Video games/Agreements: Conditions47 messages

Ongebruikt: Alles in originele niet beschadigde en niet geopende verpakking. Factory sealed.
Zeer Goede Staat : Volledig in verpakking met alle bijhorende handleidingen etc. 
Er kunnen duidelijke, maar niet storende gebruikssporen zijn. (Bij verkoop moet dit wel vermeld worden)
Goede staat : Game/console inclusief verpakking in goede staat. Er kunnen ontbrekende onderdelen zijn (bij verkoop moet dit wel duidelijk vermeld worden).
Redelijke staat : alleen de console of het game (cd, dvd, cartridge…) of verpakking zeer sterk beschadigd.

Unused : Everything in original undamaged and unopened packaging. Factory sealed.
Very Good Condition : Complete in packaging with all accompanying manuals etc.
There may be clear, but not disturbing signs of use. (This must be stated when selling)
Good condition : Game/console including packaging in good condition. There may be missing parts (this must be clearly stated when selling).
Fair condition : only the console or the game (CD, DVD, cartridge…) or packaging is very badly damaged.

And yet that definition has changed over time:

Unused in packaging

Like new in every way. Still in the original packaging.

Mint condition

As new but no longer in the original packaging.

Good condition

Limited normal signs of use. No serious damage or clearly visible wear.

Fair condition

There is some damage, but it is still in "collectible" condition.

No original packaging in new condition? So what's new about it? That way I have all the games Unused in packaging.

I like your definition much better, why isn't it anymore?

I like your definition much better, why isn't it anymore?

It has never been adjusted. Probably disappeared in the Mists of Time ;-)

Do you always choose the definition unused in packaging for a new video game, even if you have opened the packaging?

After all, the current definition of new condition states that there is no original packaging, which I find very strange, because then it is really not new anymore!

.

Isn't anyone else bothered by this weird definition? I now have to add to my details every time that I have opened them, but still have the original packaging.

Can no distinction be made between new condition (original packaging / box, but opened) and new condition (sealed in packaging)?

Incidentally, I still find the definitions of Scam very clear.

Maybe it is no longer possible, because there are already many collectors, but it bothers me every time.

In my opinion new condition is just a complete item and the other means that the product is sealed in cellophane or something (actually only something for shops?)

If I remember correctly, these conditions were once suggested by the person who asked for this section and at the time there was a need for a distinction between new condition in packaging and new condition without packaging. Like model cars also prefer to be collected "Mint in box". Nowadays, the cover of the game is almost always included with video games, as with DVDs, but perhaps this is a useful distinction for old games? Scam, maybe you as an administrator should rethink the differences and see if your proposal is still the best for you. Then we can see if it can be adjusted.

About 'Mint condition' and 'Sealed / Unused' is in a previous thread already spoken.

You will find very little (old) games and consoles in blister and unused. A bit like 'Stockstaat' with Oude Strips. That is why it was decided not to enter a separate condition 'Unused' for this.

Comparing with model cars is not entirely true. There you can say that 'Mint in Box' indeed deserves a separate mention because there are a lot of people who buy those cars in packaging, purely for collecting. I imagine that is why there are a lot of such copies in circulation.
With video games, this is really only when an unprecedented overstock or a forgotten game appears somewhere in the attic.

Furthermore, I still support the proposal, with the comment that you should always be careful with it (see also the many discussions about comics, everyone will give different interpretations). That is why it is always stated in the proposed Conditions that errors and the like must always be mentioned when selling.

PS. as Arco says 'New / Unused / in Celophane' could be used by sellers of new games and / or consoles, but whether we should introduce a separate category for that? I'll leave it in the middle, comments are welcome!

Ok, does anyone object to Scam's proposal?

I don't think this is necessary. Scam: " Note: Some games still in the original blister fetch significantly higher prices."

This can be included in the list price for those games. The list price is of course always only an indication.

I don't think this is necessary. Scam: " Note: Some games still in the original blister fetch significantly higher prices."

That may be clear, those exceptional prices were mentioned in some cases, but then under 'Specialties'

If the difference between unused in packaging and new condition is the cellophane, this should be indicated more clearly in the description. Then I will adjust all my games (most of them) to new condition.

I have also read the discussion that Scam referred to and so have come to the conclusion that he was not right. I also think the addition of the condition Very good is a good addition, then you can see the difference between the games with boxes in mint condition / new condition and the used / somewhat worn games.

