 5:07 PM, said:

I don't know if anyone has noticed but Digital Press just raised the rarity of this game from a 3 to an 8.

I have adjusted this up to an 8 here as well.

..Al

In the description it states that this game can still be ordered, but Teglegames stopped supporting/selling classic games as of 2004. Is there something I'm missing, thanks.

[Crazy Climber]

navy09, on Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:57 PM, said:

#@!#@! I had the box for this, but I didn't have the game and I threw the box out when it got a small tear on one of the flaps. I wish you still could order it, I definitely would.

The box is the easy part since the PAL one is the same, it's finding the game NTSC that is hard

[navy09]

Crazy Climber, on Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:10 PM, said:

navy09, on Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:57 PM, said:

#@!#@! I had the box for this, but I didn't have the game and I threw the box out when it got a small tear on one of the flaps. I wish you still could order it, I definitely would.

The box is the easy part since the PAL one is the same, it's finding the game NTSC that is hard

Ah, thanks for the info. I feel much better now. I'd hate to think I trashed a rarity.

[Albert]

navy09, on Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:00 PM, said:

In the description it states that this game can still be ordered, but Teglegames stopped supporting/selling classic games as of 2004. Is there something I'm missing, thanks.

No, I just need to update the description. I should have read the description while I was updating the entry earlier.

..Al

[Christophero Sly]

Albert, on Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:06 PM, said:

homerwannabee, on Thu May 18, 2006 5:07 PM, said:

I don't know if anyone has noticed but Digital Press just raised the rarity of this game from a 3 to an 8.

I have adjusted this up to an 8 here as well.

Wow. An 8? I agree it was rarer than 4, but that high... I don't know.

Edited by Christophero Sly, Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:09 PM.

[Albert]

Christophero Sly, on Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:09 PM, said:

Albert, on Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:06 PM, said:

homerwannabee, on Thu May 18, 2006 5:07 PM, said:

I don't know if anyone has noticed but Digital Press just raised the rarity of this game from a 3 to an 8.

I have adjusted this up to an 8 here as well.

Wow. An 8? I agree it was rarer than 4, but that high... I don't know.

Seems to be pretty rare. I haven't seen an NTSC copy on eBay in a while.

..Al

[Christophero Sly]

Albert, on Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:10 PM, said:

Christophero Sly, on Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:09 PM, said:

Albert, on Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:06 PM, said:

I have adjusted this up to an 8 here as well.

Wow. An 8? I agree it was rarer than 4, but that high... I don't know.

Seems to be pretty rare. I haven't seen an NTSC copy on eBay in a while.

It's not a game I specifically watch for on ebay, so I'll take your word for it. I do remember seeing a copy on ebay a few months back though.

This change in rarity, and your comment about seeing the game on ebay, highlight something about rarity designations that has always concerned me, and that is that what is actually being quantified is not the game's "rarity", but, instead, its "availability", or the perception thereof.

As I understand it, this one was readily available from Telegames for years. Evidently, enough people owned the game when it was easily obtainable that it was felt to be only a rarity 4. Now that it's no longer available directly from Telegames, our new perception is that it's suddenly a much rarer game. Something doesn't add up there. Either the game was and is a true rarity 4 based on the number of extant copies of the game, and it's only a perceived lack of "availability" that has changed its rarity to 8, or else the game was previously incorrectly judged to be a "rarity 4" because of a perception that it was readily available at that time--in other words, it was really an "availability 4" not a "rarity 4".

Which of those two circumstances is it? If we claim that this new rarity 8 designation accurately reflects the games true rarity, then we must favor the later circumstance--that the previous rarity 4 designation was incorrect and actually a reflection of the game's perceived availability at that time. But why should we believe that is true? How do we certify that this new rarity 8 is the accurate designation and not the one that is based on a perception of availability?

Because I don't see what could have changed by such a significant amount. The number of copies in existence certainly didn't. It's only our perception of their availability that could have, and availability is not a true measure of rarity.

