Sounds cool. I'd agree that TWO ratings might be better - one for 'rarity' and one for 'value'. The Giant list of Classic Game Programmers is a good source of game names and authors for starts. Digital Press publishes a rarity guide for video game cartidges (and some computer games), avaiable for $25. Thus I imagine it would be something along these lines?
The problem I have with all of these so-called rarity scales is that they are all subjective, and each uses different methods to determine said rating. They're created by single (or a few) individuals, and open to great debate. Such guides are worthless to me, personally.
I agree the best way to start is we all make our own rarity lists and then we average the results or something. It would also be important to distinguish between different versions of the same game, which may very greatly in value.
This is something that Hugh clarified, that I wanted to re-mention: Rarity != value. The only way a rarity listing would work is if a solid definitive formula was clearly outlined to determine the rating. If I were writing it, I would base rarity solely on measureable facts, like availability. Something like the following:
(Production Run * Multiplier) / (Times Spotted For Sale/Trade/Auction)
Assuming that a very common production run is 100,000 or more units, and that the smaller a run is the more it is worth, "Multiplier" could be represented as 100000 - Production Run (as long as it is never zero). That way, runs over 100000 would be more than common and produce negative ratings; very small runs under 500 would produce very large ratings. Some examples:
Diablo 2: (2000000 * (100000-2000000)) / 1000 times on ebay = Rating of -1700 (VERY common)
Akalabeth: (12 * (100000-12)) / 3 times on ebay = Rating of 399952 (extremely rare)
The above is just a suggestion, because the exact math I proposed in reality does not work at all :-) (try it with production runs very close to the "common" number of 100000 and you'll see what I mean, and I also didn't factor in completeness of the item). Regardless of the formula used, it would have to produce numbers that couldn't be debated. Only then would something like a rarity rating work.
Personally, I think that organizing a Software Collector's Convention is easier than trying to come up with a formula for determine rarity :-) Seriously, though, it's a gargantuan undertaking that has to be updated every year as availability changes. I hate to shoot down the original idea, because it's noble, but I honestly don't think it's practical to persue.
--
Jim Leonard ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
World's largest electronic gaming project: http://www.MobyGames.com/
A delicious slice of the demoscene: http://www.MindCandyDVD.com/
Various oldskool PC rants and ramblings: http://www.oldskool.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
