kitsunebi

32 minutes ago, Phillyman said:

And I have no issues with them rehosting. It is when they rehost and snatch out the Retromags Thank You page at the end. Or downgrade the quality or convert it to some oddball format. Take our scans, put them on Usenet, put them on public torrent sites, put them on private torrent sites. Just provide them the way you recieved them. So we get a tiny bit of foot traffic and a few members sign up and thank our team members. Otherwise they start wondering, does anyone even care that I am putting all this time into scanning, editing, and releasing this stuff?

I don't pay the bills here, so I have the luxury of not caring about the Retromags thank you page, or whatever traffic it might bring.  I don't work for Retromags, I scan mags for whoever wants them.  All of the scans I've been uploading lately were originally scanned for the purpose of uploading at a completely different site, so it's frankly a bit odd that I need to include a page saying they were "made by Retromags."  But whatever.  It doesn't bother me to include it, and it doesn't bother me if people remove it.

But I absolutely agree that while sharing scans in other places is fine, altering the files of the scanned pages in any way is a big no-no.  If you think the file is too large and want to compress it - fine - so long as the new compressed version is your own personal copy.  But as soon as you reupload that altered file, you've put a crappier version of what was intended out into the world, and most people will have no way of knowing if they're downloading the original or the crappy version from that point forward.

The magazine scanning community is pretty lack in organizational standards compared to the comics community - probably because there are so relatively few magazines actually scanned, compared to the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of comic scans and rips out there.  All comics get released with the scanner or ripper's name as part of the actual filename (in addition to sometimes including a credit page at the end of the archive), so you can tell at a glance who created the file, allowing you to know what quality to expect and being able to tell it apart from any other scans of the same issue from different scanners.  Magazine scanners don't do this, so when multiple scans of the same mag show up online, there's no way to tell which is which other than by downloading both and comparing. 

Or, for example, if a comic rip is felt to be exceptionally large and bloated (jpgs saved at Photoshop quality 12, for example), and someone decides to use a more reasonable compression level to make the file smaller, they will always keep the original scanner/ripper's name intact in the filename, and add [repack] to the end, letting people know it's not the original file.  Again, the magazine world has no such standard practice.

So since magazine scans are so difficult to know who created them in the first place, it's easy to cloud the waters even further with every altered variation that someone creates to suit themselves and then reuploads elsewhere online.  So I can't stress enough how important it is to only share files "as is," and any alterations you make to those files should be for you own personal copy only.

I admit to lolz at referring to mags at the Internet Archive as "finds" like they were discovered on the dark web rather than one of the largest file repositories in the world operating on a nearly $40 million per year budget.

But yeah, I agree.  There's always going to be plenty of people out there who scramble to reupload other peoples' scans like they think they're doing the world a service.  But the people doing the actual work of contributing something to the hobby are a much rarer breed, and sites like RM and OGM are geared towards giving them a place to do what they do without diluting the importance of their efforts by allowing things like standards of ethics and quality become afterthoughts.

Despite owning them as a kid, I now find most of Game Player's video game mags to be pretty tepid reads.  But as a proto-PC Gamer, I think a lot of their PC publications still hold up and are some of the only mags I still value in my collection. 

Still missing this one, though.  Anybody help a brother out?

Assuming you're correct...I...think I don't care anymore.  Fixing the database to somehow be "correct" will ultimately just make it look even more broken and confusing.

So...hmm, lets' see, I know I used it somewhere earlier in this thread...ah, there it is.

I will add though, that there's a reprint of Vol.2 No.3 as well, since the cover you linked to featuring a "display by date" differs from the version I recently scanned, which has no such date anywhere.

On the bright side, there is SOME welcome news your information brings us:

• The Game Player's Guide to MS-DOS Computer Games Vol.1 No.2 and
• Game Player's MS-DOS Strategy Guide Vol.1 No.4

are the first two issues covering PC games. I had always assumed I was missing a couple of issues, and now I know I've got them all!

50 minutes ago, perfinpuz said:

I remember getting these early issues from Toys R Us (Norfolk, VA) before they were ever available at bookstores. I remember 2 issues, both Vol 1, No 1 issued a couple months apart, but not the same. Then nothing for a few months. Toys R Us did not do returns on these early magazines, so they were available months or years later, hidden by the newer stuff up by the registers

Yeah, these things were available for ages (that's why they're so common on eBay), and with the first several issues printed twice each, it allowed them even more time on the stands.  Not that there was any competition at the time - America was still getting over the effects of the Atari video game crash, so gaming mags didn't really exist.  But these issues hit right around the time that Nintendo fever swept the country, and everyone (including GP Publications) was suddenly scrambling to get some content on the stands.