Yes, I realize I'm making this rather complicated, but I think it's an important consideration. Nevertheless, I'll try to put it more simply. I prefer to give the previous rarity designation, and those who settled on it, the benefit of the doubt, and believe that even if rarity 4 wasn't entirely accurate, it was close, within a point or two, three at the most extreme. That's why I have trouble seeing this one suddenly jump four points. To me, such an extreme reappraisal suggests that perceptions of availability are being factored into the equation here, and I don't believe that availability has any part in a valid appraisal of rarity.

I can easily understand the reverse situation where we learn that a once rare game exists in much larger quantities than previously known. For example, Motorodeo. However, a once common game suddenly jumping four points to true rarity status... I don't understand how the original number of copies of the game have been so grossly underestimated.

Edited by Christophero Sly, Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:58 PM.

[homerwannabee]

Christophero Sly, on Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:55 AM, said:

Albert, on Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:10 PM, said:

Christophero Sly, on Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:09 PM, said:

Albert, on Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:06 PM, said:

I have adjusted this up to an 8 here as well.

Wow. An 8? I agree it was rarer than 4, but that high... I don't know.

Seems to be pretty rare. I haven't seen an NTSC copy on eBay in a while.

It's not a game I specifically watch for on ebay, so I'll take your word for it. I do remember seeing a copy on ebay a few months back though.

This change in rarity, and your comment about seeing the game on ebay, highlight something about rarity designations that has always concerned me, and that is that what is actually being quantified is not the game's "rarity", but, instead, its "availability", or the perception thereof.

As I understand it, this one was readily available from Telegames for years. Evidently, enough people owned the game when it was easily obtainable that it was felt to be only a rarity 4. Now that it's no longer available directly from Telegames, our new perception is that it's suddenly a much rarer game. Something doesn't add up there. Either the game was and is a true rarity 4 based on the number of extant copies of the game, and it's only a perceived lack of "availability" that has changed its rarity to 8, or else the game was previously incorrectly judged to be a "rarity 4" because of a perception that it was readily available at that time--in other words, it was really an "availability 4" not a "rarity 4".

Which of those two circumstances is it? If we claim that this new rarity 8 designation accurately reflects the games true rarity, then we must favor the later circumstance--that the previous rarity 4 designation was incorrect and actually a reflection of the game's perceived availability at that time. But why should we believe that is true? How do we certify that this new rarity 8 is the accurate designation and not the one that is based on a perception of availability?

Because I don't see what could have changed by such a significant amount. The number of copies in existence certainly didn't. It's only our perception of their availability that could have, and availability is not a true measure of rarity.

Yes, I realize I'm making this rather complicated, but I think it's an important consideration. Nevertheless, I'll try to put it more simply. I prefer to give the previous rarity designation, and those who settled on it, the benefit of the doubt, and believe that even if rarity 4 wasn't entirely accurate, it was close, within a point or two, three at the most extreme. That's why I have trouble seeing this one suddenly jump four points. To me, such an extreme reappraisal suggests that perceptions of availability are being factored into the equation here, and I don't believe that availability has any part in a valid appraisal of rarity.

I can easily understand the reverse situation where we learn that a once rare game exists in much larger quantities than previously known. For example, Motorodeo. However, a once common game suddenly jumping four points to true rarity status... I don't understand how the original number of copies of the game have been so grossly underestimated.

When Glacier Patrol was designated a rarity 4 people could still get this game from the manufactuer. Tell me if you knew a company was still making a game, would you actually make it rarer than a 4 or a 5. If they made the game a rarity 8 off the bat then it's obvious the company would of exploited this and many people would of been ripped off thinking they had a rarity 8 on their hands, when in fact they did not. If Telegames was not still making this game I am pretty sure it would of been higher, but how on earth can you make a game rare knowing that a company will exploit the number you put out for it?

Edited by homerwannabee, Thu Jan 29, 2009 3:14 AM.

[Christophero Sly]

homerwannabee, on Thu Jan 29, 2009 3:14 AM, said:

Christophero Sly, on Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:55 AM, said:

Albert, on Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:10 PM, said:

Christophero Sly, on Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:09 PM, said:

Albert, on Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:06 PM, said:

I have adjusted this up to an 8 here as well.

