Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday April 06 2021, @06:11PM   Printer-friendly

Unopened Super Mario Bros. game from 1986 sells for $660,000:

DALLAS (AP) — An unopened copy of Nintendo's Super Mario Bros. that was bought in 1986 and then forgotten about in a desk drawer has sold at auction for $660,000.

[...] The auction house said the video game was bought as a Christmas gift but ended up being placed in a desk drawer, where it remained sealed in plastic and with its hang tab intact until it was found earlier this year.

[...] Heritage said it is the finest copy known to have been professionally graded for auction. Its selling price far exceeded the $114,000 that another unopened copy that was produced in 1987 fetched in a Heritage auction last summer.

Ars Technica elaborates in Sealed Super Mario Bros. shatters record with $660,000 auction sale:

A pristine-condition sealed early copy of Super Mario Bros. sold for a record-shattering $660,000 in an online auction today.

That includes $550,000 to the seller and a $110,000 "Buyers' Premium" paid to Heritage Auctions. The final gavel came after 13 bidders placed 36 distinct bids, including heavy proxy bidding before the live auction commenced Friday afternoon.

The sale obliterates the $156,000 Heritage Auction record for a video game, set by a rare variant of Super Mario Bros. 3 sold last November. Crowdsourced collectibles platform Rally paid $140,000 for a sealed Super Mario Bros. last year, the previous record for that game.

The seller of this sealed copy, who asked to remain anonymous publicly, told Heritage that the game was purchased as a Christmas gift in 1985 and sat untouched at the bottom of a desk drawer for 35 years before being discovered [Update: A representative for Heritage Auctions tells Ars the 1985 date was "an error on our part" and that "The owner must have purchased this game in late 1986"]. "It stayed in the bottom of my office desk this whole time since the day I bought it," the seller told Heritage. "I never thought anything about it."


Original Submission

Related Stories

Copy of Super Mario 64 Sold for Over $1.5 Million, Most Ever Paid for a Video Game 58 comments

A copy of 'Super Mario 64' sold for over $1.5 million, the most ever paid for a video game:

A copy of "Super Mario 64" has sold for more than $1.5 million, smashing the record for the most expensive sale ever of a video game at auction.

The sealed copy of the classic Nintendo 64 video game fetched $1.56 million including fees on Sunday.

Dallas-based auction house Heritage said it was the first time a game had gone for more than $1 million. The sale topped a record set just two days ago, when another Nintendo game, "The Legend of Zelda," was sold for $870,000, the auctioneers said.

[...] "After the record-breaking sale of the first game in the Zelda series on Friday, the possibility of surpassing $1 million on a single video game seemed like a goal that would need to wait for another auction," Heritage Auctions video games specialist Valarie McLeckie said in a statement.

"We were shocked to see that it turned out to be in the same one! We are proud to have been a part of this historic event," she added.

Previously:
"Legend of Zelda" Auction Sets Bar for the Most Expensive Video Game at $870,000
Unopened Super Mario Bros. Game from 1986 Sells for $660,000


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Tuesday April 06 2021, @06:56PM (12 children)

    by SomeGuy (5632) on Tuesday April 06 2021, @06:56PM (#1133967)

    Yeish, and I thought the prices on eBay were getting bad.

    Who bought this anyway? One of the same rich idiots that buys up 1970s beam spring keyboards for obscene amounts of money just to discard the rare electronics and convert it to USB?

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:15PM (4 children)

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:15PM (#1133974) Homepage

      You think that's bad? From one of the linked articles:

      " A sealed copy of the 'Red Version' of 1998's Pokémon for Nintendo's GameBoy, graded Wata 9.8 A++, sold for $84,000 — the highest price ever paid for a Pokémon title. That final price was more than four times its pre-sale estimate. "

      Jesus H. Christ, for a fucking Pokemon game? What wealthy hikikomori or burger-eating bedwetter paid for that piece of shit? It doesn't matter whether or not the cartridge is solid fucking gold, it's the "Pokemon" label that renders it worthless, at least worthless to people whose nuts have dropped.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by Tork on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:20PM (1 child)

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:20PM (#1133978)

        It doesn't matter whether or not the cartridge is solid fucking gold, it's the "Pokemon" label that renders it worthless, at least worthless to people whose nuts have dropped.

        Look who's surprised others don't share his values.

        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @08:50PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @08:50PM (#1134017)
          He’s waiting for a pristine copy of Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe, and Stuka Dive Bomber.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:35PM (#1133989)

        Ok, boomer. Let's tuck you in for your nap now.

      • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday April 07 2021, @03:56AM

        by Reziac (2489) on Wednesday April 07 2021, @03:56AM (#1134163) Homepage

        Collectors happen, but a lot of these outrageously priced items are actually being used to launder money.

