IMHO, it is not making sense to purchase in-game assets without the ownership. It is like paying for ebooks in kindle. But, what you get is actually right to read.
In my decade of paying for ebooks, I have yet to have any problems.
Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
11–20 of 67 posts
Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
#12Going against the usual knee jerk "crypto bad" reaction, I don't think nft-s are inherently bad in games. All the usual hatepoints (microtransactions, pay to win, developer still controls the use of the nfts, etc) are true or can be true with or without items being nfts. The difference I care about is tradability and transferability, which is inherent to nft-s but not to normal in-game items. For example hearthstone,…
All NFT based items have the same problem where these items rely on the goodwill of the people who make the games and they're the ones that end up deciding whether the item has any practical value or if it's even in the game in the first place. If I were a game dev I'd have no incentive to implement some foreign NFTs in the game when I can make my own NFTs or just go with the classic model where the items are just entries in one of my databases.
There's also a conflict of interest in where someone who is both a dev and has a lot of certain NFTs could attempt to make the in-game item busted or required for competitive meta in order to sell out their stock of NFTs at a high price.
The "card game with NFTs" has already been tried, it's called "Gods Unchained" and didn't really catch on because if you type "Gods Unchained" in YouTube search bar the top results are not about the game itself but about the fact that you can earn money in-game. People actually interested in playing the game end up playing with bots because the game has a profit incentive.
Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
#13Going against the usual knee jerk "crypto bad" reaction, I don't think nft-s are inherently bad in games. All the usual hatepoints (microtransactions, pay to win, developer still controls the use of the nfts, etc) are true or can be true with or without items being nfts. The difference I care about is tradability and transferability, which is inherent to nft-s but not to normal in-game items. For example hearthstone,…
> For example hearthstone, blizzard's warcraft tcg, would be much better for nft cards. It would get a second hand card market similar to MTG automatically if it used nft cards on some public blockchain. The experiment is going on right now. You can play MTGO or MTG Arena. Which one's more popular?
No idea, which one is more popular? Also, can you please try to argue why?
Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
#14Going against the usual knee jerk "crypto bad" reaction, I don't think nft-s are inherently bad in games. All the usual hatepoints (microtransactions, pay to win, developer still controls the use of the nfts, etc) are true or can be true with or without items being nfts. The difference I care about is tradability and transferability, which is inherent to nft-s but not to normal in-game items. For example hearthstone,…
> The difference I care about is tradability and transferability, which is inherent to nft-s but not to normal in-game items.
I think you simply do not understand the usual NFT hatepoints, then, which is the vision of NFTs you are espousing is simply undeliverable.
Either you have a truly decentralized network that is necessarily expensive to run to prevent spamming, and you add all of your in-game items and transactions to that. This action slows the network down to a crawl, and makes each item swap cost hundreds of dollars in gas fees. Given how even AAA games are costing $60-70 these days, I hope you understand why that's underdesirable.
"What about layer 2???" you may ask. Well, if you would like to go a more centralized route by having a separate blockchain handle all of your in-game transactions, I can point to Axie Infinity [1] to tell you why that's a bad idea. Basically, in the dark forest of blockchain, centralization breeds failure, and unless you're happy with losing more than half a billion (!) dollars worth of "assets" from time to time, that is also quite unappetizing.
Tl;dr: if you're espousing NFTs for gaming after all of these, you either don't understand blockchain/NFTs, don't understand gaming, or have money to make by pump-and-dumping crypto tokens.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/6/23196713/axie-infinity-ron...
Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
#15Atari isn't a classic gaming name; it's the latest in a line of pretenders (4th?) Who have bought the name at auction.
That makes the name Atari a classic gaming name.
You’re ignoring the actual headline to try to nerd snipe.
Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
#16IMHO, it is not making sense to purchase in-game assets without the ownership. It is like paying for ebooks in kindle. But, what you get is actually right to read.
That’s absurd. It’s inside a video game. It’s all make-believe and inherently non-transferable, unlike an ebook. What would any afforded “ownership” actually mean in practical terms?
Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
#17IMHO, it is not making sense to purchase in-game assets without the ownership. It is like paying for ebooks in kindle. But, what you get is actually right to read.
In my decade of paying for ebooks, I have yet to have any problems.
It is fortunate that the retailers you've chosen haven't messed up, or gone out of business, or been malicious. But so long as the ability to access the content is in their hands and determined on their end, it is an ongoing risk. It's hard to imagine today, but if Kindle ever stops being profitable for Amazon, it could all go away.
Same risk exists with e.g. Valve's Steam. I have bought games there, and I've had no problems in 10+ years. But I won't kid myself. The games are all DRM'd. If something happens, say Valve goes kaput, bankrupt, well, all that money is wasted and I can't access anything that I supposedly bought. It's happened with DRM'd material before too many times already to imagine it's impossible.
Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
#18Going against the usual knee jerk "crypto bad" reaction, I don't think nft-s are inherently bad in games. All the usual hatepoints (microtransactions, pay to win, developer still controls the use of the nfts, etc) are true or can be true with or without items being nfts. The difference I care about is tradability and transferability, which is inherent to nft-s but not to normal in-game items. For example hearthstone,…
Blizzard could make their own second hand hearthstone marketplace if they wanted to. NFTs don't create that possibility. Blizzard judged that it's more profitable for them to be the sole sellers of cards at their price. While NFTs would enable secondary markets in hearthstone cards to exist outside of Blizzard's ecosystem Blizzard doesn't want you out of their ecosystem.
Furthermore even if they introduced something like that I highly doubt they'd use "some public blockchain" the risks from that would outweigh the benefits - they'd just make their own infrastructure internally.
I don't see a way in which NFTs solve a problem that can't already be solved more simply. After all valve secondary markets for games like TF2 have existed for more than a decade without needing NFTs.
Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For example hearthstone, blizzard's warcraft tcg, would be much better for nft cards. It would get a second hand card market similar to MTG automatically if it used nft cards on some public blockchain. The experiment is going on right now. You can play MTGO or MTG Arena. Which one's more popular?
No idea, which one is more popular? Also, can you please try to argue why?
> Also, can you please try to argue why?
You don't think it's enough to remind you that, given the choice between the two options you describe, people overwhelmingly preferred the one that you said was "worse"?
If I don't bother telling you why I think that is, will it be less true? What if I'm wrong about the reason -- will that stop the phenomenon from happening?
Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
#20Going against the usual knee jerk "crypto bad" reaction, I don't think nft-s are inherently bad in games. All the usual hatepoints (microtransactions, pay to win, developer still controls the use of the nfts, etc) are true or can be true with or without items being nfts. The difference I care about is tradability and transferability, which is inherent to nft-s but not to normal in-game items. For example hearthstone,…
All NFT based items have the same problem where these items rely on the goodwill of the people who make the games and they're the ones that end up deciding whether the item has any practical value or if it's even in the game in the first place. If I were a game dev I'd have no incentive to implement some foreign NFTs in the game when I can make my own NFTs or just go with the classic model where the items are just en…
> these items rely on the goodwill of the people who make the games
But they rely on the goodwill of the game devs regardless of the items being NFT-s. Patches causing meta changes is a regular thing without NFT-s.
> someone who is both a dev and has a lot of certain NFTs could attempt to make the in-game item busted or required for competitive meta in order to sell
Or just do the same and sell the card in the in-game store for lots of $? As lots of mobile games do.