(Insert stupid Blog name here)

Wow. I wasn't even aware of this controversy until I read "the thread", but I know just what you mean.

 

When I released my first homebrew cartridge, I thought that it would be fair to provide as many copies as it took to satisfy the demand, so that anyone who wanted one would have the opportunity to own one at a reasonable price. I ran out of them at one point and made some more, and I was surprised to catch flak from a few hardcore collectors afterward, just because they were afraid that their copies would no longer be Rare Collector's Items^TM. I never promised at any point to deliberately limit the supply, and I wouldn't have done it if anyone had asked because it doesn't make sense to me: why should I deny cartridges to those who actually want to enjoy them just so a few collectors can have a Rare Collector's Item^TM to sit unopened on their shelves, only to be flipped for lots of money on eBay within a few years? I can understand wanting to build a valuable collection, but I don't understand the mentality of wanting to see artificial limits imposed on the supply of these games merely for the sake of creating a "rarity."

 

I'll have to remember to publish a "no artificial rarities" clause before my next homebrew release, to eliminate any possible confusion.

You can't make it right for everyone, so I stopped trying.

 

Now I just make it right for me.

The same "problem" happens in the fine art world: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/04/03/judge-eggleston-dispute-collector

 

Collector buys 1980s "limited edition" (1 of 20) 11.75" x 17.38" print of famous photograph for $250,000. In 2012 photographer uses digital technology to make 44" x 60" version which sold at auction for $578,500. Collector sues photographer because he believes the photographer has diluted the value of his print.

 

Ahh, the investment collector discovers he is the greatest fool.

 

IANAL, but if the 1980s limited edition description specified the photograph would never be reproduced again or similar language then the collector might have a claim. In this case the judge rules in favor of the photographer because the 2012 version used a different printing process.

I don't get the OMG! RAR3! mentality at all. Who cares if 200 more are produced if you got #1 out of the first batch of 12?