Atarimania Forum

I've been looking at some games in the database lately, and I'm a bit puzzled with the rarity you've assigned to them. What is this figure based on, really?

Some seemingly weird examples:

Epyx's Armor Assault is given a 7. Surely this is much rarer than that? I'd give it a 9 without hesitation.

SSI's Queen of Hearts is an 8? I have still to hear of a single person that has a complete game. I have a loose disk + reference card, and that is all I've seen and heard of in six years of hardcore collecting. Does anybody here actually own this game?

All in all it seems that many titles are hovering at 7 or 8, and some differ wildly in rarity even though they have the same rating.

Can you explain how the process of rating them is done, perhaps I can understand better?

Hi,

osgorth wrote:I've been looking at some games in the database lately, and I'm a bit puzzled with the rarity you've assigned to them. What is this figure based on, really?

Pretty glad you're bringing this up actually, there should be more discussions of this kind!

Mostly, the figures are based on how often you see the game on eBay and whether the program is still carried in some stores. Sometimes, you have a more subjective perception like how many collectors have it (or are likely to have it).

Epyx's Armor Assault is given a 7. Surely this is much rarer than that? I'd give it a 9 without hesitation.

I believe an "8" would probably better match the current rarity... A "9" would be too high: low circulation for sure but it's not like the game never appears on eBay... A game with a rarity of "9" will usually appear something like once a year or every two years. A "10" program is more likely to be seen once every five years.

SSI's Queen of Hearts is an 8? I have still to hear of a single person that has a complete game. I have a loose disk + reference card, and that is all I've seen and heard of in six years of hardcore collecting. Does anybody here actually own this game?

I agree, maybe that one should be a "9".

All in all it seems that many titles are hovering at 7 or 8, and some differ wildly in rarity even though they have the same rating.

Do you have other examples we can discuss?

Too bad we can't have figures like "8.0" or "8.5" for better judgement because, true, there are games that are assigned a "7" even though they're closer to being a "6" than an "8"...

Also bear in mind that a rare Atari program is way harder to find than a rare PC game (or even 2600) so it's all relative to the A8 world.

--
Atari Frog
http://www.atarimania.com

There are certainly some inconsistencies in the rarity values.

There are thousands of titles, and only a few members of the Atarimania team!

However, the rarities are adjusted from time to time, and it's good to have discussions like this. The values are not written in stone.

Perhaps we should start by writing a definition of each grading? I.e. what does 10 mean, 9, 8 and all the way down to 1.

I feel that the highest rating (10) should be for games that nobody has found yet, e.g. games that are known to exist but have not been sighted - either for sale or in collections. 9 would be games that are known in a few copies only, and do not appear for sale at all or very rarely. From thereon it's up for debate, I think.

If we have a common ground, it should be fairly easy to nail down most of the rare games at least. I'd be happy to go through my areas of expertise (SSI & Avalon Hill) and some other things too perhaps. We just need to agree on what the numbers mean.

But back to the question: has anybody seen or know of a boxed Queen of Hearts?? Come on now, give me some hope!

osgorth wrote: But back to the question: has anybody seen or know of a boxed Queen of Hearts?? Come on now, give me some hope!

I have seen one ... in a catalogue, I think

I have to say, I love Atarimania's rating system and am amazed at how comprehensive it is. Other systems like the C64, Amiga, Apple, ST all have collecting sites, but I've never seen one with the level of detail this site has.

That said, I do find myself wondering if the scale is a little granular. 1-10 gives a lot of space to range from common to rare, but it seems like at this late date, you could actually lump a lot of the common levels together a bit more. For example Centipede has a rarity of 1 and Defender has a rarity of 2, but is there really enough difference between the two to sit at two different rarity levels?

On the other hand, if you guys feel you have enough continual information to be able to say that you can differentiate between a rarity of 1 and a rarity of 2 (or a rarity of 4 and a rarity of 5, rarity of 7 and rarity of 8, etc) then more power to you!

