Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
1–10 of 67 posts
Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
#2Atari isn't a classic gaming name; it's the latest in a line of pretenders (4th?) Who have bought the name at auction.
Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
#3Going 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'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.
Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
#4Going 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 only difference between an in-game economy where items are transferable and an NFT version is that you can withdraw the items to neutral third-party exchanges and you can see the total inventory of items in the game at all times.
I think there are benefits to having an open economy. With the switch to proof-of-stake blockchains the environmental argument is moot. I don’t see what the big deal is with NFT hate other than a general push back against developers overly-monetizing (but then again, who will pay for servers?) and general hate for crypto.
Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
#5I outlined some thoughts on how game NFTs could work, and provide benefits over current centralized models.[1]
I don’t take much stock in play-to-earn or “playable bored apes” or whatever some publishers are currently investing in.
[1] https://gist.github.com/mattdesl/ec2bf085b19407695b23cb90f6f...
Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
#6Going 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 only difference between an in-game economy where items are transferable and an NFT version is that you can withdraw the items to neutral third-party exchanges and you can see the total inventory of items in the game at all times. I think there are benefits to having an open economy. With the switch to proof-of-stake blockchains the environmental argument is moot. I don’t see what the big deal is with NFT hate oth…
[deleted]
Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
#7IMHO, 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.
Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
#8Going 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,…
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…
Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
#9I 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?
Re: Why classic gaming names like Atari are still going in on the blockchain
#10Going 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?