Would you destroy retro sales items for the money?

[Sketcz]

If you were selling an item on here and someone offered you your asking price, in exchange for you making a Youtube video of yourself destroying the item, would you do it?

A while ago we had a thread on here where someone said they didn't like selling to people on ebay if they thought the buyer would resell it for profit elsewhere. And a lot of people argued that when selling an item, your main intention is to get your asking price, so cares what they do with it?

During my art student days I enjoyed taking personal artwork which people praised, selecting one piece and then burning it. I burned a full-frame oil portrait on canvas, plus many sketches and drawings, smaller paintings on card, anything which took my fancy. I've always taken pleasure in removing something which is both beautiful and unique from existence (I suppose it's a bit like that guy in Fight Club). I think I was influenced by a Willem Defoe film where he burned his own paintings.

Now, most games aren't unique since one cartridge/CD will be mass produced, but it carries with it all the memories of all the owners. Looking at my modded Sega CD today, which I intend to sell soon, I suddenly thought: would I be able to part with it if the buyer, instead of choosing to receive the item, asked me to destroy it? I would, in the end, once I was guaranteed payment or received it first. But how would I feel?

I know a lot of people would be too torn up to do that, or they wouldn't like it much, and I've seen several depressed threads in the sales forum here where sellers regret offering up their cherished possessions.

If I or anyone else met your asking price, would you destroy your collection of NeoGeo games, pristine SNES carts, signed copy of Nights, etc, and place the videos on youtube as proof of having done this? It would have to be explicit, showing the items being burned, or drilled into, or smashed beyond repair with a hammer or something. Payment and continued payment for future items would be dependant on absolute destruction of said items.

COULD YOU DO IT?

[Atomizer]

HELL NO! Thats like asking me to cut off my thumbs! I NEED MY THUMBS MAN!

If I was asked to do that, I wouldn't accept payment no matter what. Someone else is bound to want it somewhere, so i'd be happier if i relisted to give someone else a chance at getting it.

[Sketcz]

HELL NO! Thats like asking me to cut off my thumbs! I NEED MY THUMBS MAN!

But if you need your thumbs, why are you offering them for sale? You don't know what buyers normally do with bought items.

If I was asked to do that, I wouldn't accept payment no matter what. Someone else is bound to want it somewhere, so i'd be happier if i relisted to give someone else a chance at getting it.

A fascinating answer. So if you were offering something say for ?10, which included postage, and I agreed to pay ?10 for its destruction, you'd refuse my offer and rather accept someone else's offer, despite the fact you'd need to pay postage? Purely for the psychological comfort of knowing said item is being appreciated?

I guess this also ties in with what GameStation did a few years back, clearing out their retro stock. I'd heard it was all destroyed in order for the company to get a tax rebate.

[Lorfarius]

No. What a stupid thing to do as there's always someone else out there who would appreciate the item you would be destroying. Pass it on.

Collecting isn't just about value.

[Sketcz]

What I find utterly fascinating is that the effect on the seller is purely psychological. And perhaps their bin that week is a little more full. It doesn't alter their physical or financial state - nor does it affect any third party (for example they're not using your PS2's processor to make a weapons guidance system which might hurt others - the item simply ceases to exist after the transaction).

Games are inanimate objects, and by offering it for sale, you have already accepted the fact you'll be parting with it. I'm curious to see how people feel about this, the final goal (money in exchange for not having the item) is the same.

It's not as if you'd be destroying a one-of-a-kind prototype.

EDIT:
Take Family Fry's sales topic, he's already reduced his beloved Dreamcast from £160 to £130. Would he utterly annihilate it on film if I paypal'd him the originally requested £160? The box would have more than just a tear on it after that!

[RetroRevival]

Well I might be in the minority here, but if I was to come to the decision to sell something I don't care where the item goes or what the new owner does with it. Furthermore if a buyer offered what I wanted for an item and then said "burn it" or "destroy it", as long as the cash was in my account I'd have no trouble doing it.