BTW - I do agree with Osgorth that 10 ought to be a placeholder for games that are strongly suspected to exist but are not in anybody's known possession.

Also, I notice you guys seem to place the names and publishers of suspected released games on your site and give them no rating at all. Magneto is one example of this. Once you get confirmation that a game exists (for example, you see a picture of Magneto on my web site what happens next? My thought is that it should get assigned a rarity of 9, because it's known to exist, but should not be 8 since no copies have been seen in the wild, and not 10 because at least one physical copy has been seen.

Is that how it works?

Interesting debate.

Myself I had (and have) disagreements with AM rarity values many times. But I think the most important point is that rarity is only a guideline. It can’t be seen as an absolute precise measurement. Because IMHO, that wouldn’t be feasible. Let me compare with two of the most important collecting areas where rarity is studied, stamps and coins.

The software collecting market is much younger. It took decades for stamps and coins collectors to establish rarity figures.

Stamps and coins catalogs usually don’t assign rarity, but market value. Both aspects are of course related, but not directly. For example, MULE is not rare, but always fetches a high price.

Stamps and coins specialized literature sometimes do establish rarity. And in some cases the actual number of known copies in existence. This was usually done performing actual census. Sometimes with one man (a known expert) personally inspecting the biggest collections. Very hard to do something similar for software. In first place because items in our area are not so expensive. A true rarity stamp or coin can sell for over U$100,000. So the most rare items are easily identified and located.

The point I’m trying to make is that it is good to debate about rarity. But not to the point of trying to make this a science.

Of course, it's difficult to establish accurate figures for rarity, but good approximations are useful.

It's likely that a very great deal of software is sitting around in lofts and basements, untouched for years. The owners have forgotten about it, or don't know that it has any value or significance.

In the cases of some very rare games, it's possible to say how many examples have "surfaced" so far, inasmuch as they've come to the attention of the software collecting community, but this is impossible for the overwhelming majority of titles. Some collectors, of course, don't say what they have.

I think that the best way forward is to have discussions such as this. Maybe we should even have a specific forum here for the disussion of the subject of "rarity"?

I would love that!

Perhaps we should start by writing a definition of each grading? I.e. what does 10 mean, 9, 8 and all the way down to 1.

That's what the yellow tabs are for

Anyway, here are the definitions:
1 = incredibly common
2 = very common
3 = common
4 = not that hard to find
5 = getting scarce...
6 = not readily available
7 = rare
8 = very rare
9 = extremely rare
10 = unbelievably rare

--
Atari Frog
http://www.atarimania.com

osgorth wrote:I feel that the highest rating (10) should be for games that nobody has found yet, e.g. games that are known to exist but have not been sighted - either for sale or in collections. 9 would be games that are known in a few copies only, and do not appear for sale at all or very rarely. From thereon it's up for debate, I think.

A "10" is usually assigned to a game that pops out of nowhere, is virtually unheard of , appears on eBay something like once in 7-10 years... or never

Some programs aren't even available in pirated form because of many factors (small or specialized market, local distribution only...). Checking ads in magazines is sometimes the only way to find out about a number of games from small publishers.

--
Atari Frog
http://www.atarimania.com

FastRobPlus wrote:I have to say, I love Atarimania's rating system and am amazed at how comprehensive it is. Other systems like the C64, Amiga, Apple, ST all have collecting sites, but I've never seen one with the level of detail this site has.

Thanks! We've always meant to be as precise as possible because a lot of information is usually lost along the way. World of Spectrum is also doing a wonderful job listing all releases.

That said, I do find myself wondering if the scale is a little granular. 1-10 gives a lot of space to range from common to rare, but it seems like at this late date, you could actually lump a lot of the common levels together a bit more. For example Centipede has a rarity of 1 and Defender has a rarity of 2, but is there really enough difference between the two to sit at two different rarity levels?

I see what you mean... There's a real difference when you assign a rarity of "8" and, say, "10"... OTOH, "1" and "3" games are just both very common...

