Sorry Elvis, but I need to disagree with this statement. The terms 'original' and 'copy' do have meaning in terms of games. The difference between them matters not to people like you and me who are happy to purchase a new legal reproduction for the original system or download a copy of the ROM and launch it in an emulator for the purpose of experiencing the game, but to collectors it means a lot. Humans have this funny desire to possess things of rarity. Think of diamonds and wedding rings. Everybody knows the scarcity of diamonds. Let's for now ignore the fact that their scarcity has also been known to be manipulated. You can't do a lot with them, but as a naturally occurring substance they are fascinating and that scarcity creates an undeniable perception of value. A wife may interpret the value of the diamond in her wedding ring as a reflection of the value her husband ascribes to her. At least that's my philosophy. Similarly, a game collector perceives value in an 'original' copy of the game that a modern reproduction does not have. When the game was released, many copies were produced and sold and at some point they ceased to be produced. Those copies would be deemed 'original' and therefore 'special' compared to modern reproductions produced subsequently. The degree of 'specialty' is likely going to depend on how many were produced and how many of those were not destroyed, and the amount of time that elapsed between the end of original production and the advent of modern reproduction. Let's be clear that I'm talking about original media. Nevermind the original box - that'll add value too obviously. If the media is certified as the original produced in 1985 or whenever, then that media is distinguished from a modern reproduction and collectors will pay extra money 'just to have it'. They may not even use it, just like bottles of wine that sit in collector's cellars never consumed. Both the original game copies and the bottles of wine were produced in a limited quantity. Likewise, an investor is going pay extra money for an original game copy with the hope of selling it to such a collector. With that all said, - If the game IP owners aren't willing to reproduce a game that there is demand for, then that sucks, but there's not much we can do about that. - If investors are inflating the price and scarcity of games by purchasing them in order to sell for profit to other investors or crazy rich collectors, then that sucks, but there's not much we can do about that. - If players in the market e.g. auction houses or investors are artificially inflating the price of games, then that sucks and it is fraud and deception. This kind of behaviour should probably be illegal and punishable by death, but as wwww pointed out - nobody is forcing anybody to pay $2000000 dollars for Super Mario Bros or $3000 for Firefight. To what extent should law makers/law enforcers be responsible for preventing people from paying crazy prices for second hand items? It never hurts to be optimistic!