A piece of gaming history just sold, for quite the pretty penny. The infamous Nintendo Play Station prototype system, created during the time that Sony and Nintendo were trying to partner up for a home console, managed to find a buyer at auction. Starting out at just $31,000, 57 bidders managed to hike the final selling price up to a massive $300,000, plus an extra $60,000 on top for a "buyer's premium" charge. The seller of the console was a man named Terry Diebold, whose son came across the system in a random box in his attic one day in 2015, and would later go on to show off the console at expos and trade shows for fun. Originally, the prototype belonged to Olaf Olafsson, who was the president of Sony Interactive Entertainment in the mid-1990s and managed to save a single Nintendo Play Station before all of the others were all disposed of.

Source

 

[xs4all]

For those that want to know a bit more about this prototype the old Ben Heck show on YouTube did a tear down video showing all the inside goodness and even got it working again.
For those too lazy to search, here they are below.

Ben Heck's Nintendo-Playstation Prototype Pt 1 Teardown


Ben Heck's Nintendo-Playstation Prototype Part 2 Repair


Nintendo PlayStation Prototype: Finally Working!


Ben Heck's Nintendo PlayStation Update at Portland Retro Gaming Expo

 

[Jayro]

Why TF bought it? Anyone famous? Anyone worth a damn? I want to know the person behind the dollar signs to know that it's in good hands.

 

[Adran_Marit]

Why TF bought it? Anyone famous? Anyone worth a damn? I want to know the person behind the dollar signs to know that it's in good hands.

It should be in a museum for the public to see/use like a demo console at a game store where they can only touch a fixed controller

 

[Foxi4]

Well from somebody reading from afar you are one big headed up your own arse dillusional person. And the funniest thing of all is after all your education you still can't grasp what the other dude has said. And the icing on the cake is you are wrong and you're quite aggressive to go with it from my point of view you're just another angry immature person do yourself a favour mate and look in the mirror from time to time.

I've decided not to continue the conversation with this gentleman, and neither should you. In this person's mind the Mona Lisa's value equals to however much it was sold for, he doesn't quite comprehend the idea that an item that is unique and irreplaceable is effectively priceless because you cannot buy one even if you had the money unless the owner is willing to sell, at which point the price is entirely negotiable. There's a little bit more at play here than just money - certain items have historical and cultural significance that you cannot put a dollar sign in front of. The hilarious thing is that we weren't even disagreeing on the price aspect - I simply stated that it was a bargain on the basis of previous offers the owner had received and rejected. Not that it matters - I think we covered all the bases here, and at this stage I wouldn't want to ruffle the feathers of someone who graduated top of his class in the Navy Seals and has over 300 confirmed kills.

i do have a classic car and i use it on the weekends, that is the point using it ocasionaly, it would make zero sence to have a classic car that doesnt run and would stay closed in the garage forever.

So yeah for a museum display about videogames? sure it makes sence, but for a private item i see little reason to own it tbh.

Oh, of course not - you don't put something like this in storage never to be seen again. My point was that it wouldn't be a daily driver - when you have an item of significant rarity and value, you exhibit it to the public as a form of monetisation, or at least preserve it. You wouldn't drive your antique car all day everyday until it croaks, that's silly - you pull those keys out every now and then, and I bet every time is a spectacle for others and a nice change of pace for yourself.

 

[Attila13]

you act as if the amount it sold for isn't a lot of money.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying, that he got way less that he was previously offered, and could've been way richer, if he accepts the first offer, but he got greedy and wanted $3 million minimum declining the generous offer and now he left with $360k, which is in itself a lot of money for sure...hell where I live, with that kind of money I could buy a house with a generously sized terrain and live happily ever after without really needing to work anymore for a long time.

 

[Burorī]

Only 300k? I was expecting maybe 1M+

 

[DANTENDO]

Only 300k? I was expecting maybe 1M+

He only got £230.000 uk cash though still enough to buy about 575 PS5's

 

[lordelan]

Yep. Just wanted to post the same.
He was offered a little over $1.2 million..... He turned it down and said that he expects for it $ 3 million minimum... Well... a bummer for him, but what can you do... sometimes greediness can get over you pretty fast.

Exactly. He deserved it for being so greedy.

 

[MasterZoilus]

Well from somebody reading from afar you are one big headed up your own arse dillusional person. And the funniest thing of all is after all your education you still can't grasp what the other dude has said. And the icing on the cake is you are wrong and you're quite aggressive to go with it from my point of view you're just another angry immature person do yourself a favour mate and look in the mirror from time to time.

Oh here we go, another dope who has to put his I know more than the universe 02. cents in. Well enlighten me then. Tell me what I didn't get about the whole S&D thing. Cause you're sooooo quick to point out but .... surprise surprise you offer nothing to back it up. You say I don't get it and that I'm wrong... but don't point out the hows and or why's (which I'm just gonna guess, is because you don't know them)

well I'm always up for learning ... teach me. What about this whole thing am I completely wrong about? Because last time I checked the core principles and driving factors of S&D and the basis of how it works has been the same since man kind has existed! Back when people bartered and or auctioned: food, animals, water, daughters, crops...etc (and some places STILL do)

But apparently you and that other douche know something that scholars and history doesn't despite tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years of facts. A completely different way of how the system actually works, so please, not just for me but for everyone out there, go ahead and educate us all and lets see how you know more than the facts of supply&demand that have been in place since even before civilizations existed.

