udisi

A lot of CD based stuff is also disqualified because it contains advertisements. I was informed, that advertisements are also not allowed media mail. Doesn't really effect me, I just ship 1st class or priority.

That's a bit high for the Player's Choice version. The original version would bring that any day.

well, it's always been kinda taboo to reproduce Homebrew for profit without consent. Reproduction for personal use has always be accepted though.

You know what ebay should do next?....Would be good for their fee structure too....NO SHIPPPING FEES. Make Sellers factor it into the starting price. Then there's no arguments over shipping. Granted then sellers are paying fees on the shipping cost, so yeah kinda blows for us and such, but it gets rid of BS negs for stated shipping costs. They also wouldn't have to police people trying to circumvent fees with inflated shipping costs.

I agree that if you know the price up front in an auction, you're not being scammed if it actually costs less to ship. You agreed to pay the price in the auction. The auctions I do get pissed as, is when it says $5 for PRIORITY MAIL, and I get a padded envelope for $1.47 First Class, or a Media Mail package 2 weeks later. If is says priority, it should come priority. If it says $9 for 1st class fine, but if it says priority, that's what I expect.

well the notice only said this was for listing items, not bidding on items. Maybe this will not effect bidding.

yeah just report him to ebay for the inappropriate feedback comment. They got rid of the mutual feedback removal when they went to the new system, so you can't do that, and I would neg him for the comment on your feedback, and for a poor packing job. the $28 was stated, but if he's being belligerent when all you wanted was an explanation or to help him with future sales, he deserves it.

wonder what for? It's a personal experience, he can leave whatever feedback he wants. I think he was a bit trigger happy with the negs, but then again it was his choice.

That'll get pulled, it's against ebay rules to charge a buyer to use paypal.

wow, GPK, I know I have complete sets 1-series 9 for sure, probably up a bit higher too, I think I have double sets 2-9 too. They're sitting at my parents house. Nice flashback lol.

damn that 4-tris got a nice price $561

pm sent

well, he doesn't have to have a hard copy, he could have just had the source code on some media. If this is for real, I'd be wary of doing anything production wise till this is figured out. If you wanna dump it or have carts produced, and force him to sue you, go ahead, but you do expose ourself to the legal consequences. Also, if this guy is the true copyright owner, you're kinda pissing on him. Granted, this is all only valid if this guy turns out to be real, and such. I'd just side with caution on this one. Obviously he plans to make the cart public with his own BIN and Repro, so it's not like he's not going to make it public himself. Really, the only thing he's done remotely wrong to this point is not communicate with you the way you wanted him to. He's not hoarding the game or even responding harshly considering the abrasiveness of some people here.

you have some competition from gamegavel.com too. I hope you the best though, I'd love to see one of these video game auction sites make it. The biggest problem is still that sellers won't get the traffic or price that ebay brings for a while.

it's probably worth $600-$800. Yeah I'd say you lost out on that trade the way SE and CMII have been selling.

looks like a neat playfield, my favorite of all time though is still World Cup '94. I hate soccer too lol

Well, pending me being able to still reserve a room tomorrow, I should be there this weekend also.

Agreed.....but most checks come in April and May.....according to the IRS stats dept. $1200 sounds fair. I think in the right circumstances $1500-$2000, ie someone REALLY wanting it, or a bidding war. I think you'd actually get a bidding war if the one with box and paperwork went up.

