Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

How Gamers Beat NFTs (Bloomberg)

24

Comments

  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,589
    Kyleran said:
    The article, generally, recaps the blunders and blowback from across the industry to publishers and startups trying to push NFT gaming and metaverses, specifically the play to earn angle.

    It also alludes to a larger discussion about the current "metaverse" push, highlighting the fact that gamers in this genre have been enjoying metaverses for decades now.  It compared this to the recent "revolutions" offered by folks like Zuckerberg about "new" metaverse ideas, noting they are merely marketing tactics designed to get people sucked into an older, rather common idea presented in a new, more predatory monetization framework.  It seems, at least for the moment, this is a step too far for consumers.  Hopefully that lasts.

    This is like saying that the bicycle or wagon was a prelude to a car, and consumers are against the car because it's more expensive and is built on old ideas that have never been proven to be useful when extrapolated on.

    I didn't read the article, probably won't. 
    Naw, the bicycle or wagon were improved by the invention of the car, crypto / NFTs arguably make things worse for gamers in terms of monetization.

    You probably should've have read the article before you posted, they crushed your arguments.

    I mean there are several good use cases for nuclear weapons, but all in all I wouldn't mind if mankind walked away from them entirely.

    Same for crypto/NFTs in gaming, the idea can basically 


    I don't need to read the article to know it's already biased and probably ill informed on the numerous projects in development. 

    The fact that you're still talking about Blockchain in the context of monetization is pretty much all I need to know. 
    The article, generally, recaps the blunders and blowback from across the industry to publishers and startups trying to push NFT gaming and metaverses, specifically the play to earn angle.

    It also alludes to a larger discussion about the current "metaverse" push, highlighting the fact that gamers in this genre have been enjoying metaverses for decades now.  It compared this to the recent "revolutions" offered by folks like Zuckerberg about "new" metaverse ideas, noting they are merely marketing tactics designed to get people sucked into an older, rather common idea presented in a new, more predatory monetization framework.  It seems, at least for the moment, this is a step too far for consumers.  Hopefully that lasts.

    This is like saying that the bicycle or wagon was a prelude to a car, and consumers are against the car because it's more expensive and is built on old ideas that have never been proven to be useful when extrapolated on.

    I didn't read the article, probably won't. But there's only one reason that people see so many of the predatory blunders of NFTs as being ...blunders, and it's built on an inorganic growth pattern held up by a notion of cashing in on a craze that few "investors" ever understood.

    The technology has very good use cases. And there are 'metaverses' and Blockchain games in creation that could eventually be a big deal. 

    But the focus over the past several years has been to put out cheap imitations of popular games while they tack on monetization schemes that rarely make sense in practice, because they require market fluctuations to work, and that inevitably was their downfall.

    The biggest problem was making the monetization of the technology the only selling point aside from other games. For some, that was enough. But not mainstream gamers, and I've had this very conversation with "developers" of Blockchain games before.

    A lot just don't get it. 

    But make no mistake, if the market was still good, the more predatory games would be rolling in money and the articles would look very different.  The crash was necessary if they want the technology to evolve into something people aren't going to completely hate.
    There's only one way any game developer is going to prove blockchain ( not crypto, not NFT, just the blockchain ) would be good for games.

    Shut the fuck up, develop the game, release it, when people like it THEN tell everyone "Hey, there's blockchain in there!".

    Until then, morons can keep announcing they're making blockchain games and those same morons will fail. Even the hint of blockchain is going to get your game put on ignore and you can thank the crypto bros and NFT swindlers  for it.

    You can't convince me to try the veal when I can smell that it's liver.
    It's rare for me to agree with you, but you're right. They should have never even announced blockchain as a feature. They should just have built a good game first. But developers want to capitalize on "the promise" of what's to come, because so many of them can't deliver.
    There's a good reason for this.


    Adopting blockchain isn't free.  They're not going to to include speculative financial assets in their games unless they think it will increase revenue.  Otherwise, there's no real benefit to them to include it.

    Your talk about what's possible is getting in the way of your seeing what's real.
    Actually it is.

    You can create any proprietary chain for free. You can even create test net chains for free. 

    But most of the time, when you're attempting to create something built on a Blockchain, you want to do so on a popular chain that currently has an infrastructure. Like Ethereum or Solana, or matic. Even in those cases the actual cost to build, could be literally less than a dollar for an infinite number of tokens.

    Of course it kind of kills the purpose of Blockchain to create a proprietary chain with a central authority... But... Some actually do.

    *Edit*

    And as for what's real, I wouldn't suspect anyone to know what's "real" or "fake" ... Check out projects like 6 dragons. There are a lot of proof of concept Blockchain games that are pushing some very interesting boundaries. Xaya is another good platform to look into.
    Blockchain isn't free because you need a lot of development time.

