In this edition of Game Spec I outline my personal model for categorizing video game demand. In the past, I didn’t give “casual gamers” enough credit for influencing classic video game prices. This newsletter covers what changed my perspective.
Gamers & Collectors
The crux of my framework is that there are two types of demand for video games. Unfortunately, they are intertwined and the majority of demand is an indistinguishable combination of both.1 It is still worthwhile to understand the extreme cases and how they work to drive video game prices. I will outline the ideal of each demand type by describing two people at different extremes.
The (Casual) “Gamer”
This person just wants to have fun playing games. They don’t care about the box and manual. If the cart is cracked and label is ripped off, that’s better since the game is cheaper. Authenticity of a game is the least of their concern and the question never crosses their mind. They might own many games, but they were all bought with the sole intention of playing. Their games are prone to be sold if they won’t get played again. This person wants to play games.
The “Collector”
This person loves collecting. They own thousands of games acquired over many years. Their childhood love of games inspired them to collect, but these days they don’t play much of anything. Their interest isn’t just in enjoyable games, but also more obscure and niche items. They especially like discovering what is rare and making a point to get these items. This person wants to own games.
They are quite different. The ideal case of the “Gamer” is a reasonably close match to the average gamer/consumer. The ideal case for the “Collector” is much more removed from the average collector. Most people who consider themselves collectors play their games, and their buying habits are often driven by the same factors as gamers - they want to play the good games. Collectors are mostly gamers, but gamers are not often collectors. I deliberately chose the term “gamer demand” over “casual demand” because it can be inclusive of collectors. This is where the distinction gets messy, but it’s important to understand the extremes.
Seeing Their Impact
Because the two types of demand are often impossible to differentiate in practice, I will present extreme cases that illustrate how each type of demand can impact prices.
Loss of “Gamer Demand”
In November 2017, an HD collection of the three .hack GU games was released on PS4. The price of all three Playstation 2 games immediately plummeted.
If the price was driven by devoted PS2 or .hack collectors, this drop shouldn’t happen. The PS2 games are still perfectly playable, and arguably the superior collectible since they have high quality manuals that are not included with the PS4 version. That didn’t stop the prices from plummeting. This leads me to believe that the majority of people paying $50+ for each of these .hack games were those who primarily wanted to play them. Once they could get all three for $50 total on PS4, they had no more interest in the PS2 releases. This is a common occurrence that happens with most popular out of print games that get a re-release.
Before the price dropped on these PS2 games, I thought it was collectors driving the prices. After, I realized my assumptions were incorrect. Gamers are willing to spend more money on old games than I assumed.
Majority “Gamer Demand”
Sometimes the “gamer demand” for a game is so high that it becomes the only noticeable demand. When this happens, the difference between loose and complete pricing is non-existent. Gamers only want to play it, so they buy the cheapest available version, driving up the price of all of them together. Take a look at Def Jam Fight for NY over the past five years:
I used this game because of the extreme price. I don’t think collectors are paying $90 for a loose Def Jam, so gamers must be willing to spend a lot of money on old games in bad condition. I bet if the people paying $90 for a loose disc didn’t exist, the complete price would fall significantly.
Majority “Collector Demand”
This is an extremely rare case because the population of gamers usually dwarfs collectors, but I have one great example where “collector demand” managed to overtake “gamer demand.” Silent Hill 2 Greatest Hits (GH) for the Playstation 2 has more content than the original black label (BL) release. Anyone planning to play the game would want the GH version. This was historically the case, as seen in the price difference between the two versions. Around six years ago when the BL release sold for around $20, the GH version sold for $30-40.2
Prior to the COVID spike, the GH version still carried a small premium of around $10 over BL ($40-45 vs $30-35).
That difference in price doesn’t exist anymore. Over the past year, collectors caught in a frenzy have driven up the price of all versions of Silent Hill 2 to $90. This is the analogous to the case of Def Jam. Collectors only want to own it, so they buy the cheapest available version,3 driving up the price of all of them together.
It’s usually difficult to see “collector demand” because the population of gamers is much larger. The situations where it is detectable is usually with items that are so prohibitively expensive that it is clear that they are not being purchased for the primary purpose of playing.
Exclusive “Collector Demand”
This is the most self-evident case, but needs mentioning since this is the main circumstance where "collector” demand is the clear driving force. I don’t need to show charts of Stadium Events or Clay Fighter Sculptor’s Cut - everyone knows they are very expensive games. They uniquely have inexpensive readily available analogues: World Class Track Meet and Clay Fighter 63 1/3. Anyone who wants to play these games would buy the cheaper version, so the only people paying hundreds are collectors. Similar conclusions can be drawn regarding complete in box versus loose items.
Reality is Less Clear
The difference between “gamer demand” and “collector demand” lies on a spectrum and is impossible to differentiate. Even for expensive games like Earthbound, it is difficult to know the price point where “gamer demand” stops and “collector demand” starts. Despite this uncertainty, I hope my framework leaves you with an intuition for understanding the demand driving classic video game prices. Situations will arise where it can be of use.
EA recently announced they will be relaunching the NCAA Football series after an eight year hiatus. Assuming the new game is well received and gamers can accept playing without player likenesses on their favorite teams, it should be a suitable replacement for the NCAA Football 14 games that had skyrocketed to over $125. Looking at the .hack GU case, I would expect the NCAA Football 14 games to eventually lose a majority of their value. My guess would be they settle under $50 in price. I think they should go as low as $20, but everyone’s sunk cost and memory of how much they once sold for might keep prices higher.
If you enjoyed this newsletter, please subscribe!
If you know anyone who will enjoy this, consider sharing it.
It was different in the past. 15+ years ago, the vast majority of people interested in old games were “collectors.” Now, society and the average gamer appreciate old games.
My memory might be off on the timing or exact price, but I know there came a point working at the game store when I had to decide if the price difference was high enough to make a separate SKU for the GH version because it was 50-100% more expensive on Ebay.
In this case, the BL version was conveniently the cheaper version, which usually appeals to collectors. (but shouldn’t in this case) It will be very interesting to see where this game settles. Will collectors realize the GH version is objectively more valuable from a gameplay perspective?