jacobvandy wrote on Jan 13, 2022, 19:28:
That's a lot of words to essentially be asking, "what's stopping me from minting my own Bitcoins and becoming instantly rich?" Because NFTs are cryptocurrency like any other, just with added embedded data. Short answer, the blockchain is stopping you, the one generally agreed upon to be the only legitimate ledger. Hence the term 'non-fungible token."

Anyone can create an NFT, yes, just like anyone can create their own blockchain or their own contract token on one of the major existing blockchains. There are loads of phishing scams pretending to be other cryptos or even cryptos named after a website URL or social media handle so that it's easily spammed to millions of wallet addresses. But you can't copy the original NFT on the legitimate blockchain/contract, that's pretty much the whole point... Your counterfeit NFT will neither be compatible with nor at all recognized by the legitimate market.

These "parties/entities" you speak of, they are not involved with managing the NFTs after they've been created, that's all on the blockchain. Either NFTs are pre-generated and exist as a finite number of cryptocurrency tokens, or there is a contract on the blockchain (a block of code initially uploaded by the "party/entity") that handles creating new ones on demand within pre-set parameters. Such a contract will also be automatically disbursing the NFTs, whether for a purchase price or as a random giveaway or whatever the author decided. There is obviously a tacit agreement by anyone placing value into the NFTs that the originating blockchain/contract is the only legitimate source, and I doubt that market will bear imitators or support any games that do.

As for all of it going away if the blockchain should fail, well, that's the same sort of risk all of crypto has carried with it since it began nearly 15 years ago. The same sort of risk carried with investing in a lot of things digital. People have lost entire libraries of games, movies, or music in that time, when a service shut down or was sold off and re-branded without transferring your licenses unless you opted-in within a certain window, if that was offered at all. So most people mitigate that risk by sticking with long-established and healthy platforms. Nobody's forced to throw in with every new crypto start-up, although some folks do like to take that gamble. I don't currently own any NFTs (though I did check out Axie Infinity last year -- my previous remark about the quality of current blockchain games is based on some experience), but I believe in the potential of their utility. It goes far beyond this "link to a .jpeg" nonsense that has thus far been the subject of most mainstream conversation.

I'm disappointed in your understanding of my post. I will try to be more clear in the future. I understand how mining and NFTs are created. Copying a digital asset and creating a new NFT with the same digital asset would be a separate NFT, but the digital good is identical. Blockchains do not enforce that all digital goods in the block chain have to be unique.

Try taking a devil's advocate stance to your own position. I believe that if you think critically about your position that you'll see the problems. It boils down to: if the system isn't better in anyway, and it is actually worse in many other ways, then what good is the system? What problem is the blockchain solving?

Has the same risk. Still requires a centralized authority to avoid the problems when there is no authority. So what good is the blockchain?

Can you describe your ideal future where digital goods are traded between people? Please include why your ideal future HAS to be created on a blockchain and why it can't use traditional centralized databases? I suspect that your ideal future of digital good trading is entirely possibly and more efficient if implemented without a blockchain.

To be clear, I am fully in support of buying and selling digital goods. I've done it in the past and will continue to do so in the future. I am only against blockchains in general because as a software engineer, I would feel grossly irresponsible if I replaced an efficient system with something that performs orders of magnitude worse.

FloodAnxiety wrote on Jan 13, 2022, 15:45:
So what exactly is your NFT good for? Who is going to stop the copying?

That's a lot of words to essentially be asking, "what's stopping me from minting my own Bitcoins and becoming instantly rich?" Because NFTs are cryptocurrency like any other, just with added embedded data. Short answer, the blockchain is stopping you, the one generally agreed upon to be the only legitimate ledger. Hence the term 'non-fungible token."

Anyone can create an NFT, yes, just like anyone can create their own blockchain or their own contract token on one of the major existing blockchains. There are loads of phishing scams pretending to be other cryptos or even cryptos named after a website URL or social media handle so that it's easily spammed to millions of wallet addresses. But you can't copy the original NFT on the legitimate blockchain/contract, that's pretty much the whole point... Your counterfeit NFT will neither be compatible with nor at all recognized by the legitimate market.