There are only 2 issues marked Vol. No. 1 (granted, printed 4 times):

I'm gonna adjust my dates one last time.

Vol.1 No.1 (Fall 1988) (display until Jan.17, 1989)

Vol.1 No.2 (Oct/Nov 1988) (no display date)

Vol.1 No.3 (Dec/Jan. 1989) (display until Mar 17)

Vol.2 No.1 (reprint of Vol.1 No.3) (Feb/March 1989) (display until Mar 17)

Vol.2 No.2 (reprint of Vol.1 No.2) (April/May 1989) (display until May 16)

Vol.2 No.3 (June/July 1989)

Vol.1 No.1 is identified as a quarterly on the publisher's page, so putting a season rather than a month is more accurate.

There are 2 versions of s Vol.1 No.2, and though I believe I'm correct in my earlier placement of which came first, they both indicate bimonthly status.  One literally says the mag is "published bimonthly", and the other offers subscriptions for "one year (6 issues)", so again, bimonthly.  As I said earlier, I think the mag was originally intended to be a quarterly, but GP was unprepared for the demand for the first issue.  As StrykerOfEnyo said, these mags were really the only thing available in stores at the time.  Nintendo Power was subscription and mail order only at first (at least, I certainly never saw any of its earliest issue in stores).  So GP quickly realized that they should publish bimonthly, rather than quarterly.

Vol.1 No.3 must be Dec/Jan, since GPs Volume/Number system works on the principle of a new volume starting every year.  By being December, it is still Vol.1.

There's perhaps still some uncertainty about Vol.1 No.3 and Vol.2 No.1 being essentially the same issue and having the same "display until date."  And I can only guess, really.  This was the first issue to be reprinted, followed by a reprint of issue 2.  The only explanation I have is that GP, in its rush to switch to a bimonthly schedule, was unprepared, and needed a breather space to get its staff and production in line.

Another possibility is that, as a small (located in North Carolina) and (I believe) relatively new publisher at the time, the issues in Vol.1 may have had somewhat poor national distribution, and Volume 2 was seen as something of a relaunch of the mag, with the reprints of issues 2 and 3 hitting some stores for the very first time.

Again, if anyone has any better theories, I'm happy to hear them.

Hmm...better strap in folks.  This post is gonna be long, and where we're going, there are no roads, so it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

Let's work our way backwards, starting with the very first issue we KNOW is correct, as it's the first one to print a publication date (on the editor's page):

Working backwards, neither Vol.2 No.4 nor Vol.2 No.3 have a date printed anywhere, but they DO both say that the mag is published bimonthly (as does the following Vol.2 No.5), so we can assume that our dates on these are correct as well:

And now we come to the tricky part.  There are no issues labeled Vol.2 No.1 or Vol.2 No.2.  They don't exist.  Yet the publisher thinks they do.  The only explanation is that there are 2 issues being counted as Vol.2 No.1 and No.2, despite not being labeled as such.

So...what issues are they?

Let's look at the possibilities. Here are all known issues remaining:

Hmm... is that 4 issues...or 8?  Are any of these simply not part of the same series?  We've got 5 different titles here:

• The Game Player's Guide to Nintendo
• Game Player's Nintendo Buyer's Guide
• Game Player's Buyer's Guide to Nintendo Games
• Game Player's Nintendo Strategy Guide
• Game Player's Strategy Guide to Nintendo Games

Again, it might be best to work backwards...except...WAITAMINUTE...????

THIS is Vol.1 No.3:

And THIS is Vol.1 No.2:

Huh? Display Vol.1 No.2 until May 16, 1989, but display Vol.1 No.3 until March 14, 1989?  So issue 3 came out BEFORE issue 2???

You are traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. Your next stop, GP Publications!

The logical explanation is come to by considering the 8 different covers for the 4 magazines above.  Each one was printed twice, possibly even months apart from one another.  So perhaps one printing of issue 3 WAS printed before a second printing of issue 2.  The problem is...BOTH covers of Vol.1 No.3 have "display until March 14, 1989" printed on them.  Were both printings released at more or less the same time?  If so, perhaps this was when the alternate printings began, and GP then went back and reprinted the others as well.

