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

41–50 of 67 posts

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

#41

Post by hnbad »

KyeRussell wrote: post #15
GauntletWizard wrote: post #2

Atari 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.

What do you think why they phrased it the way they did? Do you think most people reading the headline will think "ah, yes, the people who currently own the Atari brand but are completely detached from what the company that once held the name got famous for are still investing in blockchain tech despite its recent decline" or do you think they will think "oh wow, the company Atari that once was a household name in the 1980s and later went on to publish numerous games I like is still investing in blockchain tech despite its recent decline"? These two different takeaways have very different implications (random speculative investor vs former giant turned underdog).

To put it another way, "elderly gentleman shares his opinion on invading Iran" and "former US secretary of defense shares his opinion on invading Iran" are two ways to break the same story and would likely both be factually correct but convey very different things about the merit of the opinion to the same audience (not taking the reader's personal biases into account).

It's not nerd sniping. That's not even what nerd sniping means. It's also explicitly not ignoring the headline, it's ignoring the article.

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

#42

Post by charcircuit »

hnbad wrote: post #38
charcircuit wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Why should they? The selling point of supporting NFTs is selling NFTs. Also the "NFT support" shown in the article literally involves the company producing its own art assets based on the NFTs. Even if the sprites could be broken down to the same generic pieces as the randomly generated NFTs this would mean repeating the effort for every NFT collection. The motivation to do this for apes is clear (if you want to r…

>Why should they?

Because they may want to provide user value by being a centralized place where you can manage all of your virtual items and NFTs are a component of that.

>it's not worth anything because nobody else sees any value in it now that the rental place is gone.

These items can be reused by other applications to give them a new life. Even in your DVD store example a competing DVD store or streaming service could offer you a sign up bonus or discount if you could prove you had €5 or more credit with the store that went out of business.

>Much like micro transactions, this is making the game less enjoyable just to milk some players

I see it more as the opposite. Letting someone sell the skins they bought to someone else is better for the consumer and isn't just milking them compared to games like Fortnite where nothing can be sold off.

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

#44

Post by Fatnino »

charcircuit wrote: post #40
p1necone wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If the game goes away you have a token saying you own something that doesn't do anything any more. This is like totaling a brand new Lamborghini and going "it's fine, I still have the keys in my pocket".

Even if the game doesn't exist that doesn't mean the value of all items drops to 0. Someone could come along later and setup a private server that lets you import all the items you had from the original game. Someone could also develop an application where you can view these items which you may have sentimental value for.

That's a lot of "maybe someday" type of wishful thinking. What will actually happen is the game will go poof and you will be left with nothing.

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

#45

Post by josefx »

charcircuit wrote: post #40
p1necone wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If the game goes away you have a token saying you own something that doesn't do anything any more. This is like totaling a brand new Lamborghini and going "it's fine, I still have the keys in my pocket".

Even if the game doesn't exist that doesn't mean the value of all items drops to 0. Someone could come along later and setup a private server that lets you import all the items you had from the original game. Someone could also develop an application where you can view these items which you may have sentimental value for.

And you need NFTs for either of those why? I could export a character with items from Baldurs Gate decades ago.

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

#46

Post by josefx »

retrac wrote: post #17
nanidin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> But so long as the ability to access the content is in their hands and determined on their end, it is an ongoing risk.

And NFTs do nothing to change that, the moment the server hosting the content is offline your NFT is worthless. Of course the assumption is that someone else will start to host the content without getting paid and without actually holding the rights to the content. We already have that, it is called piracy and it works better without NFTs.

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

#47

Post by GTP »

charcircuit wrote: post #42
hnbad wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Why should they? The selling point of supporting NFTs is selling NFTs. Also the "NFT support" shown in the article literally involves the company producing its own art assets based on the NFTs. Even if the sprites could be broken down to the same generic pieces as the randomly generated NFTs this would mean repeating the effort for every NFT collection. The motivation to do this for apes is clear (if you want to r…

>Why should they? Because they may want to provide user value by being a centralized place where you can manage all of your virtual items and NFTs are a component of that. >it's not worth anything because nobody else sees any value in it now that the rental place is gone. These items can be reused by other applications to give them a new life. Even in your DVD store example a competing DVD store or streaming service…

> Even in your DVD store example a competing DVD store or streaming service could offer you a sign up bonus or discount if you could prove you had €5 or more credit with the store that went out of business.

This makes no sense at all, why should a company give me some credit based on credit I had with another company that is even out of business? I could see it working if the two companies are competitors, but if one of the two is out of business it isn't a competitor anymore.

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

#48

Post by erwinh »

pornel wrote: post #32
erwinh wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stuff like this would be interesting but I think could only work if all art assets are then also uploaded to IPFS, game code is made open source so anyone could run/build/modify the game experience without any permission of the original publisher. No game business seem to be really committing to that full picture yet…

If the game is open source, you can add whatever items you want, without any blockchain nonsense.

True from a pure solo experience perspective, blockhains are a social construct so only relevant between people. I can imagine e.g. wanting to matchmake against only those players in a tcg who will play with the cards they have on-chain.

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

#49

Post by ManlyBread »

xk_id wrote: post #28
ManlyBread wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

This all sounds cool in theory but I'd like to point out that NFTs have existed for quite a while now and so far none of these things have ever been implemented in any of the released games. Which makes me doubtful that people are interested in these kinds of solutions in the first place.

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

#50

Post by GTP »

xk_id wrote: post #28
ManlyBread wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

You can have interoperable assets without using a blockchain at all.
Post reply on HN