Wow. An 8? I agree it was rarer than 4, but that high... I don't know.

Seems to be pretty rare. I haven't seen an NTSC copy on eBay in a while.

It's not a game I specifically watch for on ebay, so I'll take your word for it. I do remember seeing a copy on ebay a few months back though.

This change in rarity, and your comment about seeing the game on ebay, highlight something about rarity designations that has always concerned me, and that is that what is actually being quantified is not the game's "rarity", but, instead, its "availability", or the perception thereof.

As I understand it, this one was readily available from Telegames for years. Evidently, enough people owned the game when it was easily obtainable that it was felt to be only a rarity 4. Now that it's no longer available directly from Telegames, our new perception is that it's suddenly a much rarer game. Something doesn't add up there. Either the game was and is a true rarity 4 based on the number of extant copies of the game, and it's only a perceived lack of "availability" that has changed its rarity to 8, or else the game was previously incorrectly judged to be a "rarity 4" because of a perception that it was readily available at that time--in other words, it was really an "availability 4" not a "rarity 4".

Which of those two circumstances is it? If we claim that this new rarity 8 designation accurately reflects the games true rarity, then we must favor the later circumstance--that the previous rarity 4 designation was incorrect and actually a reflection of the game's perceived availability at that time. But why should we believe that is true? How do we certify that this new rarity 8 is the accurate designation and not the one that is based on a perception of availability?

Because I don't see what could have changed by such a significant amount. The number of copies in existence certainly didn't. It's only our perception of their availability that could have, and availability is not a true measure of rarity.

Yes, I realize I'm making this rather complicated, but I think it's an important consideration. Nevertheless, I'll try to put it more simply. I prefer to give the previous rarity designation, and those who settled on it, the benefit of the doubt, and believe that even if rarity 4 wasn't entirely accurate, it was close, within a point or two, three at the most extreme. That's why I have trouble seeing this one suddenly jump four points. To me, such an extreme reappraisal suggests that perceptions of availability are being factored into the equation here, and I don't believe that availability has any part in a valid appraisal of rarity.

I can easily understand the reverse situation where we learn that a once rare game exists in much larger quantities than previously known. For example, Motorodeo. However, a once common game suddenly jumping four points to true rarity status... I don't understand how the original number of copies of the game have been so grossly underestimated.

When Glacier Patrol was designated a rarity 4 people could still get this game from the manufactuer. Tell me if you knew a company was still making a game, would you actually make it rarer than a 4 or a 5. If they made the game a rarity 8 off the bat then it's obvious the company would of exploited this and many people would of been ripped off thinking they had a rarity 8 on their hands, when in fact they did not. If Telegames was not still making this game I am pretty sure it would of been higher, but how on earth can you make a game rare knowing that a company will exploit the number you put out for it?

Assigning a low rarity designation in an attempt to manipulate the game's price can't seriously have been the rationale for initially designating this one a rarity 4. I don't even know where to begin to explain how that would represent a far more grievous flaw in the rarity system than does the issue I raised above.

[Albert]

Christophero Sly, on Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:51 AM, said:

Assigning a low rarity designation in an attempt to manipulate the game's price can't seriously have been the rationale for initially designating this one a rarity 4. I don't even know where to begin to explain how that would represent a far more grievous flaw in the rarity system than does the issue I raised above.

No, that is not why the game was initially assigned a rarity 4. Realistically, games that are still available new and being sold by the original manufacturer shouldn't even be assigned a rarity.

..Al

[CincYnoTi]

We don't know what the sales figures were for Glacier Patrol back when it was available (or for any game for that matter), but you can try to track its sales on ebay today. And it does not matter how many copies Telegames had in its warehouse unsold, because that was destroyed by a tornado. Most copies in existence today are in collectors' hands. Its availability can be approximated by what you see on ebay...just like Motorodeo. Or, someone can make a poll for who owns NTSC Glacier Patrol and Universal Chaos.