The Capsule and the Work

There is a word that divides video game collecting like few others: grading. For critics it is a practice that forever seals an object born to be used; for supporters, the tool that will make it arrive intact to those who will come after us. We spoke with Carlo Santagostino, computer science historian and science communicator, in a long conversation born from the discussions of the Retrocamera community. His reading, counter to the voice of the people, is the heart of the conversation: here are the key points, in the video the complete interview.

The first point Santagostino wants to clarify is that grading is not a recent invention applied to video games. The certification of collectible objects is a historical practice: in Italy Bolaffi certified stamps since the 1960s, and with us people simply spoke of certifications, before the Anglo-Saxon term took hold. In video games the practice originates from the United States and has consolidated for about fifteen years: not a sudden phenomenon, but the natural extension of what mature collecting has always done.

The second point concerns prices. For Santagostino, grading is a consequence of the mature collecting market, not the cause of the rise in prices: it certifies authenticity and condition (box, manual, seal), but the price is determined by demand and supply. For him it's a voluntary service of protection and clarity, useful especially where fakes abound, as in the world Pokémon. And it's not a judgment without consequences: those who certify have legal responsibility, and if they declare a fake authentic the client can seek recourse. As for suspicions of market manipulation, Santagostino downplays them with a simple argument: to steer prices would require controlling almost all existing copies of a title, an undertaking as difficult as it is expensive.

The heart of the conversation is the distinction between work and support. The game as code is replicable and archivable: emulation, digitization and FPGA solutions preserve its architecture. What is truly perishable is the physical object: the box, the plastic, the manual, the way the game was sold. Sealed copies are extremely rare compared to open ones, and the certified case increases the probability that they survive and are handed down. For this reason, Santagostino says, those who define the coffins' casings miss the right analogies: the time capsules and the seed banks. Grading a copy, he notes, does not prevent anyone from playing: the work remains available in a thousand other forms. And a clarification: grading does not certify the functioning of the game, because verifying it would require breaking the seal, and it is irrelevant to what is being preserved.

From the conversation, an operational rule also emerges that Santagostino considers a priority: before grading, verify that the information has already been digitized. Italian manuals, often absent from online archives, must be scanned and made available; only after that does it make sense to seal the object in the long term. The two practices are complementary, not alternative. And on intellectual property the ethical line it draws is clear: non-commercial preservation is generally tolerated by companies, which intervene against those who monetize without authorization, not against those who archive. Preservation yes, monetization no.

The final step upends a widespread prejudice. Collectors, Santagostino recalls, are historically custodians of memory: many private collections have become museums, from the cabinets of curiosities to the Egyptian Museum. Preserving today the box of an 80s arcade game, he adds, means enabling those who will come to observe the past faithfully. The recent history of video games must be codified with rigor, cross-referencing budgets, period press, and testimonies, overcoming marketing narratives and fallacious memories. And it is a job that no expert can do alone: networks of vertical specialists are needed, because no one is an expert in everything.

Santagostino's conclusion is an invitation to informed debate: to distinguish between work and medium, between historical value and economic value, and to recognize the role of collectors, communities and museums in the transmission of video-game memory. Grading, in this reading, does not create value out of nothing and does not steal anything from anyone: it certifies, protects and passes on.