Stadium Events cib huh

[cjameslv]

https://www.reddit.com/r/gamecollecting/comments/4g24su/so_i_found_a_1987_version_of_stadium_events_at_an/

[VectorGamer]

wrong forum OP

 

Classic Gaming General -->>>

[jaybird3rd]

Now that Tim Atwood has been selling off the SEALED copies of Stadium Events in his collection, I doubt that it will continue to be the guaranteed five-figure game that it has been over the past few years. Still, this should be worth a good chunk of change for the buyer.

[Eltigro]

How many did Atwood have? 12? 18?

[jaybird3rd]

How many did Atwood have? 12? 18?

He reportedly had 18 sealed copies, but he's already sold 12. That's 12 more sealed collectors who don't need Stadium Events anymore, and there aren't that many collectors in the first place who were even in the market for that game. That's bound to affect the prices.

[icemanxp300]

I have read all 26 pages of the first thread and I'm on page 10 of the 2nd thread. My opinion is this is all a bunch of crap. I do not believe any of it. So far out of the 36 pages their is no concrete evidence Tim sold anything. He has already proven to be a liar by stating he would never sell then saying he is selling, so take it for what you want.

 

I personally think he got mad at Rarebucky and just wanted to make people think he released numerous copies into the market that magically nobody can speak about because they all had to sign NDA. It's a bunch of BS. Then Tim says he sold all 12 for less than 1 would sell for, again BS. Whether you love the hobby and want to help collectors is one thing, but what is happening here is another.

 

One does NOT get mad at a reseller and threaten to basically plummet the value of Stadium Events and hide all the "imaginary" sales then state he gave them all away for less than what one was worth. If this was the case (no pun intended ) he would have been more than happy to shove it in Rarebuckys face he sold sealed copies for $2,000 each. Think about he sold 12 for less than one is worth. I think the last one sold for like $30,000 so do the math.

 

My opinion is it's just publicity for what he actually does sell, I mean shit some moron paid him like $300 for a freaking page he printed that said ?Stadium Events Coming Soon" and he signed it. He may have some for sale but I don't think he has sold anything yet. He may have a huge collection but from what I see he is just a liar and it is all publicity.

[Osgeld]

Proven to be a liar by changing his mind about selling his property

 

Jeez doesn't take much does it

[icemanxp300]

Proven to be a liar by changing his mind about selling his property

 

Jeez doesn't take much does it

 

Well you are correct, but who changes their mind in like 2 weeks? I personally think this was his intentions the entire time. While a liar over changing his mind on what he sells is not really what I am getting at. I think what has conspired was meant to conspire. I believe he had full intentions on doing what he did from the start.

 

So in this particular instance whether he actually physically sold "any sealed stadium events" at all is still in question. I think this was all a big hoax for publicity and/or to get back at Rarebucky. As far as I am concerned there isn't a thing that guy said that should be taken as truth. It may be true but it may not be. I was simply pointing out the liar part as a basis to show how untrustworthy I believe him to be. I am basing my conclusions based on what I have read and what does not make sense.

[jaybird3rd]

I only heard about this story about a week ago (from the #CUPodcast), but so far I'm not understanding all the fury directed at Atwood. It's not as if his earlier statement that he wouldn't sell his collection was a binding agreement with anyone: he stated that he had no intention of selling it, and he changed his mind based on the things he saw happening in the community. It's HIS collection, so he's within his right to do that. I can understand not liking it if you're a hoarder who's been holding on to multiple copies of rare games as an "investment" and driving up the price for everyone else in the process, but all this "proven liar" stuff seems a bit extreme. It seems to me that a lot of obsessive collectors are just butthurt because their "investments" are losing value, but it's not as if that hasn't happened before (2600 Motorodeo, etc).

[icemanxp300]

I only heard about this story about a week ago (from the #CUPodcast), but so far I'm not understanding all the fury directed at Atwood. It's not as if his earlier statement that he wouldn't sell his collection was a binding agreement with anyone: he stated that he had no intention of selling it, and he changed his mind based on the things he saw happening in the community. It's HIS collection, so he's within his right to do that. I can understand not liking it if you're a hoarder who's been holding on to multiple copies of rare games as an "investment" and driving up the price for everyone else in the process, but all this "proven liar" stuff seems a bit extreme. It seems to me that a lot of obsessive collectors are just butthurt because their "investments" are losing value, but it's not as if that hasn't happened before (2600 Motorodeo, etc).

 

Prove it. That's the whole point I am making here. There is no proof. All anyone knows is he said this:

 

"Today I have for your consideration STADIUM EVENTS, for the Nes Nintendo system. This game is brand new and factory sealed and will come directly from the sealed case that is pictured above.

Let it be known that everyone who signed a NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS, including the 12 individuals that already received this game from me, ARE NOT released from those agreements."

 

While that implies he sold games it is not proof. The entire first thread was based on his word, yet he has made listings and deleted them and made statements about how he will only sell to buyers he chooses, and nobody is to know who buys or how much they paid.

 

He has not made 1 single sale on ebay from my understanding and his completed listings proves this. I believe he took best offer on some but later cancelled all the sales because he felt buyers were confused over the fact he was only selling 1 game at a time and not an entire case. The whole story does not add up and there is no proof he has sold any Sealed Stadium Events at all!

 

Plausible sure! However I'm not buying it. I don't think he sold a single one yet! Do I think he has a case of 6...yes. Do I think he has 3 cases of 6....NO.