        --
        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 1) by melyan on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:25PM

      by melyan (14385) on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:25PM (#1133982) Journal

      Without money you won't think of someone as rich. Without ego you won't care.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:38PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:38PM (#1133992)

      You can buy this, or an NFT.

    • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by melyan on Tuesday April 06 2021, @08:48PM (4 children)

      by melyan (14385) on Tuesday April 06 2021, @08:48PM (#1134015) Journal

      This is why my comment has no replies or mods. https://www.elephantinthebrain.com [elephantinthebrain.com] . People lie to themselves so they can better lie to others. The greatest trick the ego pulled was convincing the world it doesn't exist.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @09:33PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @09:33PM (#1134036)

        Or nobody is interested in your ego shtick.

        • (Score: 0, Redundant) by melyan on Tuesday April 06 2021, @11:06PM

          by melyan (14385) on Tuesday April 06 2021, @11:06PM (#1134067) Journal

          anonymous does not mean without-ego. did you bookmark your comment?

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 07 2021, @12:30AM (1 child)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 07 2021, @12:30AM (#1134094) Journal

        Interesting book...I'm always a little wary of the social sciences because the investigators and the subjects are by definition the same, but there are certainly noticeable patterns in human behavior and they do seem to have explanations that partly rest on "we evolved from social group-living apes."

        The problem with books like this, of course, is that the people who most desperately NEED to read them and do some self-reflection are the ones who are least likely to :/

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 1) by melyan on Wednesday April 07 2021, @12:53AM

          by melyan (14385) on Wednesday April 07 2021, @12:53AM (#1134111) Journal

          True about social sciences. This one is more descriptive than prescriptive. There is a bit of meta acknowledgement by the authors as well. It's still pretty unique in the space--goes above titles like Breaking the Spell and the Moral Landscape and The Stuff of Thought.

  • (Score: -1, Redundant) by melyan on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:16PM (1 child)

    by melyan (14385) on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:16PM (#1133976) Journal

    After ego, we won't have economic disparity. We won't have money.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @05:26AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @05:26AM (#1134178)

      Bullcrap.

      Firstly, there is no "after ego", you might as well say "once we're all taking our freely-distributed woo-woo pills daily ...". It's an unhealthy mixture of meaningless and just plain wrong. Not a great starting point for grounding an argument.

      And secondly, nope, we won't ever do without money. Money is an attractor, from the dynamical systems perspective. It is fairer and more efficient than any stable alternative. "No money" not only isn't stable, it's not even an equilibrium state. Start there, soon .. money.

      Have fun balancing your pencil on its sharpened tip. As you ride a rollercoaster. The rest of humanity will get on with our productive lives whilst you do, and won't wait.

      Oh, and learn some evolutionary biology. The mechanisms that make this true are so basic that they even predate any humans in life's family tree. Your utopia might be true for slime molds. That's not a great selling point for your argument, as there's a whole lot of people who aren't going to want to be turned into slime in ordr to achieve your goals. OK, you could just up the dosage of the woo-woo pills for those uncooperative undesirables, they'll come around eventually, or die trying to resist.

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:17PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:17PM (#1133977)

    For the post-BTC .com and other lottery win era:

    T t t too much cash on my hands
    T t t too much cash on my hands
    Now I don't know what to do with it all

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:21PM (21 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:21PM (#1133980)

    Anyone complaining that we can't tax the wealthy because of 'JABS!' really needs their head examined. This is what they spend money on.... useless shit while most can't afford a place to live

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:30PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:30PM (#1133987)

      The people who sold the game for $660 000 sure can afford a place to live now.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday April 06 2021, @08:45PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday April 06 2021, @08:45PM (#1134014)

        The people who sold the game were so distracted by other things in 1986 that they forgot to give their kid a pricey Christmas present...

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Tork on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:52PM (16 children)

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:52PM (#1133999)
      Useless shit is what makes our economy work. It's the hoarding of money I have an issue with, not the spending of it.
      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by slinches on Tuesday April 06 2021, @09:10PM (13 children)

        by slinches (5049) on Tuesday April 06 2021, @09:10PM (#1134026)

        Useless shit is not what makes the economy work. What makes the economy work is creating and manufacturing useful products and providing useful services to that end. We need to make it abundantly clear that there is a distinction between economic activity that only transfers wealth and that which creates it. Investing money in a company to help them develop a new product is a good thing. Buying and holding limited assets to create artificial scarcity and drive up the value is not. This is one of the reasons I decided to sell my old house after buying a new one. I could have kept it and made a substantial amount of money from rental income and appreciation over time. However, doing so would only add to the housing supply issues we are facing right now that are driving real estate costs to become less and less affordable.

        • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday April 06 2021, @09:54PM (1 child)

          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 06 2021, @09:54PM (#1134046)

          Useless shit is not what makes the economy work. What makes the economy work is creating and manufacturing useful products and providing useful services...

          I coulda phrased that better, I THINK we're closer in our thinking than you might expect. That Super Mario Bros. cartridge IS a useful product, at least in my mind, but a lot of people think that stuff that's not immediately useful for survival isn't. Maybe 'petty' is a better word? (or... maybe I didn't quite get your point, which is possible I'm a lil rushed today and shouldn't be playing on SN. ;) )

          --
          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
          • (Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday April 07 2021, @12:02AM

            by slinches (5049) on Wednesday April 07 2021, @12:02AM (#1134085)

            I think we are probably really are in reasonably close agreement on this subject. I don't have any issue with things that aren't directly productive and personal enjoyment does have its own value. People should be free to use their earnings how they see fit, in general. However, I wanted to point out that spending isn't all equal in terms of economic benefit. Things like entertainment are positive, but not as effective at growing the total wealth of society as investing into new tools and products that are used to create more new things. And spending money on something to prevent others from having access to that asset is a net negative while buying it to open access can be positive (e.g. buying the aforementioned game for a personal collection vs donating to a museum or other publicly accessible institution). Just lumping all spending together doesn't account for those differences.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @11:01PM (9 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @11:01PM (#1134064)

          Whether you sell it or rent it out has approximately zero effect on the 'housing supply issues'. If you rented it out, you would have slightly increased the supply of rental properties, dropping the market rate for rent slightly, and provided a home for a family who couldn't afford to buy. Dropping the rent market makes the property market less attractive to investors and drops sale prices as well. Selling the house does exactly the same but the chain is reversed. If your new house was in the same area, the effects of buying it would have exactly cancelled out the selling of the old one.

          The only way to make a real impact is to add or remove houses (or occupants). Build more and they will get cheaper, tear some down and the price of the remaining ones will go up.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Tuesday April 06 2021, @11:05PM (8 children)

            by Mykl (1112) on Tuesday April 06 2021, @11:05PM (#1134066)

            Or lower your rent. If enough people do this then that will have a flow-on effect to other rental properties and, ultimately, the housing market too.

            • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday April 07 2021, @03:49AM (6 children)

              by Reziac (2489) on Wednesday April 07 2021, @03:49AM (#1134161) Homepage

              Meanwhile, people who rely on rent to break even on the mortgage and expenses now can no longer afford to keep the property. Now what?? are they expected to sell at a loss?

              --
              And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Mykl on Wednesday April 07 2021, @06:42AM (5 children)

                by Mykl (1112) on Wednesday April 07 2021, @06:42AM (#1134191)

                No, they can just buy less takeout and take fewer holidays. Or take a loss and downgrade, since they were probably spending beyond their means if a small market adjustment suddenly sends them under.

                Oh! But what about the restaurant and tourism business? I guess it's turtles all the way down, but I'd prefer to put the brakes on the property market, which is insanely out of control in some parts of the country (or, in Australia, all parts of the country).

                • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday April 07 2021, @01:26PM (4 children)

                  by Reziac (2489) on Wednesday April 07 2021, @01:26PM (#1134260) Homepage

                  While I'd agree the real estate market has gone completely bonkers, and has become an impractical investment for everyone but Silicon Valley moguls and Chinese oligarchs... punishing existing property owners is not a good way to fix that.

                  --
                  And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
                  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by deimtee on Wednesday April 07 2021, @08:51PM (3 children)

                    by deimtee (3272) on Wednesday April 07 2021, @08:51PM (#1134437) Journal

                    There isn't a good way to fix it. The housing industry has turned into a way to bleed massive amounts of money from the middle class. The interest on all that pumped up 'value' is just a direct transfer to the banking class. Dropping prices to something sane would hurt everyone currently owning or buying. They are all trapped. The least bad way to fix it is probably to increase housing supply so that prices remain constant, and let inflation slowly reduce the actual value. It would take decades to do it while avoiding a crash.

                    Separately I think thirty year mortgages should be illegal. If you are ever contemplating one, sit down and work out how much of the capital you have paid off after each year. The first few years you pay about $20 in interest for every $1 you reduce the loan by. It's a scam.

                    --
                    If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
                    • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday April 07 2021, @10:24PM (2 children)

                      by Reziac (2489) on Wednesday April 07 2021, @10:24PM (#1134483) Homepage

                      I think you're right. The whole thing has become a tarpit with no good way out, other than to back away very slowly (and perhaps do something about foreign investments that mostly serve to inflate the market; near-shacks in Vancouver now go for 7 figures thanks to wealthy Chinese trying to get their money out before China's oncoming crash). But beating up on people who've already invested just hastens the downfall of the middle class.