BTW - I do agree with Osgorth that 10 ought to be a placeholder for games that are strongly suspected to exist but are not in anybody's known possession.

Or true one-of-a-kinds

Also, I notice you guys seem to place the names and publishers of suspected released games on your site and give them no rating at all.

That's because the database is very much ALWAYS a WIP. Lots of information is still missing. Games with mostly complete information (because there's always room for extra stuff) are ones with the letters in the "dump" column. Actually, many fields and features have been added since we first opened the site so that's why not all game pages are 100% done.

Magneto is one example of this. Once you get confirmation that a game exists (for example, you see a picture of Magneto on my web site what happens next? My thought is that it should get assigned a rarity of 9, because it's known to exist, but should not be 8 since no copies have been seen in the wild, and not 10 because at least one physical copy has been seen.

I remember seeing a copy of Magneto on eBay at least five years ago but I probably forgot to write down the relevant information. Heck, the original version of the database was a plain Excel sheet

You're right, it will be assigned a "9"!

--
Atari Frog
http://www.atarimania.com

As regards the "10" rarity level, I think that it would be a mistake to reserve this for titles that have yet to be found. Remember that the rarities are for complete titles; titles which are not definitively known to exist can never have "completeness" defined, so giving a 1-10 value in such a situation would be pretty meaningless.

Atariage has a separate symbol for prototypes, for example, but it's system is not ideally suited to Atarimania because we are dealing with multiple formats and not just cartridges. I think that unreleased, or "not known to exist" titles should either be unclassified, or have some kind of non-numerical classification.

FWIW Centipede cartridges do seem to be more numerous than Defender carts

[edited for typo]

Andre wrote:I have seen one ... in a catalogue, I think

Yeah, that's about it. And of course as I said, I have the disk + reference card so it DOES exist.

Atari Frog wrote:A "10" is usually assigned to a game that pops out of nowhere, is virtually unheard of , appears on eBay something like once in 7-10 years... or never

Yes, I agree with this actually. What I originally suggested, to have 10 only for games we don't know if they exist, is clearly wrong I see now. There should be a special rating for games that so far have not been verified to exist other than appearances in catalogues, ads and such.. The CURIOUS-scale uses "I" for this, I being Imaginary. Something like that would be useful..

I agree with what FastRobPlus says, a scale of 1-10 is a bit too granular. Perhaps the best thing to do is to get rid of all common games (1-5) and focus on the ones that are more or less rare? This could be accomplished by using a common rating for all common games, like "C". If a game is a 1 or a 4 isn't really interesting, both are easy to find.

My suggestion then, is that we focus on games rated 6-10, and leave the others for now.

My idea for a grade:

10 = unique or one-off items, e.g. 1 complete copy known (and perhaps some incomplete ones)
9 = less than 5 complete copies known
8 = less than 10 complete copies known
7 = less than 20 complete copies known
6 = less than 50 complete copies known

The question is then, how do we know how many copies are known? Well, one idea could be to add a feature to the database, allowing people to advertise that they own a copy of a particular game.. Basically allowing collectors to map their collections to the database. This is risky though. Some people want to be anonymous, and if we allow anonymous entries, chances are the stats will be corrupt, and the whole thing will be ruined as a result.

Probably the best idea is what you've been doing already I guess, letting people with knowledge in their particular fields to give input, and discuss titles on the forum?

Ijor, you raise good points. I do not think one should get involved with pricing at all, simply because such guides are always wrong, and they give the wrong impressions regarding rarity. Rare items can cost $1 while common ones can cost $100. There's no real logic involved, it's the supply and demand thing..

Re: Queen of Hearts

osgorth wrote:Yeah, that's about it. And of course as I said, I have the disk + reference card so it DOES exist.

Well, the software exists. This doesn't proof that the box exists

I do not think one should get involved with pricing at all

I agree. I was just describing the stamp and coins catalogs usually don't state rarity, only value.

Magneto. Again please, which company is the publisher?