    More traditional databases aren't free either, but they cost a lot less.
    maskedweaselKyleranTheDalaiBombaDarkZorvanReturns
     
  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member EpicPosts: 11,895
    Vrika said:
    Actually it is.

    You can create any proprietary chain for free. You can even create test net chains for free. 

    But most of the time, when you're attempting to create something built on a Blockchain, you want to do so on a popular chain that currently has an infrastructure. Like Ethereum or Solana, or matic. Even in those cases the actual cost to build, could be literally less than a dollar for an infinite number of tokens.

    Of course it kind of kills the purpose of Blockchain to create a proprietary chain with a central authority... But... Some actually do.

    *Edit*

    And as for what's real, I wouldn't suspect anyone to know what's "real" or "fake" ... Check out projects like 6 dragons. There are a lot of proof of concept Blockchain games that are pushing some very interesting boundaries. Xaya is another good platform to look into.
    Blockchain isn't free because you need a lot of development time.

    More traditional databases aren't free either, but they cost a lot less.
    That's fair. "Novel" technologies often do take a lot more resources to develop for. Even though blockchain has been around a while, it the context of current uses there probably isn't a ton of support out there for people trying to blaze trails and all that. 
    Phaserlight



  • TheDalaiBombaTheDalaiBomba Member EpicPosts: 1,372
    Kyleran said:
    The article, generally, recaps the blunders and blowback from across the industry to publishers and startups trying to push NFT gaming and metaverses, specifically the play to earn angle.

    It also alludes to a larger discussion about the current "metaverse" push, highlighting the fact that gamers in this genre have been enjoying metaverses for decades now.  It compared this to the recent "revolutions" offered by folks like Zuckerberg about "new" metaverse ideas, noting they are merely marketing tactics designed to get people sucked into an older, rather common idea presented in a new, more predatory monetization framework.  It seems, at least for the moment, this is a step too far for consumers.  Hopefully that lasts.

    This is like saying that the bicycle or wagon was a prelude to a car, and consumers are against the car because it's more expensive and is built on old ideas that have never been proven to be useful when extrapolated on.

    I didn't read the article, probably won't. 
    Naw, the bicycle or wagon were improved by the invention of the car, crypto / NFTs arguably make things worse for gamers in terms of monetization.

    You probably should've have read the article before you posted, they crushed your arguments.

    I mean there are several good use cases for nuclear weapons, but all in all I wouldn't mind if mankind walked away from them entirely.

    Same for crypto/NFTs in gaming, the idea can basically 


    I don't need to read the article to know it's already biased and probably ill informed on the numerous projects in development. 

    The fact that you're still talking about Blockchain in the context of monetization is pretty much all I need to know. 
    The article, generally, recaps the blunders and blowback from across the industry to publishers and startups trying to push NFT gaming and metaverses, specifically the play to earn angle.

    It also alludes to a larger discussion about the current "metaverse" push, highlighting the fact that gamers in this genre have been enjoying metaverses for decades now.  It compared this to the recent "revolutions" offered by folks like Zuckerberg about "new" metaverse ideas, noting they are merely marketing tactics designed to get people sucked into an older, rather common idea presented in a new, more predatory monetization framework.  It seems, at least for the moment, this is a step too far for consumers.  Hopefully that lasts.

    This is like saying that the bicycle or wagon was a prelude to a car, and consumers are against the car because it's more expensive and is built on old ideas that have never been proven to be useful when extrapolated on.

    I didn't read the article, probably won't. But there's only one reason that people see so many of the predatory blunders of NFTs as being ...blunders, and it's built on an inorganic growth pattern held up by a notion of cashing in on a craze that few "investors" ever understood.

    The technology has very good use cases. And there are 'metaverses' and Blockchain games in creation that could eventually be a big deal. 

    But the focus over the past several years has been to put out cheap imitations of popular games while they tack on monetization schemes that rarely make sense in practice, because they require market fluctuations to work, and that inevitably was their downfall.

    The biggest problem was making the monetization of the technology the only selling point aside from other games. For some, that was enough. But not mainstream gamers, and I've had this very conversation with "developers" of Blockchain games before.

    A lot just don't get it. 

    But make no mistake, if the market was still good, the more predatory games would be rolling in money and the articles would look very different.  The crash was necessary if they want the technology to evolve into something people aren't going to completely hate.
    There's only one way any game developer is going to prove blockchain ( not crypto, not NFT, just the blockchain ) would be good for games.

    Shut the fuck up, develop the game, release it, when people like it THEN tell everyone "Hey, there's blockchain in there!".

    Until then, morons can keep announcing they're making blockchain games and those same morons will fail. Even the hint of blockchain is going to get your game put on ignore and you can thank the crypto bros and NFT swindlers  for it.

    You can't convince me to try the veal when I can smell that it's liver.
    It's rare for me to agree with you, but you're right. They should have never even announced blockchain as a feature. They should just have built a good game first. But developers want to capitalize on "the promise" of what's to come, because so many of them can't deliver.
    There's a good reason for this.