[jaybird3rd]

Again, I guess I'm not understanding why it's so important that he should "prove" that he sold these games, or why he owes it to anyone to provide "proof", or even how he could do so without violating his own NDA. Given the value of the game and all the absurd notoriety surrounding it, I can understand why he'd want to be selective about who he sells it to and why NDAs would be involved, so I'm not surprised at all that he hasn't gone the eBay route. I also don't see it as a stretch that he'd have three sealed packs of six games each, given the other rare games in his collection. I've opened plenty of sealed game packs in my time (Atari, not NES), and the pictures he's posted so far certainly look genuine to me.

It still seems to me that some people are looking for a reason to get mad at him over what he chooses to do with his own collection. First they're mad because he decided to sell it, then they're mad because he hasn't proven that he DID sell it.

[icemanxp300]

The actually number of a highly collectable item matters a lot. Whether or not he specifically sells his stuff is not what matters. What matters is how many of said item there are. If you are bidding on an item you believe only 2 of exist you will likely bid more than if you know 23 of that item exist.

[Professor Gull]

 

Prove it. That's the whole point I am making here. There is no proof. All anyone knows is he said this:

 

"Today I have for your consideration STADIUM EVENTS, for the Nes Nintendo system. This game is brand new and factory sealed and will come directly from the sealed case that is pictured above.

Let it be known that everyone who signed a NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS, including the 12 individuals that already received this game from me, ARE NOT released from those agreements."

 

While that implies he sold games it is not proof. The entire first thread was based on his word, yet he has made listings and deleted them and made statements about how he will only sell to buyers he chooses, and nobody is to know who buys or how much they paid.

 

 

What if part of the Non Disclosure Agreement is to not state you have bought one? Just wondering if that sort of proof may never become public.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Professor Gull

[icemanxp300]

LOL. Come on, you guys miss the point I am trying to make here. Prove there were even any NDA's to begin with! I think it was all made up. I don't think anyone signed any NDA or any Sealed Stadium Events have even been sold.

[This-is-Tim]

The actually number of a highly collectable item matters a lot. Whether or not he specifically sells his stuff is not what matters. What matters is how many of said item there are. If you are bidding on an item you believe only 2 of exist you will likely bid more than if you know 23 of that item exist.

 

I bet it really hurts. I hear ointment helps, but in your case, I suggest a suppository.

[Berial]

LOL. Come on, you guys miss the point I am trying to make here. Prove there were even any NDA's to begin with! I think it was all made up. I don't think anyone signed any NDA or any Sealed Stadium Events have even been sold.

 

The guys reputation stands for itself. If you know anything about him you know that 1) his collection is insane 2) has been advocating for collectors for years and 3) done everything in his power to stop eBay collectors from abusing the sealed game market. So you are absolutely delusional if you think he has to prove something to you. Get real.

[jhd]

I am just curious how a vendor would enforce such a NDA.

 

Suing is the obvious option, but that would require establishing actual damages (i.e. a monetary loss to the seller) -- which would probably be significantly less than the actual cost of pursuing the action in the first place.

 

There is also the issue that court records are public documents. It would draw yet more attention to the breach of the NDA.

 

Anyone can draft a quasi-legal document that says anything; whether that creates an enforceable agreement is another matter entirely.

[Berial]

I am just curious how a vendor would enforce such a NDA.

 

Suing is the obvious option, but that would require establishing actual damages (i.e. a monetary loss to the seller) -- which would probably be significantly less than the actual cost of pursuing the action in the first place.

 

There is also the issue that court records are public documents. It would draw yet more attention to the breach of the NDA.

 

Anyone can draft a quasi-legal document that says anything; whether that creates an enforceable agreement is another matter entirely.

I'm going to assume the NDA's are legit and not written on napkins if that's what you mean by "quasi-legal". NDA's are enforced constantly. Why is this any different?

[Osgeld]

I am just curious how a vendor would enforce such a NDA.

 

Remote controlled firecracker inside cart

[jhd]

I'm going to assume the NDA's are legit and not written on napkins if that's what you mean by "quasi-legal". NDA's are enforced constantly. Why is this any different?

 

Because in most cases the parties are large corporations (or the employees thereof) with deep pockets and the consequent ability to afford legal counsel.

 

For a private individual to take actions to enforce a NDA, it would cost far more than they could ever receive in damages.

 

Note that I speak as a Canadian; the State in whatever jurisdiction this hypothetical enforcement action is to be taken may have significantly different laws that allow for significantly increased damage awards.

[Berial]

Remote controlled firecracker inside cart

 

Ok that was good.

[+jeremiahjt]

I have wondered about the non-disclosure agreement also. I understand their use when it comes to intellectual property, but I do not understand how it works here. Can a seller repossess physical property if an agreement is broken? Or is it only monetary damages? Or both? I am legitimately curious about how it works.

[+jeremiahjt]

I bet it really hurts. I hear ointment helps, but in your case, I suggest a suppository.

I wonder if you just set a record for longest dormant login turned active. I looked at your profile when that thread was linked from Nintendo Age the other day and saw you were last online in like 2002 or something. 14 years is long time. Welcome back!

Edited May 3, 2016 by jeremiahjt

[This-is-Tim]

I wonder if you just set a record for longest dormant login turned active. I looked at your profile when that thread was linked from Nintendo Age the other day and saw you were last online in like 2002 or something. 14 years is long time. Welcome back!

 

I had to come back and set someone straight.

[AtariLeaf]

So was the intention of all of this to go after the uber-Nintendoage hoarders and watch them squirm as their supposed investments shrank with the introduction of so many rare games into the the hands of new collectors? My only knowledge of this is from Pat and Ian's podcast so my conclusion may be way off but that's the initial theme I'm getting from all of this.