Berkshire Hathaway? DOH! I guess the cat is out of the bag...it is true... I don't have any in my stock portfolio. well at what 150k a share, I doubt many people here do have it in their portfolio

homer eats humble pie? No offense, but whatever the situation may be, I just hope you sell the damn thing soon so we don't have to hear about it anymore. Berkshire Hathaway? It is crazy. Pure speculators buying that stuff now, which is nuts in a collectibles market as volatile as this one. With the various Nintendo franchises still going, vintage Nintendo stuff has a much better chance of holding prices over the long term than Atari stuff does, but an awful lot of people are going to end up disappointed if NES stuff starts tanking 8-10 years from now like most 2600 stuff is nowadays. Atari stuff has had a good run of about a decade or so, and that's probably about the best you can hope for. Sooner or later all these markets will peak, and when there aren't enough new people entering the hobby to maintain any individual sector of the market, things will start to slip rapidly. These people who think the sky is the limit on this stuff have another thing coming. I agree here, NES stuff is at ridiculous levels right now, but it's also in it's golden age. Atari went through the crazy stage in the late 90's. The only wildcard factor he is how much more popular was the NES? Atari was very popular, but I think NES was even more widespread. It may have more upside or it could be reaching it's peak. Either way, Atari stuff seems to be settling in, and I don't think you'll see crazy upside anymore, you will see ups and downs following the collectibles market and supply and demand. I've been thinking NES was gonna peak for the last year, but I've been wrong, it just continues to climb, but there has to be a ceiling where the prices at least level out. It's happened with most of the more common NES things, but the super rare stuff is doubling every year it seems. Look at the last 6 sales of the NWC Gold, 2 on ebay for 5100, 7800, then then 4 private sales for 8500, 10,250, 12,000, and 15,000. It's done it with other big NES stuff too, Myriad went from 800, 1100, and last one went 2200. The 3 porn titles just went for 3700 in an auction, that's 1233 a piece, when completes were going about 700-800 a piece last year. NES people are where Atari people were in the late 90's

Nope mine wasn't the 15k sale I'm still collecting payments and the longer he takes to pay it off the more he owes. So I can't say for sure what the final price is till its over. Mine was the 15k sale, just cleared escrow this week.

You're assuming the IP owner has a family/heirs. Cross that bridge when you come to it...not something worth worrying about otherwise. Gammation was not a "company" (corporation) at all, it was simply a trade name used by an individual for business purposes. Since it was not a corporation, there were no assets and any rights to any properties would be held by their creators. We have no idea who the creator of Gamma Attack was. No, Gamma Attack certainly isn't the best example, but you brought it up, not me. As far as any legal issues go, they're about as serious as going through a red light in the desert at 3 a.m...sure it's illegal, but given the circumstances what the hell is the difference? I'm agreeing with you, but I still have to point out that it is illegal, reguardless of whatever rationalization you, me or anyone else says.

Completely rubbish. I personally undertook thorough efforts to locate the person(s) responsible for Gammation and Gamma Attack. After some research and a few phone calls, it was determined that the principle person behind Gammation is deceased. Whether or not this person was the actual programmer of the game is unclear, and unfortunately we may never know. Since then, despite a few pretenders to the throne, no one has come forward and produced any evidence that they had any concrete involvement with this game, nor has anyone been able to point us in the direction of anyone else who might have had such involvement. At this point, what obligation does the owner of a previously unknown game or prototype have to respect the supposed copyright of a game with an unknown (and probably indifferent) owner? Honestly, I agree with you here. In cases where the owner is indifferent. I don't see a MORAL problem reproducing a game, but the fact is that someone does own the rights. and it's not completely legal. Just because you can't locate the owner doesn't make it legal. If the owner is dead, his estate would take IP control, and thus his family would probably own the rights. I don't know the structure of the company that made the game, but the company or some owner of the company could actually hold IP rights. Maybe Gamma Attack wasn't the best example, but there are plenty examples out there of people reproducing prototypes without the consent of the authors, that people will turn a blind eye to because they want to play the game. The start of this topic was a Hack, and I kinda went on a whole spiel about homebrew in general. Hacks have no legal argument. They do, however have a moral one, and that's where you get people arguing on both sides here. I was just stating my position is that the programmers wishes should be respected regardless of legality with hacks. Am, I wrong or right? there's no answer really. Some people will take the legality argument, some will take the Morality argument. In the Case of Gamma Attack, I too turn a blind eye to the legality of it, but am I morally right? I may be wrong on both accounts, I may be half and half. It's a grey area. It's just my observation, that the community as a whole is likely to turn a blind eye to the legality of a reproduction as to the reproduction of a homebrew.