    Adopting blockchain isn't free.  They're not going to to include speculative financial assets in their games unless they think it will increase revenue.  Otherwise, there's no real benefit to them to include it.

    Your talk about what's possible is getting in the way of your seeing what's real.
    Actually it is.

    You can create any proprietary chain for free. You can even create test net chains for free. 

    But most of the time, when you're attempting to create something built on a Blockchain, you want to do so on a popular chain that currently has an infrastructure. Like Ethereum or Solana, or matic. Even in those cases the actual cost to build, could be literally less than a dollar for an infinite number of tokens.

    Of course it kind of kills the purpose of Blockchain to create a proprietary chain with a central authority... But... Some actually do.

    *Edit*

    And as for what's real, I wouldn't suspect anyone to know what's "real" or "fake" ... Check out projects like 6 dragons. There are a lot of proof of concept Blockchain games that are pushing some very interesting boundaries. Xaya is another good platform to look into.
    Sounds like, again, there's no reason to go through the trouble unless you're actually wanting to include the speculative risk.

    Nobody wants that in games.  And if they're not including it for to that reason, there's not a lot of good reason to include them.  Nobody is going to "play nice" and allow you to take your in-game assets to other games or game ecosystems for free.  It's a pipe dream, man.
    MendelKyleranDeathkon1
  • TheDalaiBombaTheDalaiBomba Member EpicPosts: 1,372
    But hey, maybe we will get lucky.  Maybe we will get to the point where you can earn an NFT that you can use in almost every popular new game....  If that's the case, expect the cash shop to be gone and a new box price to become popular.  Studios aren't going to leave money on the table like that without trying to recoup it elsewhere.
    maskedweasel
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,589
    edited October 2022
    TheDalaiBomba said:

    Sounds like, again, there's no reason to go through the trouble unless you're actually wanting to include the speculative risk.

    Nobody wants that in games.  And if they're not including it for to that reason, there's not a lot of good reason to include them.  Nobody is going to "play nice" and allow you to take your in-game assets to other games or game ecosystems for free.  It's a pipe dream, man.
    Actually most devs wouldn't have any problem with it: They don't expect to sell you that same asset multiple times anyway. So as long as they gain that one sale when you buy it from their in-game store, most of them are very happy with the sale even if your aim is to use it in another game.

    But often devs expect to earn money as you purchase in-game items from their game. They aren't going to let you bring your existing items into their game when they can earn money by selling you new items.
    maskedweaselkitaradKyleran
     
  • AllahsPromiseAllahsPromise Newbie CommonPosts: 2
    Kyleran said:
    The article, generally, recaps the blunders and blowback from across the industry to publishers and startups trying to push NFT gaming and metaverses, specifically the play to earn angle.

    It also alludes to a larger discussion about the current "metaverse" push, highlighting the fact that gamers in this genre have been enjoying metaverses for decades now.  It compared this to the recent "revolutions" offered by folks like Zuckerberg about "new" metaverse ideas, noting they are merely marketing tactics designed to get people sucked into an older, rather common idea presented in a new, more predatory monetization framework.  It seems, at least for the moment, this is a step too far for consumers.  Hopefully that lasts.

    This is like saying that the bicycle or wagon was a prelude to a car, and consumers are against the car because it's more expensive and is built on old ideas that have never been proven to be useful when extrapolated on.

    I didn't read the article, probably won't. 
    Naw, the bicycle or wagon were improved by the invention of the car, crypto / NFTs arguably make things worse for gamers in terms of monetization.

    You probably should've have read the article before you posted, they crushed your arguments.

    I mean there are several good use cases for nuclear weapons, but all in all I wouldn't mind if mankind walked away from them entirely.

    Same for crypto/NFTs in gaming, the idea can basically 


    I don't need to read the article to know it's already biased and probably ill informed on the numerous projects in development. 

    The fact that you're still talking about Blockchain in the context of monetization is pretty much all I need to know. 
    So, you're just a donkey.

    Got it.
    maskedweaselKyleranChampie
  • DarkZorvanReturnsDarkZorvanReturns Member RarePosts: 654
    edited October 2022
    Vrika said:
    TheDalaiBomba said:

    Sounds like, again, there's no reason to go through the trouble unless you're actually wanting to include the speculative risk.

    Nobody wants that in games.  And if they're not including it for to that reason, there's not a lot of good reason to include them.  Nobody is going to "play nice" and allow you to take your in-game assets to other games or game ecosystems for free.  It's a pipe dream, man.
    Actually most devs wouldn't have any problem with it: They don't expect to sell you that same asset multiple times anyway. So as long as they gain that one sale when you buy it from their in-game store, most of them are very happy with the sale even if your aim is to use it in another game.

