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

51–60 of 67 posts

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

#51

Post by GTP »

proto-n wrote: post #20
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…

> 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-gam…

Yes, so what added value do NFTs bring to the table after all?

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

#52

Post by mattdesl »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #14
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,…

> 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 transact…

Axie Infinity used a proof-of-authority side chain secured by a multisig bridge. It was not what most people refer to as L2s - which can achieve the same scalability as a side chain but with much stronger security properties (using validity or fraud proofs), and without compromising on decentralization.

There’s certainly a good case to be made for NFTs and blockchains in games, but you first have to overcome their associated stigma and misconceptions.

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

#53

Post by D13Fd »

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.

Yes but having them as NFTs makes it harder to do that, not easier.

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

#54

Post by charcircuit »

Fatnino wrote: post #44
charcircuit wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It really isn't if games are following a standard for their NFT. You at least can use it as a generic item.

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

#55

Post by charcircuit »

josefx wrote: post #45
charcircuit wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Baldurs Gate didn't preserve the scarcity of items. You can duplicate the export and share that with many different people. Items are no longer a unique thing that exists in the world.

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

#56

Post by charcircuit »

GTP wrote: post #47
charcircuit wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 on…

>why should a company give me some credit based on credit I had with another company that is even out of business?

Because the more credit that person had with the other business the more valuable the customer would be to have.

>but if one of the two is out of business it isn't a competitor anymore.

There are still other competitors who will be fighting over all of the customers looking for a new a company to replace the one that went out of business.

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

#57

Post by xk_id »

GTP wrote: post #50
xk_id wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

How exactly? I’m not aware of any other technology/set of standards for this use case that are implemented and operational right now.

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

#58

Post by josefx »

charcircuit wrote: post #55
josefx wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Baldurs Gate didn't preserve the scarcity of items. You can duplicate the export and share that with many different people. Items are no longer a unique thing that exists in the world.

> Items are no longer a unique thing that exists in the world.

Given that anyone can apparently throw up their own instances of the game server and you can freely exchange NFTs generated by each that would seem to be a given from the start? Or how do you decide which copy of the dagger+1 NFT is legit of both where generated by different instances of the game?

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

#59

Post by charcircuit »

josefx wrote: post #58
charcircuit wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Baldurs Gate didn't preserve the scarcity of items. You can duplicate the export and share that with many different people. Items are no longer a unique thing that exists in the world.

> Items are no longer a unique thing that exists in the world. Given that anyone can apparently throw up their own instances of the game server and you can freely exchange NFTs generated by each that would seem to be a given from the start? Or how do you decide which copy of the dagger+1 NFT is legit of both where generated by different instances of the game?

The items would be instance specific. Servers can only trust items that they themselves issued.

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

#60

Post by p1necone »

charcircuit wrote: post #59
josefx wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Items are no longer a unique thing that exists in the world. Given that anyone can apparently throw up their own instances of the game server and you can freely exchange NFTs generated by each that would seem to be a given from the start? Or how do you decide which copy of the dagger+1 NFT is legit of both where generated by different instances of the game?

The items would be instance specific. Servers can only trust items that they themselves issued.

Right, so the item is tied to a specific server, the functionality of the item is implemented by that specific server, and that server only trusts NFTs that it issued itself.

What value is the NFT adding exactly?

I'm not saying that implementing an item trading system via NFTs isn't a way to do it. Just that you seem to be ascribing a whole lot of importance to something that's basically just a technical detail.

Video games can already let you trade items between each other, export assets outside of the game to use elsewhere, exchange real money for things etc etc. if the developers want to let you do that.

This is not a technical problem, this is a "I want games that do this, but nobody building games wants their games to do this" problem.

Post reply on HN