At the end of the day if you have decided to sell something then you have already decided to detach any sentimental value to the item, so who cares who it goes to or what happens to it?

[Atomizer]

But if you need your thumbs, why are you offering them for sale? You don't know what buyers normally do with bought items.

What i mean is, i'm highly attatched to the stuff i own...but if i were to offer something for sale, i'd want it to be looked after as much as i have. I'd sell my hands as long as they were used with the same love and affection, so i wont cut off my thumbs, metaphorically speaking, if you understand what i'm trying to say?

A fascinating answer. So if you were offering something say for £10, which included postage, and I agreed to pay £10 for its destruction, you'd refuse my offer and rather accept someone else's offer, despite the fact you'd need to pay postage? Purely for the psychological comfort of knowing said item is being appreciated?

Precisely. It angers me when people post videos on youtube of a console being destroyed for no real reason. At the end of the day, its a case of "one persons rubbish is another persons gold".

I guess this also ties in with what GameStation did a few years back, clearing out their retro stock. I'd heard it was all destroyed in order for the company to get a tax rebate.

That just means that they aint collectors. The only saw the items as money, which is to be expected as they are a shop afterall. But i'm sure someone somewhere in the world would of bought each and every item they destroyed, if given the chance.

EDIT: As a sidenote, I wouldn't sell anything UNLESS i have more than one copy and dont need the second copy, or I have no attachment to it, like for example the C64 i picked up for £25 the other day.. I'm considering selling that as i have no use for it. BUT that doesnt mean i would destroy it either....

[importaku]

Considering the amount of computer/videogames lost to time i wouldn't want to contribute to even more of it been lost to history. Gaming is still a relatively young hobby & yet a lot of it's history has already been lost forever. Companies come & go with alarming frequency & their only record of having existed are a few print runs of various totles. No matter how **** a game or console is it still has historical value even if it's just to point the finger & laugh.

Maybe somewhere in the future if we all havent blown eachother up & videogames is going strong, people will be sad that they didn't make more of an effort to preserve the history while they had the chance. There are some people now doing a fantastic job with various websites, but they are few & far in between.

[moonwhistle]

I don't see any problem with destroying a hunk of plastic. I love many games but I don't see the actual objects as precious in any way. It just disposable media like any other mass consumer product. It would only be a relevant act if you destroyed the last copy in existence.

[dvdx2]

i have an old (but lovely condition) vectrex sitting here now. I'll gladly put a hammer through it for ?100. Anyone?

[Strider]

I happily destroy pirate GBA games that are sent to me, but I certainly don't take payment and I certainly wouldn't do it for proper games. That's insania.

[anephric]

I think I was influenced by a Willem Defoe film where he burned his own paintings.

...the point being in that film (To Live and Die in LA) that he's conflicted as an artist so he destroys his own originals because he makes his living from copying (counterfeiting). Oh, the irony. It's not necessarily that he enjoys destroying something beautiful.

[nakamura]

I never destroy anything. It could be used by someone else. It is a waste to throw perfectly good stuff away. There is always someone worse off who could benefit. Not someone better off who should prosper at destruction.

[Decider-VT]

No, because I'd be depriving anybody that would've subsequently owned that item of owning it in the first place and I like the idea of a fellow collector/gamer putting something I no longer need to good use. It's not about psychological attachment to the item, but more to do with supporting somebody with similar interests by passing something on. I appreciate receiving a minty retro game from another collector, so I'd hope that I could do the same for somebody else in turn.

The outrage that accompanied Gamestation's destruction of their retro stock is an interesting example that is similar to what you describe- there were plenty of people who would've appreciated those items. Another good example is a security guard at work who once recalled the time he had to take a hammer to dozens of unsold Sega Saturns, which means that there's a few dozen less in the retro market now. They mightn't have been particularly valuable now but where does it end? With the last one?

[Skull Commander]

I wouldn't destroy any games for money. Well unless it was a Rayman Game, Croc or another one of those ****ty types