    But often devs expect to earn money as you purchase in-game items from their game. They aren't going to let you bring your existing items into their game when they can earn money by selling you new items.
    A big problem would also be IP and copyright laws. Does your artist, if an outside contractor, get a royalty every time someone takes one of the items he made for your game into another game? If the artist is instead inhouse, do you get a royalty? Do the other game developers, and their artists/teams, obtain the right to use any art imported into their game from yours?

    If I were a dev. the legal logistics would be enough for me to say no to anyone who asked if I wanted to use this system.
    MendelSensaiKyleranChampie
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,589
    edited October 2022
    Vrika said:
    TheDalaiBomba said:

    Sounds like, again, there's no reason to go through the trouble unless you're actually wanting to include the speculative risk.

    Nobody wants that in games.  And if they're not including it for to that reason, there's not a lot of good reason to include them.  Nobody is going to "play nice" and allow you to take your in-game assets to other games or game ecosystems for free.  It's a pipe dream, man.
    Actually most devs wouldn't have any problem with it: They don't expect to sell you that same asset multiple times anyway. So as long as they gain that one sale when you buy it from their in-game store, most of them are very happy with the sale even if your aim is to use it in another game.

    But often devs expect to earn money as you purchase in-game items from their game. They aren't going to let you bring your existing items into their game when they can earn money by selling you new items.
    A big problem would also be IP and copyright laws. Does your artist, if an outside contractor, get a royalty every time someone takes one of the items he made for your game into another game? If the artist is instead inhouse, do you get a royalty? Do the other game developers, and their artists/teams, obtain the right to use any art imported into their game from yours?

    If I were a dev. the legal logistics would be enough for me to say no to anyone who asked if I wanted to use this system.
    IP and copyright laws would make it hard in situations where either the IP or the asset is not fully owned by devs, but a lot of the games are based on dev's own IP and usually items are created in-house so that the dev studio gains full ownership of the asset. So it couldn't be used for all games and items, but there are enough games and items that could do it without any legal trouble.

    Other game devs gaining rights to the stuff wouldn't be a problem. Legally it would work kind of like Twitch or Youtube where streamers can show the game they own on streams without Twitch or Youtube getting any rights to the game.


    EDIT: But usually assets from one game don't work on another game because all games have technical differences, so it would require devs to do some work in order to get the items from other game be compatible with their game
    Kyleran
     
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 4,027
    edited October 2022
    Vrika said:
    ...snip...
    .....snip...


    EDIT: But usually assets from one game don't work on another game because all games have technical differences, so it would require devs to do some work in order to get the items from other game be compatible with their game

    Indeed regardless of IP you can't just take a "texture" or skin from one game and shove it in another.  Most game these things have their own format and method etc.  some are packed in other assets so you need to unpack one assets make changes then repack.

    Just look at any kind of mod on nexusmods and you will see from one game to the other it you need different tools and to replace place skins and they don't all work the same way.

    I just don't see all these gaming  companies working hand in hand to make sure skins and whatnot work using the same way so peeps can "own" an asset and move it from one game to another when they actually want to sell you skins and the like.

    I mean just look at PC hardware companies like asus, msi, gigabyte, corsair etc...they can't even come together to get a single common standard for RGB on their hardware so peeps are stuck using 3rd party solutions like openRGB or figuring out there own solutions on github or modding wires so one fan can plug into another companies rgb hub etc etc
    Kyleran

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.





  • UwakionnaUwakionna Member RarePosts: 792
    Even in frameworks very similar to each other like moving between Bethesda titles you have changes to texture formats, archive formats, how models are assembled by the game and a bunch of differences in the scripts defining the game objects and how they work. Under optimistic standards you're still changing a lot of little things.

    Most of the time you're making entirely new assets and code. It's not just compatibility or porting, but functionally new assets made to then have to match to some other title and concept.

    Very little works in the context of just drag and drop, even when working on the same exact engine.

    There might be some franchises or publishers/studios that like the idea of bridging elements across titles, but it's both an extra layer of technicality to developing the game, and it makes you more beholden to external forces in the development of new titles.

    And it's another case of not really needing blockchain to pull it off. Looking to account bound achievements or other collected data you could still track and gift assets to characters. It's even more quirky when such games are likely to be done in a scenario where you have a shared account like a Steam, Ubisoft, or EA account which can and have all gifted/carried items across games before already (like some of the things gifted for owning certain Clancy games).

    I'm sure there are potential use cases and points of value for blockchain, but most of the ideas for it right now are not really even effective choices for "evolving" current technology.
  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member EpicPosts: 11,895
    Uwakionna said:
    Even in frameworks very similar to each other like moving between Bethesda titles you have changes to texture formats, archive formats, how models are assembled by the game and a bunch of differences in the scripts defining the game objects and how they work. Under optimistic standards you're still changing a lot of little things.

    Most of the time you're making entirely new assets and code. It's not just compatibility or porting, but functionally new assets made to then have to match to some other title and concept.