Go ahead and let me know EXACTLY what I "don't get" so I can go back to Cornell and point out how wrong they are/were and that they are gonna need to change that curriculum to reflect what 2 genius minds over at gbatemp discovered that nobody else seems to know!

 

[Shape]

Oh here we go, another dope who has to put his I know more than the universe 02. cents in. Well enlighten me then....

...Go ahead and let me know EXACTLY what I "don't get"...

The whole argument on both sides is pointless and arbitrary. I will chime however, to answer that what you've "got wrong" is that that not one of you can make a point in less than 3 paragraphs. This is ALL TL;DR.

 

[kineticUk]

TL;DR Seller DID beat the god damn game.

 

[eyeliner]

So therefore, we should discard a piece of history because it has no use in the modern world. Perhaps then, we should not have museums and collectors! Forgive me, but I fail to understand your reasoning about the Nintendo Playstation.

You want a legitimate reason? Maybe the person who bought it would actually try to use it, or perhaps they want to give it to someone who worked on it, or a friend of the person. Maybe they have a museum of their own, to display it so that they could tell its story. Maybe they just like Sony and/or Nintendo a whole lot, and want to show it off just so they could gain some good ol' notoriety about themselves (which is not as likely, considering the amount of money put into it). Who knows? If it was merely "for the hell of it", as you so bluntly put it, then why don't we just collect random people's used tissues and chewed plastic straws?!

I may have put that a bit harshly, but I'm trying to drive my point home. You don't collect just to collect, unless you're just completely nuts. Even obsessive people have a reason for collecting, even if they can't use whatever it is they collect themselves.

With this, I'll let the rest of the conversation take its course. I don't want to be involved in another argument.

It was not my intention to start an argument, apologies if it was worded that way.

But considering the one-shot chance it was, the price it was sold... I know a lot of people are kind of outraged at the low price point, but things are what they are.

I think that despite it all, it was a decent purchase. Whoever bought it, I hope it was the one who offered the million dollars so we can all point and laugh.

I really hope so.

 

[wiewiec]

Funny thing that the owner have much much better offer and he refused to sell

 

[Reynardine]

I'm just happy that the new owner isn't Palmer Luckey. It's a guy named Greg McLemore who runs an arcade museum website.

That seems like a better new home to me.

 

[Adran_Marit]

I'm just happy that the new owner isn't Palmer Luckey. It's a guy named Greg McLemore who runs an arcade museum website.

That seems like a better new home to me.

So long as the public can view it, I am happy

 

[Bladexdsl]

guy should have taken that 1m offer in the 1st place. whoops never trust auctions!

 

[MasterZoilus]

The whole argument on both sides is pointless and arbitrary. I will chime however, to answer that what you've "got wrong" is that that not one of you can make a point in less than 3 paragraphs. This is ALL TL;DR.

Good thing your opinion on the matter isn't worth 2 F*cks , except to you. Making it.... ..wait for it.....pointless and arbitrary to everybody else! See how that works.

 

[jesterscourt]

He put the reserve too low and/or should have taken the original 1.2 MM offer. Still not a bad ROI for a $75 investement.

Update/Edit:

The guy that won is Greg McLemore, the founder of Pets.com. He said he initially offered $100k for it before it went to auction. He owns a lot of rare/classic videogame stuff and says he wants to open a museum at some point in the future.

 

[ChibiMofo]

Nintendo is the Apple of gaming,

If that were true, I wouldn't own a single Nintendo product.
And yet I do.

and with PS on top of it, it makes even better.

Not where I'm standing. They are nothing but the rootkit-loving, fake movie review writing maker of overpriced consumer electronics.

But I do find it way too satisfying that the owner's attempts to hype his gravy train by suggesting he had an offer for over a million that he certainly didn't have didn't work. $300k? LOL! Sony has a TV that costs $70K!

The guy that won is Greg McLemore, the founder of Pets.com. He said he initially offered $100k for it before it went to auction. He owns a lot of rare/classic videogame stuff and says he wants to open a museum at some point in the future.

The world hardly needs yet another videogame museum. But a failed dotcom museum? I'd pay good money via Billpoint to enter that! I still have my receipt for 100 pounds of Alpo dog food with free shipping from Pets.com. I also have some Webvan containers (including the rare "green" frozen ones!) that I could donate. C'mon Greg! You owe it to humanity after so many idiot investors handed you so many millions.

 

[Foxi4]

If that were true, I wouldn't own a single Nintendo product. And yet I do.

Not where I'm standing. They are nothing but the rootkit-loving, fake movie review writing maker of overpriced consumer electronics.

Things have been pretty good in the Sony camp this generation, Nintendo on the other hand continues to be one of the most litigious and anti-consumer companies in the industry - this generation more so than ever considering they've put all their eggs in one basket. If anyone's hardware is overpriced, it's theirs, and the sheer amount of lawsuits, particularly pertaining antitrust and price fixing, is rather remarkable. In fact, they're on a lawsuit crusade right now.