Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain

#21

Post by proto-n »

gelert wrote: post #18
proto-n wrote: post #3

Going 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…

You are kind of arguing my point. Blizzard won't do it because it loves exploiting their status against the player. But that's a point for nft-s, it would make it harder to exploit players. Yeah I agree it won't ever happen, but if it did, that would be a win.

Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain

#22

Post by AraceliHarker »

I find no love for games in services like YouTube Gaming or Twitch. They seem to me like nothing more than influencer marketing schemes that use games as bait. It is no wonder, then, that some of their former executives are on the side of promoting NFTs for games. They have no respect for the artistry and creativity that goes into making games, only for the profit and popularity they can extract from them.

Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain

#23

Post by kergonath »

proto-n wrote: post #21
gelert wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are kind of arguing my point. Blizzard won't do it because it loves exploiting their status against the player. But that's a point for nft-s, it would make it harder to exploit players. Yeah I agree it won't ever happen, but if it did , that would be a win.

But then if the developers were willing to go that route, they could do it perfectly well without NFTs, and that would be just as much of a win.

Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain

#24

Post by proto-n »

kergonath wrote: post #23
proto-n wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are kind of arguing my point. Blizzard won't do it because it loves exploiting their status against the player. But that's a point for nft-s, it would make it harder to exploit players. Yeah I agree it won't ever happen, but if it did , that would be a win.

But then if the developers were willing to go that route, they could do it perfectly well without NFTs, and that would be just as much of a win.

I never said NFT-s were required or the only possible solution, I said that I don't think NFT-s in games are inherently bad or evil (which is a quite popular opinion)

Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain

#25

Post by hnbad »

From the article:

> Now nostalgic gaming brands like MapleStory, Neopets, and Atari are still trying to promote their blockchain initiatives [..]

I'm not familiar with the history of MapleStory but Neopets was infamously sold off at the time and the only thing classic about Atari at this point is the name since it has been bought and sold numerous times since the classic period the name evokes.

So I guess at least as far as these two names are concerned the obvious answer is "because people are sitting on those famous brand names they bought and still trying to figure out how to milk their nostalgia for money". In other words, they were a perfect match for the NFT cashgrab period and the companies owning those brands aren't willing to give up on that opportunity yet.

Framing this as "classic gaming names [..] going in on the blockchain" evokes the idea of long-standing companies or even former giants turned underdogs seeing some kind of technological merit in the blockchain when instead it seems more like investors bought some IP and are desperate to find new ways to milk it. Of course in a way Neopets was the original ape NFT collection, just without the rampant money laundering and speculative investment ponzi scheme.

EDIT: Looks like MapleStory is a pay-to-win/pay-to-play MMO so it's literally built around milking people for cash. So their motivation is pretty clear, too. None of these examples demonstrate any usefulness in blockchain (regardless of whether any such usefulness has been demonstrated elsewhere) beyond trying to get people to spend money.

Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain

#26

Post by charcircuit »

chaostheory wrote: post #9

I like crypto and I see value in some platforms, but this is just a BS cash grab. There are several issues why this is stupid: 1. You can't transfer the NFTs to different gaming platforms. 2. This is achievable without NFTs. It has been for years. 3. The gaming studios focused on NFTs and blockchain tend to ignore the core of gaming: how fun is the game?

1. Other gaming platforms could add support to interface with it.

2. It's not the same. With these you actually own the NFT and won't lose it if game itself goes away and they stop supporting it. These virtual items will last forever.

3. The NFT part of games isn't about fun. The technology behind a game isn't just what makes the game fun. A game needing to be good will always be a problem.

Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain

#28

Post by xk_id »

ManlyBread wrote: post #12
proto-n wrote: post #3

Going 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…

> If I were a game dev I'd have no incentive to implement some foreign NFTs in the game

By implementing some foreign NFTs you can bootstrap an existing userbase (especially one with clear on chain evidence for engaging with a similar game).

Another incentive can be satisfying the presumed demand for interoperable assets, such as avatars (being able to play with the same avatar in different games).

Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain

#29

Post by xk_id »

kergonath wrote: post #23
proto-n wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are kind of arguing my point. Blizzard won't do it because it loves exploiting their status against the player. But that's a point for nft-s, it would make it harder to exploit players. Yeah I agree it won't ever happen, but if it did , that would be a win.

But then if the developers were willing to go that route, they could do it perfectly well without NFTs, and that would be just as much of a win.

Not “perfectly” well. There is the downside of cost. Without nfts they would have to invest in bespoke infrastructure for creating, storing, validating and trading the assets. With nfts, this entire infrastructure already exists.

Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain

#30

Post by devnullbrain »

charcircuit wrote: post #26
chaostheory wrote: post #9

I like crypto and I see value in some platforms, but this is just a BS cash grab. There are several issues why this is stupid: 1. You can't transfer the NFTs to different gaming platforms. 2. This is achievable without NFTs. It has been for years. 3. The gaming studios focused on NFTs and blockchain tend to ignore the core of gaming: how fun is the game?

1. Other gaming platforms could add support to interface with it. 2. It's not the same. With these you actually own the NFT and won't lose it if game itself goes away and they stop supporting it. These virtual items will last forever. 3. The NFT part of games isn't about fun. The technology behind a game isn't just what makes the game fun. A game needing to be good will always be a problem.

> 1. Other gaming platforms could add support to interface with it.

Why would they?

Post reply on HN