    Very little works in the context of just drag and drop, even when working on the same exact engine.

    There might be some franchises or publishers/studios that like the idea of bridging elements across titles, but it's both an extra layer of technicality to developing the game, and it makes you more beholden to external forces in the development of new titles.

    And it's another case of not really needing blockchain to pull it off. Looking to account bound achievements or other collected data you could still track and gift assets to characters. It's even more quirky when such games are likely to be done in a scenario where you have a shared account like a Steam, Ubisoft, or EA account which can and have all gifted/carried items across games before already (like some of the things gifted for owning certain Clancy games).

    I'm sure there are potential use cases and points of value for blockchain, but most of the ideas for it right now are not really even effective choices for "evolving" current technology.
    I think in the context of cross-game NFTs you have to think of a token more like... an apple airtag. 

    The tag itself is the token. It's not the specific asset that is brought from one game to the next, at least not until there is a unified framework that makes sense and is capable of that.

    Instead it's more like just a static pointer that can be read in multipl games. 

    Like an air tag, you can take it off a shoe and put it on a hat. The token doesn't change, but the asset does. 

    It's similar in games. You may buy an NFT sword in one game, but if itss part of an interconnected network, you might find that the same NFT might be a helmet in another. It could be whatever they want it to be. 

    Now the question is, why would blockchain be necessary to do that? As always, it's not, but there aren't many if any games out there that allow for external asset handling that is completely removed from the games themselves. 

    Not in the way any average blockchain wallet holds assets. In most other cases they are part of a specific interconnected platform. Blockchain doesn't rely on that at all.
    PhaserlightKyleran



  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 17,916
    edited October 2022
    Remind me again why the idea of being able to own something in a game that you can take to another game is something we want or need especially when you bring the concept of P2Win into it.

    You need to buy into the concept that spending money in one game on something that is only usable in that game is wrong or some kind of travesty to see the "benefit" of cross-game ownership even if it's a sword in one game and a hat in the other,

    To begin with, that's one less hat sale in game B so why would competing developers want it? Then there's the requirement for gamers to readjust their thinking about gaming not being just consumable entertainment but an investment.

    Just more "solutions" looking for non-existing problems to solve with more potential for gaming enjoyment harm than benefit,
    kitaradTheDalaiBombaMendelCogohiKyleran
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 15,893
    Iselin said:
    Remind me again why the idea of being able to own something in a game that you can take to another game is something we want or need especially when you bring the concept of P2Win into it.

    You need to buy into the concept that spending money in one game on something that is only usable in that game is wrong or some kind of travesty to see the "benefit" of cross-game ownership even if it's a sword in one game and a hat in the other,

    To begin with, that's one less hat sale in game B so why would competing developers want it? Then there's the requirement for gamers to readjust their thinking about gaming not being just consumable entertainment but an investment.

    Just more "solutions" looking for non-existing problems to solve with more potential for gaming enjoyment harm than benefit,
    Also, I do not want to play ME in multiple games.  I want to place various characters.  So bringing my Sword of Doom that I earned at level 100 in Game A to Game B where I am level 1 doesn't make a lot of sense.

    Kyleran

    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member EpicPosts: 11,895
    Iselin said:
    Remind me again why the idea of being able to own something in a game that you can take to another game is something we want or need especially when you bring the concept of P2Win into it.

    You need to buy into the concept that spending money in one game on something that is only usable in that game is wrong or some kind of travesty to see the "benefit" of cross-game ownership even if it's a sword in one game and a hat in the other,

    To begin with, that's one less hat sale in game B so why would competing developers want it? Then there's the requirement for gamers to readjust their thinking about gaming not being just consumable entertainment but an investment.

    Just more "solutions" looking for non-existing problems to solve with more potential for gaming enjoyment harm than benefit,
    It depends on a game. 

    There are some cases where cross promotion makes sense. There are other cases where you might consider migrating to newer or different games. 

    More likely what we're looking at are non game related possibilities. 

    So touching on each example. 

    Cross promotion, would be like Elder Scrolls Online selling an NFT staff skin that you can then use the same skin in Fallout 76 on a super sledge or something. Someone may consider buying the NFT if they liked the skin and knew they could use it in multiple titles by owning it. 

    Game migration would be if Fallout 76 creates NFTs of different items players have bought and then they decide to create Fallout 77. Moving items from one game to the next isn't unheard of. Mass effect had some manner of this, I'm sure there are plenty of others, but NFTs do this in a way that your unique identifier of the token can be separate from any dedicated game engine or something like that. As long as an asset corresponds to that token everything else can be completely different. 

