Over the last week I have been watching what's been going on with Raylyd and the now famous/notorious dreamcast betas, that set me thinking. They're a fine line in a hobby like ours, between forgery and piracy and what museums would call cataloguing and conservation. Is there any way to tell the difference between real betas, from fake ones, and if not. Can we really be sure what we have is the real deal? And my second question. Over the course of time all the digital media we love so much, will eventually die and will have to be preserved on a different medium, if so. Is it really the disc that is worth money or the data on it? I'd really like to think with the big mess that's happened, we can build something constructive from it, and understand what is valuable in all our collections? I would really like to hear what you think on these two subjects!
Is there a fine line between a Van Gough and a modern reproduction that deliberately uses the same medium and paints in order to deceive? I don't think so. I'm loathe to go back to the specifics of raylyd's case, but it's pertinent: had he bought the discs and chosen to back up the data to keep for himself, or to release to the community, that would've been preservation. Totally separate issue, but the answer is - buy from trustworthy sources. Not to belabour the Van Gough analogy, but how does anyone know which of the paintings accredited to him are "the real deal"? You have to place your trust in the evidence presented. Primarily, what makes disc or data valuable are desirability and scarcity. If only one person has desirable data then it'll be valuable irrespective of medium. Beyond that all you can say is "it depends". It depends on what kind of data/format it is, what platform it's for, which game it is, how much the fan base care about it, how many people there are who are interested in it and how well-off they are... the answer to your question will change depending on any of those variables.
There are 2 roads here. The first is rarity, as Alchy said. If somebody were to find a beta of, say, The Wind Waker on an NR disc, that would be worth quite a bit of money. Even if the beta was dumped and released, I would still pay the same amount for the real disc. On the other hand, say somebody found a Wind Waker beta that was very incomplete. They ripped it, added textures, spliced in content from the real game, whatever. Only then was the game playable. I would not consider the disc valuable, but the data would be. A good example of this is the commercial game engine that was recently released for the Dreamcast. (I can't remember the details.) The disc itself isn't important. However, the release was a boon to the Dreamcast community. I think we can take a page from the Coin Collectors Credo: As long as you know what you are buying (Be it a replica, fake, reproduction or legitimate item) and you think it is a good price, you should buy it. The value of an item is not determined by a price in a book or on a forum, the value is whatever you assign to it.
I tend to think there is some truth to Alchy Van Gough analogy, but the thinking behind it is somewhat floored. Most if not all-expensive and well-known art is largely documented from its inception to the muesum wall it's hung on. The historical documents tracing its ownership partically make it imposable to fake. Were as betas largely have no historical documentation due to the shadowy nature of how there traded, and the throw away mentality of digital media. One more question, to the beta collectors out there. What do you find more important the item or the data/information it holds?
In terms of beta materials it has to be the data that is worth the money. The game title and content is what we all look for; if it comes on a pretty looking disc then that is only a bonus for me! Put it this way - Would you pay more for a picture disc beta of which the files were unreadable or a handwritten cd-r containing the data from said disc?