The problem here is that there are two arguments...Legal and Moral. Based on Law and emotion Ethically, No one should reproduce a Homebrew, Hack, or Reproduction without the owners consent. Legally, only a Homebrew is protected. In some cases, so are reproduction where the producer has acquired the rights to the game All hacks are just that, Hacks of source code that the hacker never had rights to in the first place. They do contain new code, but also original code which is not legally used . Morally, I would never reproduce a hack without the hackers permission. This is just out of respect and appreciation. They do put time and effort into their hacks, but I also understand that, the hacker has no legal right to the original code either and thus their work is essentially illegal too. Some people use that reasoning to not respect the wishes of the hacker. I think the Homebrew scene is much more healthy when producers just use some common courtesy. Hozer would probably still be able to produce carts openly, if he had not pissed off the authors of the homebrews and hacks as he did. A little respect goes a long way. In the Homebrew scene, the penalty for not respecting others is to be ostracized and essentially black listed. It's obvious some people don't care as much about respect as being able to have the software because people are obviously still buying certain Hozer carts. AA will never make an Edtris cart without the author's consent, thus people who want that software only have one place to go (Hozer) and are willing to support the action of that producer for it. Now, it's not like the author of that title has never giving consent to Hozer to produce the cart before, but the author is currently MIA, and AA doesn't imply consent. Unless AA can contact Ed, and personally get consent, they'll never make this cart out of principal. I don't believe either company is really wrong here. Hozer had the right, to what extent is only known between Randy and Ed. Let's take another example though like QB. Andrew Davie originally did have Hozer produce his cart, but it was only for a specified run. He's also had AA do a few specified runs. The problem here, is that Hozer decided it could make as many QB's whenever they wanted. That was not the agreement between the author and the producer. This imo, is flat out wrong, and illegal, since QB is a true homebrew and the code is property of Andrew Davie. Some people here will disagree for some reason, saying that Andrew doesn't make the game available all the time, but really that is his decision, it's his game, and people don't have right to it. Should I be able to make Pac-Man Carts and sell them because Atari doesn't make them anymore? I think not. Now the problem here, is that many of the people who just agreed with me on that previous statement will disagree with my next. I even find myself doing this myself to some extent. Under the same reasoning, no one should be making reproductions without consent. The upcoming Gamma Attack, doesn't have the consent of the original authors, yet the community as a whole will overlook that because it was produced by a company that no one wants to go through the trouble to find, contact, and negotiate to legally release the game. I want to see this game as much as everyone else, but no one should be making money off of it, without consent, but we're all so excited to get something new, that we'll overlook the legality of it it. I don't buy the stealing from a company is different from stealing from an individual. It's the same thing. I admit that I'm not perfect, and I too overlook the company stealing as opposed to personal stealing, but that doesn't change the ethics of the argument. I'm happy Gamma Attack is coming out, but it's not legal at all or ethical. I wish the Hozer debacle had had a better outcome. The whole thing just led to us having one less producer of homebrew material. In my opinion, that is a sad outcome. There's no reason Atariage, Hozer, Packrat, 8bit classics, neogames, graygames, shawn sr, cpuwiz, or any of the other producers can't co-exist. Really, they all can, if they respect the authors and each other. There is money involved here, but then again there should be. Programmers should, if they wish, receive some compensation for their work. Producers should be compensated for their time. Some do it for charity, some want some money, and some do it for both. The reason shouldn't matter, but their should be a common goal, which is to make good, new, software. Egos, and differences in philosophy often get into the way here, and it hurts the end result or making new software.

Looks like you're actualy trying to sell it now. I wish ya luck, I think you're getting closer. I have no idea what you paid for them, but I still think a loose one will bring $1500-$2000. The one with the paper work and box, would probably bring $3-$4k, maybe more if you get people fighting over it.