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)

13

Comments

  • kitaradkitarad Member LegendaryPosts: 7,486
    It's a can of worms no matter how you look at it.
    DarkZorvanReturnsTheDalaiBomba

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



    Both transferring items and trying to give virtual items made for use within a video game application real speculative value are terrible ideas.  It's a scammer, launderer, and fraudster's paradise.

    It is a serious Pandora's Box.
    DarkZorvanReturnsSlapshot1188ChampieMendelolepi
  • DarkZorvanReturnsDarkZorvanReturns Member RarePosts: 654
    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.
    Actually, you're wrong. Monetization in itself is not predatory. Is it predatory to charge for the cupcakes you make? Is it predatory to charge for fixing someone's car? There is a very fine line between monetization and predatory monetization. As an example, charging for an item is monetization. Charging for the chance to get an item is predatory ( a.k.a. gambling or "loot boxes" ).
    ChampiePhaserlight
  • 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.
    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.
    Actually, you're wrong. Monetization in itself is not predatory. Is it predatory to charge for the cupcakes you make? Is it predatory to charge for fixing someone's car? There is a very fine line between monetization and predatory monetization. As an example, charging for an item is monetization. Charging for the chance to get an item is predatory ( a.k.a. gambling or "loot boxes" ).
    Yes and no.
    Charging for the cupcakes you make is predatory if it’s in an area where you control all the food and insure this is the only option available.If I can starve or buy your $20 cupcakes it’s not really much of a choice. 
    Phaserlight

    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

  • DarkZorvanReturnsDarkZorvanReturns Member RarePosts: 654
    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.
    Actually, you're wrong. Monetization in itself is not predatory. Is it predatory to charge for the cupcakes you make? Is it predatory to charge for fixing someone's car? There is a very fine line between monetization and predatory monetization. As an example, charging for an item is monetization. Charging for the chance to get an item is predatory ( a.k.a. gambling or "loot boxes" ).
    Yes and no.
    Charging for the cupcakes you make is predatory if it’s in an area where you control all the food and insure this is the only option available.If I can starve or buy your $20 cupcakes it’s not really much of a choice. 
    You changed a normal situation of monetization, charging for cupcakes, into predatory monetization, gouging prices via monopoly. There's no yes and no. You crossed the fine line.

    Saying monetization in itself is predatory, is saying noones labor or production has monetary value.
    KyleranAngryElf
  • 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.
    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.
    Actually, you're wrong. Monetization in itself is not predatory. Is it predatory to charge for the cupcakes you make? Is it predatory to charge for fixing someone's car? There is a very fine line between monetization and predatory monetization. As an example, charging for an item is monetization. Charging for the chance to get an item is predatory ( a.k.a. gambling or "loot boxes" ).
    Yes and no.
    Charging for the cupcakes you make is predatory if it’s in an area where you control all the food and insure this is the only option available.If I can starve or buy your $20 cupcakes it’s not really much of a choice. 
    You changed a normal situation of monetization, charging for cupcakes, into predatory monetization, gouging prices via monopoly. There's no yes and no. You crossed the fine line.

    Saying monetization in itself is predatory, is saying noones labor or production has monetary value.
    No.  Because when you are in a game the company has 100% control over the cupcakes and their price and whether or not there is an alternative.

    Monetization is not always predatory certainly, but even charging for a straight purchase can be predatory based on the environment and whether the item being sold is solving a problem they themselves created to pressure you to buy it.

    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

  • 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.

    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.
    Actually, you're wrong. Monetization in itself is not predatory. Is it predatory to charge for the cupcakes you make? Is it predatory to charge for fixing someone's car? There is a very fine line between monetization and predatory monetization. As an example, charging for an item is monetization. Charging for the chance to get an item is predatory ( a.k.a. gambling or "loot boxes" ).
    Yes and no.
    Charging for the cupcakes you make is predatory if it’s in an area where you control all the food and insure this is the only option available.If I can starve or buy your $20 cupcakes it’s not really much of a choice. 
    You changed a normal situation of monetization, charging for cupcakes, into predatory monetization, gouging prices via monopoly. There's no yes and no. You crossed the fine line.

    Saying monetization in itself is predatory, is saying noones labor or production has monetary value.
    No.  Because when you are in a game the company has 100% control over the cupcakes and their price and whether or not there is an alternative.