As a great collector of PC games I regularly come across games that only have the original CD. These are then offered as new, because according to the current CataWiki condition, the original packaging no longer needs to be included. I think that at most games are in good condition (at most!).

The nice thing about collecting old PC games is the box, because then you also get a nice manual and other gadgets (which must be properly mentioned in CataWiki).

The packaging is often more fun than the game ... (;-)

If the difference between unused in packaging and new condition is the cellophane, this should be indicated more clearly in the description. Then I will adjust all my games (most of them) to new condition.

That's kind of the problem. I am quite fanatic about the games I buy new. You will not find any scratches / damage or anything on it. However, they are not unused, but no one can tell the difference. The only way to be sure that they are unused is if they are in the original cellophane (then be careful because there are smart guys who impose new celophane and then simply sell them for unused in cellophane).

Conversely, it is also almost impossible to buy some games new in cellophane because the shops are removing the DVD and manual due to theft.

So some certainty for 'unused' = original blister.

It is about time that this description above was used.

@Zwendel, just in case: can the above be definitely implemented minus this sentence " Note: Some games that are still in the original blister fetch significantly higher prices." ?

Then we will do that.

Yes, that's fine for me.

ps. the sellers should not be notified in one way or another because it is of course an important change (especially with regard to the packaging).

Seems to me too, now they offer cartridges in new condition .....

By the way: I asked Koos to implement the discussed changes to the conditions and then notify the sellers of the change.

Thanks Rene :-)

Bij nader inzicht wil ik dit toch aanvullen/wijzigen

Ongebruikt: Alles in originele niet beschadigde en niet geopende verpakking. Factory sealed.
Zeer Goede Staat : Volledig in verpakking met alle bijhorende handleidingen etc. 
Er kunnen duidelijke, maar niet storende gebruikssporen zijn. (Bij verkoop moet dit wel vermeld worden)
Goede staat : Game/console inclusief verpakking in goede staat. Er kunnen ontbrekende onderdelen zijn (bij verkoop moet dit wel duidelijk vermeld worden).
Redelijke staat : alleen de console of het game (cd, dvd, cartridge…) of verpakking zeer sterk beschadigd.

Edit: 'Nieuwstaat' vervangen door 'Ongebruikt'

'In Blister' vervangen door 'Factory Sealed'

I would like to add/change this

Unused : Everything in original undamaged and unopened packaging. Factory sealed.
Very Good Condition : Complete in packaging with all accompanying manuals etc.
There may be clear, but not disturbing signs of use. (This must be stated when selling)
Good condition : Game/console including packaging in good condition. There may be missing parts (this must be clearly stated when selling).
Fair condition : only the console or the game (CD, DVD, cartridge…) or packaging is very badly damaged.

Edit: replaced 'mint condition' with 'unused'

Replace 'In Blister' with 'Factory Sealed'

I maintain that in Mint condition the packaging may be opened, but without traces of use. Otherwise, a game that you buy at the store is not often in new condition, because nowadays they (Free Record Shop) only put the CD / DVDs in when you buy them and the packaging is therefore opened and often the box also has traces. of use.

It just seems that your proposal has not yet passed, given the explanation of the conditions. So for now all my games are still unused in packaging according to that definition (because complete and in original packaging)

Doesn't matter. I also know that most games and consoles are already open when they are sold.

The fact is that some "In Blister" games are worth a hundred times more than opened ones. They must therefore be given a separate category, just like New Condition at Comics

Maybe change Mint condition to Unused, that explains it a bit better.

And DM, proposal had already made it as you can read above! Only CW is a bit slow in executing this.

Eerlijk gezegd, ik voel me als beheerder niet verantwoordelijk voor shops, veilingen (en prijzen).

Ik geef hier mijn mening als verzamelaar en ik ga ook niet aandringen dat dit doorgevoerd wordt (heb ik trouwens nooit gedaan). Dat is een zaak voor de verantwoordelijken van prijzen, shops en veilingen.

Wat mij wel stoort is dat ik bij reviewen verplicht word om prijzen te behandelen. Zie ook dit voorstel.

Frankly, as an administrator I don't feel responsible for shops, auctions (and prices).

I'm giving my opinion here as a collector and I'm not going to insist that this is implemented (I never did, by the way). That is a matter for those responsible for prices, shops and auctions.

What bothers me is that when reviewing I am obliged to treat prices. See also this proposal.