The printing of Vol.1 No.2 under the title "Game Player's Strategy Guide to Nintendo Games" has no "display until" text, but since the other printing of this issue was released AFTER issue 3, we can assume that the printing without the "display until" text was released BEFORE issue 3.

That gives us this timeline:

So now, if we're counting correctly, we've got all issues accounted for, if we assume that GP counted the reprints internally as part of the series, making the above issues Vol.1 No.2, Vol.1 No.3, Vol.2 No.1, and Vol.2 No.2.

That leaves just Vol.1 No.1.  Most everyone agrees that it's this:

Except waitaminute...isn't that 2 different printings? Why wouldn't it be counted twice if the above issues were counted twice?  Err....

Well, both editions of Vol.1 No.1 say to "display until January 17, 1989."  So they were likely published near the same time.  My guess is that the version on the right was released first.  I can't tell if the white sticker-looking thing claiming that the mag is "NOT affiliated with Nintendo" is ACTUALLY a sticker or it it's printed on (can anyone confirm?), but it's clearly covering up the red starburst seen on the other cover.  This suggests to me a hasty move done for legal reasons, resulting in a less attractive cover, so possibly the redesign on the left was released shortly thereafter as a replacement, rather than a second printing like the alternates for the second and third issue.  So, both versions of issue 1 are still considered Vol.1 No.1 internally by GP.

That just leaves this guy here as the outlier, not part of the series at all:

This makes sense, as both versions are labeled Vol.1 No.1, as if they were the first issue in a distinct series.  Of course, another issue under the title "Game Player's Buyer's Guide to Nintendo Games" would be published as Vol.2 No.5 of the main series, but that's just GP Publications up to their usual confusing shenanigans.

So sure, I'm supposing and guessing, but supposing I'm supposing correctly, we've got the timeline down for all the issues of the main series.

...

...

...

Guess what I just saw.  From Vol.1 No.3:

So...uh, next came "Game Player's Guide: Nintendo Buyer's Guide Vol.2 No.3"?  (it doesn't exist)

Followed by "Game Player's Guide: Nintendo Strategy Quarterly Vol.2 No.2 (no mags with this title exist)

Followed by "Game Player's Guide" issue 1 (do they mean "Game Player's" magazine?)

...

...

...

Eh, I still think I'm gonna stick with my timeline:

Vol.1 No.1:

Vol.1 No.2, Vol.1 No.3, Vol.2 No.1, Vol.2 No.2:

Vol.2 No.3, Vol.2 No.4

Vol.2 No.5, Vol.2 No.6:

 And that's the first two (problematic volumes solved.)

Anybody disagree/have a better idea?

As for DATES......

Well, again, we KNOW this is correct:

and we can ASSUME these are correct:

So if my timeline is correct sticking with bimonthly dates (and assuming both versions of issue 3 were released arounf the same time due to their identical "display until" dates:

Vol.1 No.1 (Oct/Nov 1989) (display until Jan.17, 1989)

Vol.1 No.2 (Dec/Jan 1989) (no display date)

Vol.1 No.3 (Feb/March 1989) (display until Mar 17)

Vol.2 No.1 (reprint of Vol.1 No.3) (Feb/March 1989) (display until Mar 17)

Vol.2 No.2 (reprint of Vol.1 No.2) (April/May 1989) (display until May 16)

Vol.2 No.3 (June/July 1989)

Hmm...doesn't seem quite right.  The "display until Jan.17 1989" date seems more appropriate for issue 2 (which has no "display until" marking), yet there it is, printed on both editions of issue 1.  Well, when issue 1 was published, GP considered it a quarterly, so perhaps they intended it to be allowed to sit on bookshelves for a few months, thus the late "display by date."  Yet they quickly decided to move to a bimonthly schedule beginning with issue 2, which is why it was likely on shelves during the period they had originally considered to be the tail end of the first issue's shelf-life.

Sound plausible?

BUELLER?

Please, someone.  Your thoughts.  Changes need to be made to the database and lives are in the balance.  We're at the brink of Armageddon, and one wrong move will push us over the edge.  Don't let your reticence on the issue be responsible for the extinction of all mankind.

Here's more (un?)helpful information.  Coming from Game Player's Nintendo Buyer's Guide Vol.1 No.1 (which we have currently erroneously dated "June 1988," perhaps because that clearly incorrect date was used in the GameSetWatch article:

This is more evidence that the issue in question was likely published sometime in the fall of 1988, not early summer, as they are taking orders for publications shipping in winter 1988 and spring 1989.