    But what I see as being more common will be those "social metaverse" spaces where they'll be able to recreate the items for display in virtual worlds. There are several projects that aim to do just that. Kind of a frivolous use, but if you look at the ridiculous world we live in, I don't doubt that a virtual metaverse presence will eventually pay off. Real virtual presence is a thing. Such as being at a park but with the AR magic of your phone you can see a Poke gym.  These NFT wallet projects attempt to make that a reality with items you "own". Even going so far as to animate some NFTs to make it more than just a virtual art gallery. 

    Whether or not any of this actually hits mainstream one day, I guess we can only wait and see. I still don't see how these are "solutions" looking for problems. There is no problem they're trying to solve, it's just a different experience they're trying to create. I doubt it will permanently replace anything. Hell when has something new ever replaced anything? Everquest is still running... everquest 2 didn't kill it.
    PhaserlightKyleran



  • UwakionnaUwakionna Member RarePosts: 792
    Uwakionna said:
    Even in frameworks very similar to each other like moving between Bethesda titles you have changes to texture formats, archive formats, how models are assembled by the game and a bunch of differences in the scripts defining the game objects and how they work. Under optimistic standards you're still changing a lot of little things.

    Most of the time you're making entirely new assets and code. It's not just compatibility or porting, but functionally new assets made to then have to match to some other title and concept.

    Very little works in the context of just drag and drop, even when working on the same exact engine.

    There might be some franchises or publishers/studios that like the idea of bridging elements across titles, but it's both an extra layer of technicality to developing the game, and it makes you more beholden to external forces in the development of new titles.

    And it's another case of not really needing blockchain to pull it off. Looking to account bound achievements or other collected data you could still track and gift assets to characters. It's even more quirky when such games are likely to be done in a scenario where you have a shared account like a Steam, Ubisoft, or EA account which can and have all gifted/carried items across games before already (like some of the things gifted for owning certain Clancy games).

    I'm sure there are potential use cases and points of value for blockchain, but most of the ideas for it right now are not really even effective choices for "evolving" current technology.
    I think in the context of cross-game NFTs you have to think of a token more like... an apple airtag. 

    The tag itself is the token. It's not the specific asset that is brought from one game to the next, at least not until there is a unified framework that makes sense and is capable of that.

    Instead it's more like just a static pointer that can be read in multipl games. 

    Like an air tag, you can take it off a shoe and put it on a hat. The token doesn't change, but the asset does. 

    It's similar in games. You may buy an NFT sword in one game, but if itss part of an interconnected network, you might find that the same NFT might be a helmet in another. It could be whatever they want it to be. 

    Now the question is, why would blockchain be necessary to do that? As always, it's not, but there aren't many if any games out there that allow for external asset handling that is completely removed from the games themselves. 

    Not in the way any average blockchain wallet holds assets. In most other cases they are part of a specific interconnected platform. Blockchain doesn't rely on that at all.
    Kinda goes back to the same rewards they already give you through Ubisoft connect in that regard.

    The existence of accounts which aggregate information from the different games you play into a non-game hub ends up already being a component of EA, Steam, Ubisoft, Riot, and other games. It's hard to see moving that to NFTs as something other than superfluous at the moment since, like your Fallout/Bethesda example, your linked Bethesda account could/should already know what you have.

    Making the account and the game communicate with an additional resource just complicates things in an unnecessary manner for a task it's already capable of.
    Asm0deusTheDalaiBomba
  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member EpicPosts: 3,495
    Iselin said:
    Remind me again why the idea of being able to own something in a game that you can take to another game is something we want or need especially when you bring the concept of P2Win into it.

    You need to buy into the concept that spending money in one game on something that is only usable in that game is wrong or some kind of travesty to see the "benefit" of cross-game ownership even if it's a sword in one game and a hat in the other,

    To begin with, that's one less hat sale in game B so why would competing developers want it? Then there's the requirement for gamers to readjust their thinking about gaming not being just consumable entertainment but an investment.

    Just more "solutions" looking for non-existing problems to solve with more potential for gaming enjoyment harm than benefit,

    It isn't something we want. It may be something some want. The only thing need seen is value in being able to transfer an item from one game to another.

    Where the value of that is easiest seen is the closure of a game. If items purchased for it cannot be transferred to another their value is certain to be entirely lost. If they can be the value of them may possibly be retained to at least some degree.

    Some chance is superior to no chance.
  • OldKingLogOldKingLog Member RarePosts: 456
    Gamers didn't beat shit. The greedy arsed NFT monkeys and crypto bros very publicly and painfully blew up their little house of cards before NFT gaming had a chance at becoming a thing.
    DarkZorvanReturns
  • DarkZorvanReturnsDarkZorvanReturns Member RarePosts: 654
    Iselin said:
    Remind me again why the idea of being able to own something in a game that you can take to another game is something we want or need especially when you bring the concept of P2Win into it.

    You need to buy into the concept that spending money in one game on something that is only usable in that game is wrong or some kind of travesty to see the "benefit" of cross-game ownership even if it's a sword in one game and a hat in the other,

    To begin with, that's one less hat sale in game B so why would competing developers want it? Then there's the requirement for gamers to readjust their thinking about gaming not being just consumable entertainment but an investment.

