Epic says it’s ‘open’ to blockchain games after Steam bans them
1–10 of 34 posts
Re: Epic says it’s ‘open’ to blockchain games after Steam bans them
#2Blockchain is becoming a pain in the ass. Games don't need Blockchain. It serves no purpose other than making some people rich and having the games filled with farmers that will eventually ruin everything.
Re: Epic says it’s ‘open’ to blockchain games after Steam bans them
#3Blockchain is becoming a pain in the ass. Games don't need Blockchain. It serves no purpose other than making some people rich and having the games filled with farmers that will eventually ruin everything.
Are there other, non-currency related, reasons why Blockchain would be used in a game?
Re: Epic says it’s ‘open’ to blockchain games after Steam bans them
#4Blockchain is becoming a pain in the ass. Games don't need Blockchain. It serves no purpose other than making some people rich and having the games filled with farmers that will eventually ruin everything.
Are there other, non-currency related, reasons why Blockchain would be used in a game?
Virtual land. You could have a persistent game world with ownership rights and then multiple unrelated games using the public information about who owns what.
Club membership. Similarly multiple unrelated games could verify that a user is a member of an external organisation to grant certain in-game privileges.
Re: Epic says it’s ‘open’ to blockchain games after Steam bans them
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there other, non-currency related, reasons why Blockchain would be used in a game?
Virtual land. You could have a persistent game world with ownership rights and then multiple unrelated games using the public information about who owns what. Club membership. Similarly multiple unrelated games could verify that a user is a member of an external organisation to grant certain in-game privileges.
Why do you need distributed consensus to do that, though? What's wrong with a database on a server?
Re: Epic says it’s ‘open’ to blockchain games after Steam bans them
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Virtual land. You could have a persistent game world with ownership rights and then multiple unrelated games using the public information about who owns what. Club membership. Similarly multiple unrelated games could verify that a user is a member of an external organisation to grant certain in-game privileges.
Why do you need distributed consensus to do that, though? What's wrong with a database on a server?
Wouldn't it help with the "publisher doesn't want to maintain a server for that old game anymore" situation?
Re: Epic says it’s ‘open’ to blockchain games after Steam bans them
#7The article misquotes Steam’s rules. Here is what Steam says:
> Applications built on blockchain technology that issue or allow exchange of cryptocurrencies or NFTs.
And the article:
> Games that use blockchain technology or let users exchange NFTs or cryptocurrencies won’t be allowed on Steam …
The problem isn’t the blockchain, it’s blockchain-based cryptocurrencies and NFTs.
Granted, I don’t know why you’d use a blockchain in a video game other than cryptocurrency or NFT reasons.
But it’s unfortunate that “blockchain” is apparently synonymous with proof of work cryptocurrencies and NFTs.
Re: Epic says it’s ‘open’ to blockchain games after Steam bans them
#8Blockchain is becoming a pain in the ass. Games don't need Blockchain. It serves no purpose other than making some people rich and having the games filled with farmers that will eventually ruin everything.
" games filled with farmers that will eventually ruin everything"
In fairness, this is hardly a problem unique to them. Bots are an issue in any game that gets big enough and has a black market for in game currency.
Re: Epic says it’s ‘open’ to blockchain games after Steam bans them
#9The article misquotes Steam’s rules. Here is what Steam says: > Applications built on blockchain technology that issue or allow exchange of cryptocurrencies or NFTs. And the article: > Games that use blockchain technology or let users exchange NFTs or cryptocurrencies won’t be allowed on Steam … The problem isn’t the blockchain, it’s blockchain-based cryptocurrencies and NFTs. Granted, I don’t know why you’d use a bl…
> But it’s unfortunate that “blockchain” is apparently synonymous with proof of work cryptocurrencies and NFTs.
I usually put stuff like that down to either lazy writing or just the wrong/badly skilled writer.
It's the same as MSM portraying hackers wearing hoodies!
Re: Epic says it’s ‘open’ to blockchain games after Steam bans them
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you need distributed consensus to do that, though? What's wrong with a database on a server?
Wouldn't it help with the "publisher doesn't want to maintain a server for that old game anymore" situation?
If you don't have a situation where absolutely nobody can be trusted, then all these things become tractable with the traditional cryptography. In games you can choose to trust a game publisher, a server, or a consensus of a few selected parties.
People can prove their identity and ownership of items via a private key. A new server can accept claims signed with a public key of the previous publisher, and you could turn that into a federated system.