    Monetization is not always predatory certainly, but even charging for a straight purchase can be predatory based on the environment and whether the item being sold is solving a problem they themselves created to pressure you to buy it.

    So monetization in itself is not inherently predatory. So what are we arguing about? lol
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 19,959
    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.
    Actually, you're wrong. Monetization in itself is not predatory. Is it predatory to charge for the cupcakes you make? Is it predatory to charge for fixing someone's car? There is a very fine line between monetization and predatory monetization. As an example, charging for an item is monetization. Charging for the chance to get an item is predatory ( a.k.a. gambling or "loot boxes" ).
    Yes and no.
    Charging for the cupcakes you make is predatory if it’s in an area where you control all the food and insure this is the only option available.If I can starve or buy your $20 cupcakes it’s not really much of a choice. 
    You changed a normal situation of monetization, charging for cupcakes, into predatory monetization, gouging prices via monopoly. There's no yes and no. You crossed the fine line.

    Saying monetization in itself is predatory, is saying noones labor or production has monetary value.
    No.  Because when you are in a game the company has 100% control over the cupcakes and their price and whether or not there is an alternative.

    Monetization is not always predatory certainly, but even charging for a straight purchase can be predatory based on the environment and whether the item being sold is solving a problem they themselves created to pressure you to buy it.

    So monetization in itself is not inherently predatory. So what are we arguing about? lol
    Cosmetics, Fornite did it, why can't MMOs?
  • DarkZorvanReturnsDarkZorvanReturns Member RarePosts: 654
    edited October 2022
    Scot said:
    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.
    Actually, you're wrong. Monetization in itself is not predatory. Is it predatory to charge for the cupcakes you make? Is it predatory to charge for fixing someone's car? There is a very fine line between monetization and predatory monetization. As an example, charging for an item is monetization. Charging for the chance to get an item is predatory ( a.k.a. gambling or "loot boxes" ).
    Yes and no.
    Charging for the cupcakes you make is predatory if it’s in an area where you control all the food and insure this is the only option available.If I can starve or buy your $20 cupcakes it’s not really much of a choice. 
    You changed a normal situation of monetization, charging for cupcakes, into predatory monetization, gouging prices via monopoly. There's no yes and no. You crossed the fine line.

    Saying monetization in itself is predatory, is saying noones labor or production has monetary value.
    No.  Because when you are in a game the company has 100% control over the cupcakes and their price and whether or not there is an alternative.

    Monetization is not always predatory certainly, but even charging for a straight purchase can be predatory based on the environment and whether the item being sold is solving a problem they themselves created to pressure you to buy it.

    So monetization in itself is not inherently predatory. So what are we arguing about? lol
    Cosmetics, Fornite did it, why can't MMOs?
    Pretty sure most F2P do. They just add the predatory lootboxes and such on top because it's more profit and less work if you can sell dozens of attempts for one item you made than just selling the item itself. This is what happens when all the devs hook up with investors. Look at almost every single predatory monetization mmo out there, from EQ to present, and you'll find investment firms or shareholders behind every one of them. The others are just get rich quick screams by basement dwellers and con men, like Chronicles of Elyria, Shroud of the Avatar and DreamWorld.


    Fortnite has that rare situation of being ran by a company like EPIC, that utilizes Fortnite as a draw to their store where they make money as well as their game engine where they make even more. EPIC's system has everything feeding into everything else, so they don't need to go the predatory route. EPIC is also not a publicly traded company, Like EG7, Zenimax, and others, so they don't answer to the market holders.

  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member EpicPosts: 11,895
    Mendel said:
    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.



    Both transferring items and trying to give virtual items made for use within a video game application real speculative value are terrible ideas.  It's a scammer, launderer, and fraudster's paradise.

    It is a serious Pandora's Box.
    In game items are already given real speculative value.
    ChampieSensaiPhaserlight



  • 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.
    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.
    Actually, you're wrong. Monetization in itself is not predatory. Is it predatory to charge for the cupcakes you make? Is it predatory to charge for fixing someone's car? There is a very fine line between monetization and predatory monetization. As an example, charging for an item is monetization. Charging for the chance to get an item is predatory ( a.k.a. gambling or "loot boxes" ).
    Yes and no.
    Charging for the cupcakes you make is predatory if it’s in an area where you control all the food and insure this is the only option available.If I can starve or buy your $20 cupcakes it’s not really much of a choice. 
    You changed a normal situation of monetization, charging for cupcakes, into predatory monetization, gouging prices via monopoly. There's no yes and no. You crossed the fine line.