    Just more "solutions" looking for non-existing problems to solve with more potential for gaming enjoyment harm than benefit,

    It isn't something we want. It may be something some want. The only thing need seen is value in being able to transfer an item from one game to another.

    Where the value of that is easiest seen is the closure of a game. If items purchased for it cannot be transferred to another their value is certain to be entirely lost. If they can be the value of them may possibly be retained to at least some degree.

    Some chance is superior to no chance.
    Every item having a cash value results in every item looted opening a popup saying "$1.49 to loot this carcass." Face it. Blockchain has predatory uses and game developers, especially their marketing departments, are predatory people.
    ScotBrainyKyleran
  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member EpicPosts: 3,495
    edited October 2022
    Iselin said:
    Remind me again why the idea of being able to own something in a game that you can take to another game is something we want or need especially when you bring the concept of P2Win into it.

    You need to buy into the concept that spending money in one game on something that is only usable in that game is wrong or some kind of travesty to see the "benefit" of cross-game ownership even if it's a sword in one game and a hat in the other,

    To begin with, that's one less hat sale in game B so why would competing developers want it? Then there's the requirement for gamers to readjust their thinking about gaming not being just consumable entertainment but an investment.

    Just more "solutions" looking for non-existing problems to solve with more potential for gaming enjoyment harm than benefit,

    It isn't something we want. It may be something some want. The only thing need seen is value in being able to transfer an item from one game to another.

    Where the value of that is easiest seen is the closure of a game. If items purchased for it cannot be transferred to another their value is certain to be entirely lost. If they can be the value of them may possibly be retained to at least some degree.

    Some chance is superior to no chance.
    Every item having a cash value results in every item looted opening a popup saying "$1.49 to loot this carcass." Face it. Blockchain has predatory uses and game developers, especially their marketing departments, are predatory people.

    I wasn't speaking of the cash value of the item but that perceived by the buyer within the game that motivated purchase of it.

    There is nothing predatory about providing the means to transfer items purchased for use in a game that has since closed to one that remains open.

    Rather, it helps maintain their value to the purchaser as that would have been lost entirely if the item was inextricably tied to the game no longer available.

    Here's something for you to face:

    Monetization itself is predatory. No for profit company provides anything solely out of the goodness of the collective hearts of it's owners regardless of the marketing model used. The manner of chase may vary. The nature of it does not.
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 19,959
    edited October 2022
    Iselin said:
    Remind me again why the idea of being able to own something in a game that you can take to another game is something we want or need especially when you bring the concept of P2Win into it.

    You need to buy into the concept that spending money in one game on something that is only usable in that game is wrong or some kind of travesty to see the "benefit" of cross-game ownership even if it's a sword in one game and a hat in the other,

    To begin with, that's one less hat sale in game B so why would competing developers want it? Then there's the requirement for gamers to readjust their thinking about gaming not being just consumable entertainment but an investment.

    Just more "solutions" looking for non-existing problems to solve with more potential for gaming enjoyment harm than benefit,

    It isn't something we want. It may be something some want. The only thing need seen is value in being able to transfer an item from one game to another.

    Where the value of that is easiest seen is the closure of a game. If items purchased for it cannot be transferred to another their value is certain to be entirely lost. If they can be the value of them may possibly be retained to at least some degree.

    Some chance is superior to no chance.
    Every item having a cash value results in every item looted opening a popup saying "$1.49 to loot this carcass." Face it. Blockchain has predatory uses and game developers, especially their marketing departments, are predatory people.

    I wasn't speaking of the cash value of the item but that perceived by the buyer within the game that motivated purchase of it.

    There is nothing predatory about providing the means to transfer items purchased for use in a game that has since closed to one that remains open.

    Rather, it helps maintain their value to the purchaser as that would have been lost entirely if the item was inextricably tied to the game no longer available.

    Here's something for you to face:

    Monetization itself is predatory. No for profit company provides anything solely out of the goodness of the collective hearts of it's owners regardless of the marketing model used. The manner of chase may vary. The nature of it does not.
    Games have changed though, microtransactions has led to a marketing first approach, they used to sell a box and the game lived or died on the quality of the game not the cash shop. But profit is clearly a necessity. It is not the money you take that matters, it is how you take it, much like taxes.
  • kitaradkitarad Member LegendaryPosts: 7,486
    The world economy ain't doing well and that is probably the main factor.

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 17,916

    Where the value of that is easiest seen is the closure of a game. If items purchased for it cannot be transferred to another their value is certain to be entirely lost. If they can be the value of them may possibly be retained to at least some degree.

    Well, that's the whole point right there. We are not losing anything in that case. We already consumed its use or advantage there in that game while it lasted.

