This was a sealed copy, rated 9.8 for condition. The bit I can't square is that apparently a 9.6 rated copy went for $13,200 in the same auction. I get that tiny differences of rating do make a...
This was a sealed copy, rated 9.8 for condition. The bit I can't square is that apparently a 9.6 rated copy went for $13,200 in the same auction. I get that tiny differences of rating do make a difference in rarity, but 100x the price for something that marginal seems pretty strange even in the context of collectibles.
To be fair, Super Mario 64 is a really good game. I think Super Mario RPG is better, but we all have our opinions. I'm still not sure where any investor sees this going though, I think it's pretty...
To be fair, Super Mario 64 is a really good game. I think Super Mario RPG is better, but we all have our opinions.
I'm still not sure where any investor sees this going though, I think it's pretty clear that it's a bubble, but I could be very wrong.
Is it necessarily bought by someone who's trying to "invest", though? It could very well be just someone's who's very wealthy and has great nostalgia or other sentimental value over Super Mario 64.
Is it necessarily bought by someone who's trying to "invest", though? It could very well be just someone's who's very wealthy and has great nostalgia or other sentimental value over Super Mario 64.
These are collectors' items. You don't need the most pristine sealed copy ever made if all you want is to either play the game on original hardware or just display it for shits and giggles. I'm...
These are collectors' items. You don't need the most pristine sealed copy ever made if all you want is to either play the game on original hardware or just display it for shits and giggles. I'm confident your average person would not be able to tell the difference between the 9.8/10 grade million-dollar copy and one that's in pretty good shape and costs several orders of magnitude less.
Well, yeah, I never said they just wanted a copy to play. Someone's who very wealthy, has great nostalgia or sentimentality over Super Mario 64 and therefore desires an extremely pristine copy....
Well, yeah, I never said they just wanted a copy to play. Someone's who very wealthy, has great nostalgia or sentimentality over Super Mario 64 and therefore desires an extremely pristine copy. It's the difference between having the Mona Lisa and having a print of the Mona Lisa.
The only reason that "investing" in something like this is possible is because actual collectors exist who want to own the intangibles of having an "original" - it's a well documented human desire that dates back over a millenia.
To be honest it's entirely possible that literally nobody is nostalgic enough to pay 1.5 million for a copy of SM64 to keep for its own sake... That anyone who is willing to pay that price is...
To be honest it's entirely possible that literally nobody is nostalgic enough to pay 1.5 million for a copy of SM64 to keep for its own sake... That anyone who is willing to pay that price is banking on the fact that some other rich moron is willing to pay more. That is how bubbles are made: when nobody actually believes the product is worth remotely close to what it's being sold for, but is betting that someone else will still pay more for it.
Of course, I don't know that for sure. But it's a fact that a lot of art bought for outrageous prices is bought as an investment. I personally consider it a more than even chance that this is not an item the buyer is planning to keep until they die to treasure for nostalgic reasons.
Of course that's possible - in fact, it's what just about every piece of coverage on this implies. All I was doing was introducing the idea that it's entirely possible it isn't the case - the...
Of course that's possible - in fact, it's what just about every piece of coverage on this implies. All I was doing was introducing the idea that it's entirely possible it isn't the case - the original comment implies that it is already a set-in-stone fact that it was bought by someone to invest in it.
Even in a pump and dump, the source of it all is the existence of actual rich collectors. The pump and dumpers sell the idea that there exist actual rich collectors who will buy the thing for an even higher price than the one the pump and dumpers are selling it to them.
It could certainly be someone driving up the market to do a pump and dump. Hell, it could be the grading agency that pulled off the stunt to drive up business.
But it also certainly could just be a rich person who wants a 9.8/10 copy of Super Mario 64. If I were a billionaire, I wouldn't think twice about spending $1.5m on an extremely rare version of my hypothetical favorite game to put in my trophy room.
OP said "I think it's pretty clear that it's a bubble, but I could be very wrong." That doesn't sound very set in stone to me. Anyway, you are right - they sell the idea of the rich collector. But...
the original comment implies that it is already a set-in-stone fact that it was bought by someone to invest in it.
OP said "I think it's pretty clear that it's a bubble, but I could be very wrong." That doesn't sound very set in stone to me.
Anyway, you are right - they sell the idea of the rich collector. But my point is that rich collector might not actually exist. All you need to create a bubble is the idea of someone even richer buying your asset at an even higher price in the near future. If that person actually exists, and isn't looking to flip the thing for profit in short order, then it's not a bubble.