                      And yep, with a 30 year loan at 7%, by the time it's paid off the total cost is around $3 for every $1 borrowed. Which creates $2 from thin air for the lender. Yeah, they're taking a risk, and providing a service, but over time it's a mite lopsided. I don't know what else you'd do, tho, the lending market being what it is. Falling interest rates have done little besides feed price inflation.

                      [mod parent up]

                      --
                      And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
                      • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday April 07 2021, @11:07PM (1 child)

                        by deimtee (3272) on Wednesday April 07 2021, @11:07PM (#1134499) Journal

                        It's specifically the early years. You could cut a 30 year mortgage to 25 years by saving for an extra few months and paying a few thousand extra on the deposit.

                        Friends of mine took one out, paid $28,000 in the first year, after fees and interest the loan balance had dropped by less than $1000.

                        --
                        If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
                        • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday April 07 2021, @11:22PM

                          by Reziac (2489) on Wednesday April 07 2021, @11:22PM (#1134501) Homepage

                          Yeah, and better yet a 20-year loan, if you can swing it. But that's another year of saving your pennies, and in today's market, a house that gets away and that at next year's price you can't afford (especially a problem if you have unusual requirements and what you need is rare on the market, a problem that I am unfortunately familiar with). So people get the 30-year, and the needle takes ten years to start to move toward paid off.

                          --
                          And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08 2021, @03:37PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08 2021, @03:37PM (#1134808)

              screw that

              if the tenant can't afford the rent then they need to leave

              that happened to me several times it is the way of the world

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 07 2021, @12:33AM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 07 2021, @12:33AM (#1134096) Journal

          You sound very liberal there, slinches.

          You sound, in fact, almost exactly like me when I talk about "elasticity of demand" (big hint: this is the variable that shows how "useless" a good or service is!) and the damage that hoarding fiat, floating currency does to the economy!

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday April 07 2021, @03:53AM (1 child)

        by Reziac (2489) on Wednesday April 07 2021, @03:53AM (#1134162) Homepage

        What do you define as hoarding money?

        So, let's say someone puts their surplus money into stocks. Is that hoarding? do the companies that money is invested in not use it to expand their businesses, thus hiring more people? did they not hire contractors etc. during said expansion, who in turn hired their own workers?

        --
        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by slinches on Wednesday April 07 2021, @06:58AM

          by slinches (5049) on Wednesday April 07 2021, @06:58AM (#1134194)

          So, let's say someone puts their surplus money into stocks. Is that hoarding? do the companies that money is invested in not use it to expand their businesses, thus hiring more people? did they not hire contractors etc. during said expansion, who in turn hired their own workers?

          Yes and no. It depends because stocks are complicated. In most stock "trades", you are buying on the secondary market where you purchase shares (a stake in equity/ownership in the company) from someone else who wanted to sell their stake through an intermediary called a broker. In this case, no money goes to the company you are buying the stock in. Only newly issued stock purchases actually go to the company to fund growth. That usually happens in large quantities as private share sales to institutional investors and VC groups early on. Then if a company decides they want/need a much larger amount of investment, they can do what's called an Initial Public Offering (IPO) where they offer a large batch of shares to the public. After that, they can issue additional shares if they want to, but generally don't do so very often as it dilutes the size of the equity stake represented by each share and selling new shares in large quantities can often require selling below market value to entice new investors to buy them.

          That's not even getting into the more complicated subjects like dividends, options, margin, shorting, etc. So there's a wide range of different ways to invest and some of which are closer to hoarding, others are essentially direct investment, with options for every shade of gray in between.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @09:01PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @09:01PM (#1134021)

      "while most can't afford a place to live"

      Gee, I didn't realize most people couldn't afford a place to live.
      Better re-calculate your intellectual nonsense, lefty.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 07 2021, @12:38AM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 07 2021, @12:38AM (#1134098) Journal

        Do you know how many people are one missed paycheck away from homelessness? That's as close to "can't afford a place to live" as dammit is to swearing. That is not a stable state of affairs.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 2) by istartedi on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:25PM (2 children)

    by istartedi (123) on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:25PM (#1133983) Journal

    In a thousand years, even you may be valuable.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:31PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:31PM (#1133988)

      What about E.T.?

      • (Score: 2) by istartedi on Tuesday April 06 2021, @08:58PM

        by istartedi (123) on Tuesday April 06 2021, @08:58PM (#1134020) Journal

        $1500 [wikipedia.org]. Not too shabby!

        --
        Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(1)