    I would argue that preventing the use of items in other games is a more pressing issue because that provides an uneven competitive advantage simply because you played some other unrelated game.

    It's not noticeably harmful currently because cross-promotional items that give you something in game B because you played game A are typically just minor cosmetics but the whole hype around blockchain and NFT asset portability is not confined to cash shop cosmetics. It's promoted with the idea that the gear you craft or that drops will be unique NFTs. They're talking about the whole inventory of things that make you more powerful being portable to other games

    If that system existed now it would be like saying that your 20 years of play in Ultima Online makes you an instant Star-Lord from day one playing Star Citizen.

    This is what I'm saying. That the whole concept of this being a desirable thing is just plain wrong and has the potential to do great harm to the integrity of games where items get imported from previous games,

    In short, it's a fucking dumb idea :)

    kitaradScotSensaiTheDalaiBombaBrainyDarkZorvanReturnsfinefluff
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • TheDalaiBombaTheDalaiBomba Member EpicPosts: 1,372
    edited October 2022
    Iselin said:

    Where the value of that is easiest seen is the closure of a game. If items purchased for it cannot be transferred to another their value is certain to be entirely lost. If they can be the value of them may possibly be retained to at least some degree.

    Well, that's the whole point right there. We are not losing anything in that case. We already consumed its use or advantage there in that game while it lasted.

    I would argue that preventing the use of items in other games is a more pressing issue because that provides an uneven competitive advantage simply because you played some other unrelated game.

    It's not noticeably harmful currently because cross-promotional items that give you something in game B because you played game A are typically just minor cosmetics but the whole hype around blockchain and NFT asset portability is not confined to cash shop cosmetics. It's promoted with the idea that the gear you craft or that drops will be unique NFTs. They're talking about the whole inventory of things that make you more powerful being portable to other games

    If that system existed now it would be like saying that your 20 years of play in Ultima Online makes you an instant Star-Lord from day one playing Star Citizen.

    This is what I'm saying. That the whole concept of this being a desirable thing is just plain wrong and has the potential to do great harm to the integrity of games where items get imported from previous games,

    In short, it's a fucking dumb idea :)

    Not only this, but imagine what a wreck it would be to have an item hold value separate from any individual game you can port it into.

    Now, imagine each dev changing their games in ways that affect the usefulness or rarity of said item.

    Again: it's a lot like owning a physical item, only the manufacturer can change that physical item at will, including how it works, how often you can use it, that it expires after X number of uses, etc..  You'd rightly call that a shitty product, but we're literally setting ourselves up for that exact situation with virtual "items."

    Now, imagine how much worse botting would get if you raised the stakes on the value of items farmed from a game like that.  Exciting!

    It's a terrible idea all around.  I honestly cannot think of a video game dystopia any worse than a F2P monstrosity filled with bots trying to farm virtual speculative risk tokens.  Edit-- oh wait, I can!  Add in real life advertisement in-game, and we're only a half step from full on dystopia!
    IselinMendelDarkZorvanReturns
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 15,893
    Iselin said:
    Remind me again why the idea of being able to own something in a game that you can take to another game is something we want or need especially when you bring the concept of P2Win into it.

    You need to buy into the concept that spending money in one game on something that is only usable in that game is wrong or some kind of travesty to see the "benefit" of cross-game ownership even if it's a sword in one game and a hat in the other,

    To begin with, that's one less hat sale in game B so why would competing developers want it? Then there's the requirement for gamers to readjust their thinking about gaming not being just consumable entertainment but an investment.

    Just more "solutions" looking for non-existing problems to solve with more potential for gaming enjoyment harm than benefit,

    It isn't something we want. It may be something some want. The only thing need seen is value in being able to transfer an item from one game to another.

    Where the value of that is easiest seen is the closure of a game. If items purchased for it cannot be transferred to another their value is certain to be entirely lost. If they can be the value of them may possibly be retained to at least some degree.

    Some chance is superior to no chance.
    I'd say no.  Because your ability to bring in Item A from some other game impacts ME in the new game unless it's cosmetic only and unable to be sold/transferred.

    Why should your playing Game A for 2 years allow you to have an edge in an unrelated Game B?


    MendelDarkZorvanReturns

    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • MendelMendel Member LegendaryPosts: 5,511
    Even if NFTs became a games-wide thing and free transport of items between games became the norm, exactly how long would it take before one item 'earned' in game A would be perceived as overpowered in game B?  Or how game A allowed people to earn Item X faster (and cheaper) than game B?  Or NFT A is better than NFT B because it is more valuable?  How many people will be screaming because something imported is 'better' than what they can find/earn in a specific game?

    Transferring items between games is the *bad* idea, no matter what technology is underneath the actual mechanics that make it possible.  Balance is tough enough without opening the door to just anyone who makes an NFT.



    TheDalaiBombaDarkZorvanReturnsSlapshot1188

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

Sign In or Register to comment.