But what the hell are those publications they're selling???  Neither of those PC game magazines exist, at least not under those exact titles.  So possibly the other 2 are just general non-specific titles for upcoming issues as well.

I actually think I may have figured it all out so far as issue numbers are concerned, but I'll have to wait till I have more time to put together a post illustrating my case.  Dates, however, are always going to be guesswork, though I think we can definitely guess a lot more accurately than what we have currently.  More later...

Except.

Ranks are meaningless.

Thanks mean everything.

Oh no, I'm assuming that ALL of the Buyer's Guides ultimately got lumped into the Game Player's Strategy Guides title.  But that STILL leaves one issue unaccounted for, which is why I wonder if they're counting this one as two different issues:

18 minutes ago, StrykerOfEnyo said:

You are a legend. I will come back when I have more "likes" to give, since I just ran out. I was trying to help you get up to 2,000 rep lately. So I hope you get there soon.

Whaaat?  You can run out of likes?  I had no idea.  You're probably the first person to discover such a feature, since most people are so stingy with them.  Unless Areala has hit the max cap?  What's the limit, I wonder? 

What a weird "feature."

That article isn't very helpful other than that it acknowledges that there were some name changes confusing the issue, and the buyer's guides were conflated with the strategy guides.  The article is possibly even part of the problem if someone referred to it when inventing the dates we've attributed to the issues in our database, since it identifies the first buyer's guide as from "early summer 1988."  This is the issue I mentioned above that says it should be displayed until January 17, 1989.  Early summer 1988 (or June 1988, as we have it labeled) CAN'T be right.

Again,

There is a Vol.1 No.3, suggesting 3 issues of vol.1

There is a Vol.2 No.3, suggesting 3 issues of vol.2 (up to that point)

That's 6 issues.

Yet have only 5 issues listed up to that point.

There are NO MISSING ISSUES in our database for these early issues.  What you see in the above pic is all there is.

So there are DEFINITELY only 5 issues, yet according to the Vol./No. system, there are 6.  This means something must have been counted twice, or the publisher $%#@ed up.

ALSO, our dates MUST be incorrect.  All we can really do is give it our best guess, but based on display dates and deadline dates within the issues, our dates are certainly incorrect.

So...WHO LIKES MYSTERIES????!

What the heck is the deal with the early issues of this mag?

It looks like there are issues missing...but...that's impossible.  These mags are super common.  All of the ones pictured here are constant mainstays on eBay.  Yet according to the database, there's some sort of gap between Vol.1 No.3 and Vol.2 No.3.  At the very least, this suggests 2 missing issues (Vol.2 No.1 and Vol.2 No.2) but again, there is no evidence that these issues exist. 

Furthermore, we've got Vol.1 No.3 dated September 1988 and the following issue, Vol.2 No.3, is dated June/July 1989.  Supposing that there AREN'T any issues in-between these two, that's a 9 month gap.  Again, impossible.

Keep in mind, none of these issues are dated, so I don't know who chose what dates to list them as, but I'm going to have to assume they're inaccurate.

Let's look at the first issue listed, dated June 1988.  This seems highly unlikely.  We have 2 different covers for this magazine in our database scan, and both of them have a note on the cover that the issue should be displayed until January 17, 1989.  Highly doubtful that newsstands would have this mag on display for over 6 months.

Next we've got the 2nd issue listed above, dated August 1988.  This one has no dates on its cover, but it does reference a contest, which we discover on the interior pages has an entry deadline of June 30, 1989.  Not hard proof, but would a contest really have a 10 month lead-in time to the entry deadline?  Not freakin' likely.

These mags were clearly published later than the dates we've listed them as.  Many of the ads in the "Game Player's Buyer's Guide to Nintendo Games Vol. 1 No. 1 (August 1988)" issue (2nd listed above) are the same ads printed in Vol.2 No.3, the issue following the mysterious gap.  So I'm going to assume that this buyer's guide is actually one of the missing issues, possibly Vol.2 No.2.  Of course, this still leaves one issue unaccounted for.

Unless...

Vol.1 No.3 was printed twice under 2 different titles.  The first print was called "Game Player's Nintendo Strategy Guide Vol.1 No.3" and then it was reprinted with a new title: "Game Player's Strategy Guide to Nintendo Games Vol.1 No.3."  So even though it's the same mag with a different title on the cover, perhaps the second release was also considered to be Vol.2 No.1, despite what's on the cover?

SO MUCH CONFUSION

Anybody have any other theories?