Or this is just your garden variety money laundering. The fine art world is apparently already rife with it, so it wouldn't surprise me if launderers have started utilizing other, similarly...
Or this is just your garden variety money laundering. The fine art world is apparently already rife with it, so it wouldn't surprise me if launderers have started utilizing other, similarly high-value collectables auctions like this now too.
I have a programmer friend who's gone all in on NFTs (works on NFT projects full time, buys NFTs for 10s of thousands of dollars). Somehow I hadn't thought it could largely be money laundering. I...
I have a programmer friend who's gone all in on NFTs (works on NFT projects full time, buys NFTs for 10s of thousands of dollars). Somehow I hadn't thought it could largely be money laundering. I don't think he's doing any laundering, but I also don't think he suspects anyone of doing it.
This was a sealed copy, rated 9.8 for condition. The bit I can't square is that apparently a 9.6 rated copy went for $13,200 in the same auction. I get that tiny differences of rating do make a difference in rarity, but 100x the price for something that marginal seems pretty strange even in the context of collectibles.
To be fair, Super Mario 64 is a really good game. I think Super Mario RPG is better, but we all have our opinions.
I'm still not sure where any investor sees this going though, I think it's pretty clear that it's a bubble, but I could be very wrong.
Is it necessarily bought by someone who's trying to "invest", though? It could very well be just someone's who's very wealthy and has great nostalgia or other sentimental value over Super Mario 64.
These are collectors' items. You don't need the most pristine sealed copy ever made if all you want is to either play the game on original hardware or just display it for shits and giggles. I'm confident your average person would not be able to tell the difference between the 9.8/10 grade million-dollar copy and one that's in pretty good shape and costs several orders of magnitude less.
Well, yeah, I never said they just wanted a copy to play. Someone's who very wealthy, has great nostalgia or sentimentality over Super Mario 64 and therefore desires an extremely pristine copy. It's the difference between having the Mona Lisa and having a print of the Mona Lisa.
The only reason that "investing" in something like this is possible is because actual collectors exist who want to own the intangibles of having an "original" - it's a well documented human desire that dates back over a millenia.
To be honest it's entirely possible that literally nobody is nostalgic enough to pay 1.5 million for a copy of SM64 to keep for its own sake... That anyone who is willing to pay that price is banking on the fact that some other rich moron is willing to pay more. That is how bubbles are made: when nobody actually believes the product is worth remotely close to what it's being sold for, but is betting that someone else will still pay more for it.
Of course, I don't know that for sure. But it's a fact that a lot of art bought for outrageous prices is bought as an investment. I personally consider it a more than even chance that this is not an item the buyer is planning to keep until they die to treasure for nostalgic reasons.
Of course that's possible - in fact, it's what just about every piece of coverage on this implies. All I was doing was introducing the idea that it's entirely possible it isn't the case - the original comment implies that it is already a set-in-stone fact that it was bought by someone to invest in it.
Even in a pump and dump, the source of it all is the existence of actual rich collectors. The pump and dumpers sell the idea that there exist actual rich collectors who will buy the thing for an even higher price than the one the pump and dumpers are selling it to them.
It could certainly be someone driving up the market to do a pump and dump. Hell, it could be the grading agency that pulled off the stunt to drive up business.
But it also certainly could just be a rich person who wants a 9.8/10 copy of Super Mario 64. If I were a billionaire, I wouldn't think twice about spending $1.5m on an extremely rare version of my hypothetical favorite game to put in my trophy room.
OP said "I think it's pretty clear that it's a bubble, but I could be very wrong." That doesn't sound very set in stone to me.
Anyway, you are right - they sell the idea of the rich collector. But my point is that rich collector might not actually exist. All you need to create a bubble is the idea of someone even richer buying your asset at an even higher price in the near future. If that person actually exists, and isn't looking to flip the thing for profit in short order, then it's not a bubble.
OP mulled whether or not it was a bubble; whether or not it was an "investment" was not in question
In any case, this is just going in circles now.
My guess is someone owns a few copies of SM64 and wants to pump and dump them.
Or this is just your garden variety money laundering. The fine art world is apparently already rife with it, so it wouldn't surprise me if launderers have started utilizing other, similarly high-value collectables auctions like this now too.
One word: NFTs.
I have a programmer friend who's gone all in on NFTs (works on NFT projects full time, buys NFTs for 10s of thousands of dollars). Somehow I hadn't thought it could largely be money laundering. I don't think he's doing any laundering, but I also don't think he suspects anyone of doing it.