    Saying monetization in itself is predatory, is saying noones labor or production has monetary value.
    No.  Because when you are in a game the company has 100% control over the cupcakes and their price and whether or not there is an alternative.

    Monetization is not always predatory certainly, but even charging for a straight purchase can be predatory based on the environment and whether the item being sold is solving a problem they themselves created to pressure you to buy it.

    So monetization in itself is not inherently predatory. So what are we arguing about? lol
    I read your post as saying monetization of direct buys could not be predatory, only if there was gambling involved.   If you agree that manipulating the game to cause pain points that can then be relieved by buying (directly, no lootbox) a product is predatory than I guess we align.

    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

  • DarkZorvanReturnsDarkZorvanReturns Member RarePosts: 654
    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.
    Actually, you're wrong. Monetization in itself is not predatory. Is it predatory to charge for the cupcakes you make? Is it predatory to charge for fixing someone's car? There is a very fine line between monetization and predatory monetization. As an example, charging for an item is monetization. Charging for the chance to get an item is predatory ( a.k.a. gambling or "loot boxes" ).
    Yes and no.
    Charging for the cupcakes you make is predatory if it’s in an area where you control all the food and insure this is the only option available.If I can starve or buy your $20 cupcakes it’s not really much of a choice. 
    You changed a normal situation of monetization, charging for cupcakes, into predatory monetization, gouging prices via monopoly. There's no yes and no. You crossed the fine line.

    Saying monetization in itself is predatory, is saying noones labor or production has monetary value.
    No.  Because when you are in a game the company has 100% control over the cupcakes and their price and whether or not there is an alternative.

    Monetization is not always predatory certainly, but even charging for a straight purchase can be predatory based on the environment and whether the item being sold is solving a problem they themselves created to pressure you to buy it.

    So monetization in itself is not inherently predatory. So what are we arguing about? lol
    I read your post as saying monetization of direct buys could not be predatory, only if there was gambling involved.   If you agree that manipulating the game to cause pain points that can then be relieved by buying (directly, no lootbox) a product is predatory than I guess we align.

    KnightFalz said "All monetization is predatory.". 

    That was what I originally responded to, pointing out monetization by itself is not, it has to be purposely designed that way. So yes, we align.

    I feel like these conversations would be easier and shorter if we were sitting at a table drinking beer instead of trying to convey thoughts via text. lol
    Slapshot1188
  • TheDalaiBombaTheDalaiBomba Member EpicPosts: 1,372
    Mendel said:
    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.



    Both transferring items and trying to give virtual items made for use within a video game application real speculative value are terrible ideas.  It's a scammer, launderer, and fraudster's paradise.

    It is a serious Pandora's Box.
    In game items are already given real speculative value.
    And it is bad for the industry, and it doesn't need to "evolve" and become the norm using a needlessly complex method that's ripe for shenanigans of all sorts.


    Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
    DarkZorvanReturnsScotPhaserlight
  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member EpicPosts: 3,495

    Saying monetization in itself is predatory, is saying noones labor or production has monetary value.

    Everyone's labour has monetary value, and most people do their best to maximize that value... not unlike for profit companies seeking to maximize profits.
    Kyleran
  • 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.
    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.
    Actually, you're wrong. Monetization in itself is not predatory. Is it predatory to charge for the cupcakes you make? Is it predatory to charge for fixing someone's car? There is a very fine line between monetization and predatory monetization. As an example, charging for an item is monetization. Charging for the chance to get an item is predatory ( a.k.a. gambling or "loot boxes" ).
    Yes and no.
    Charging for the cupcakes you make is predatory if it’s in an area where you control all the food and insure this is the only option available.If I can starve or buy your $20 cupcakes it’s not really much of a choice. 
    You changed a normal situation of monetization, charging for cupcakes, into predatory monetization, gouging prices via monopoly. There's no yes and no. You crossed the fine line.

    Saying monetization in itself is predatory, is saying noones labor or production has monetary value.
    No.  Because when you are in a game the company has 100% control over the cupcakes and their price and whether or not there is an alternative.

    Monetization is not always predatory certainly, but even charging for a straight purchase can be predatory based on the environment and whether the item being sold is solving a problem they themselves created to pressure you to buy it.

    So monetization in itself is not inherently predatory. So what are we arguing about? lol
    I read your post as saying monetization of direct buys could not be predatory, only if there was gambling involved.   If you agree that manipulating the game to cause pain points that can then be relieved by buying (directly, no lootbox) a product is predatory than I guess we align.

    KnightFalz said "All monetization is predatory.". 

    That was what I originally responded to, pointing out monetization by itself is not, it has to be purposely designed that way. So yes, we align.

    I feel like these conversations would be easier and shorter if we were sitting at a table drinking beer instead of trying to convey thoughts via text. lol

    Of course it must be purposely designed so, and predominantly is.

    If it wasn't being profitable in itself would be sufficient. That's not the standard strove for in most cases. It is the maximization of.

    People won't sell cupcakes for $1 if the market will bear a price of $2, even if charging $1 is profitable.

    It isn't just customers treated as prey but competitors as well when possible, whether by takeover or undercutting them to extinction.

    Monetization is inherently predatory.

    Some forms are just more blatantly so than others.

  • kitaradkitarad Member LegendaryPosts: 7,486
    Is there such a thing as fair monetization? Which perspective would that standard be using the seller or buyer?
    maskedweaselScot

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 19,959
    kitarad said:
    Is there such a thing as fair monetization? Which perspective would that standard be using the seller or buyer?
    Not even all buyers think monetarized cosmetics are fair, so I don't think such a system could ever be fair from the buyer's point of view.
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 41,526
    kitarad said:
    Is there such a thing as fair monetization? Which perspective would that standard be using the seller or buyer?
    Both. Definition of fair (market) value

    Fair value is the estimated price at which an asset is bought or sold when both the buyer and seller freely agree on a price. Individuals and businesses may compare current market value, growth potential, and replacement cost to determine the fair value of an asset.

    PhaserlightDarkZorvanReturns

    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 41,526
    Scot said:
    kitarad said:
    Is there such a thing as fair monetization? Which perspective would that standard be using the seller or buyer?
    Not even all buyers think monetarized cosmetics are fair, so I don't think such a system could ever be fair from the buyer's point of view.
    They don't have to be fair to all buyers, only those in the intended target market demographic. (i.e. people willing to spend money on such)





    PhaserlightDarkZorvanReturnsScot

    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • kitaradkitarad Member LegendaryPosts: 7,486
    Kyleran said:
    kitarad said:
    Is there such a thing as fair monetization? Which perspective would that standard be using the seller or buyer?
    Both. Definition of fair (market) value

    Fair value is the estimated price at which an asset is bought or sold when both the buyer and seller freely agree on a price. Individuals and businesses may compare current market value, growth potential, and replacement cost to determine the fair value of an asset.

    NFTs are speculative in nature so I'm just wondering is all.

  • DarkZorvanReturnsDarkZorvanReturns Member RarePosts: 654
    kitarad said:
    Kyleran said:
    kitarad said:
    Is there such a thing as fair monetization? Which perspective would that standard be using the seller or buyer?
    Both. Definition of fair (market) value

    Fair value is the estimated price at which an asset is bought or sold when both the buyer and seller freely agree on a price. Individuals and businesses may compare current market value, growth potential, and replacement cost to determine the fair value of an asset.

    NFTs are speculative in nature so I'm just wondering is all.
    Stocks, casinos, NFT's, all speculative, which is a gentler word for gambling. The only thing "fair" regarding any of them is how much you feel you can afford to lose immediately without recourse.
  • TheDalaiBombaTheDalaiBomba Member EpicPosts: 1,372
    The relationship between producers and consumers is inherently adversarial, as each vies for the best deal for themselves.

    Where that becomes predatory is where one party obfuscates or misleads the other about essential parts of the transaction.
    ChampieDarkZorvanReturnsMendel
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,818
    but skins, digital collectables with utility are fine right?

    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 19,959
    edited October 2022
    bcbully said:
    but skins, digital collectables with utility are fine right?
    A bound to account outfit is fine, though as others may have it is not an NFT in my book.
    bcbully
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,818
    Scot said:
    bcbully said:
    but skins, digital collectables with utility are fine right?
    A bound to account outfit is fine, though as others may have it is not an NFT in my book.
    Your book is fiction. Fantasy right?
    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
Sign In or Register to comment.