These "parties/entities" you speak of, they are not involved with managing the NFTs after they've been created, that's all on the blockchain. Either NFTs are pre-generated and exist as a finite number of cryptocurrency tokens, or there is a contract on the blockchain (a block of code initially uploaded by the "party/entity") that handles creating new ones on demand within pre-set parameters. Such a contract will also be automatically disbursing the NFTs, whether for a purchase price or as a random giveaway or whatever the author decided. There is obviously a tacit agreement by anyone placing value into the NFTs that the originating blockchain/contract is the only legitimate source, and I doubt that market will bear imitators or support any games that do.

As for all of it going away if the blockchain should fail, well, that's the same sort of risk all of crypto has carried with it since it began nearly 15 years ago. The same sort of risk carried with investing in a lot of things digital. People have lost entire libraries of games, movies, or music in that time, when a service shut down or was sold off and re-branded without transferring your licenses unless you opted-in within a certain window, if that was offered at all. So most people mitigate that risk by sticking with long-established and healthy platforms. Nobody's forced to throw in with every new crypto start-up, although some folks do like to take that gamble. I don't currently own any NFTs (though I did check out Axie Infinity last year -- my previous remark about the quality of current blockchain games is based on some experience), but I believe in the potential of their utility. It goes far beyond this "link to a .jpeg" nonsense that has thus far been the subject of most mainstream conversation.

jacobvandy wrote on Jan 12, 2022, 18:03:
You can store more than enough data directly on a blockchain* to distinctly describe a specific digital item or entity as it would be represented in a game. The only requirement for making it compatible with other games would be to correctly interpret and implement that data.

Either you are saying that the data has enough information to identify it in some other external database, or you are saying that rather than encode the link to the digital good, they could encode the entire digital good. If it is the former, same thing as I said before, that is exactly what they already do. If it is the latter, and it is a game asset, then that game asset is going to be an order of magnitude (possibly several orders of magnitude) larger than a link, and to encode that into the block chain then explodes the amount of data and work that the block chain has to do. I'm not positive, but I suspect that will make it even less efficient to run than a normal server.

Still, I somehow don't believe this argument will sway you. So let's pretend that isn't a problem.

So you own an NFT for a cosmetic from a game. And unfortunately that game went offline due to poor business decisions. But you still own your NFT, and lucky for you, the entire digital good is encoded into the blockchain into an interchangeable format, and a new game is made that can use your proof of ownership to enable you to see your digital good in that new game. This game decodes the asset and sends it to my client so that I can see you wear your digital item. I take the asset and make an NFT on the same block chain and now I own a copy of that asset.

So what exactly is your NFT good for? Who is going to stop the copying?

Since copying a digital good is trivial, a digital good can only have value if the scarcity of the digital good can be controlled. To control the scarcity of the digital good requires the following:
1. An entity controls who gets the digital good
2. The same entity controls copying/transferring the digital good
3. The same entity runs the servers for using the digital good
4. The same entity runs the servers so that others can view you using the digital good

If anyone can create an NFT on the block chain, then anyone can copy anyone else's digital good so long as they can get access to the decoded digital good at some point. If only certain parties can create the NFTs on the block chain, then we are back to the same problem of what happens to the block chain when those parties go bankrupt.

Also, when the incentive for people to run hardware to power this decentralized blockchain disappears, the blockchain and any digital good you have stored in it also dies with the block chain.

I hope this explanation helped. If you are pro-NFT because you are already invested in some, I suggest you sell them ASAP.

Lies and damned lies. They want to give back power and ownership to the players? Very easy. Let people own the games they paid for and mod them at will. Fat chance of that happening.

What a blatant add for magic beans.

"The promise of NFTs is to move power and ownership in the metaverse away from big tech corporations and back to individuals as they exist within their communities."

When was the last time a big tech corporation gave away power and ownership to individual gamers?

NFTs are completely counter to the gold standard for big corporations for extracting maximum profit, which is to rent, not sell product.

The fallacy here no corporation is going to make their NFTs interoperable with others. The just fairy tale blue sky BS, to sell NFT technology.

Orogogus wrote on Jan 12, 2022, 15:10:
The tone there, and in this article, is that while there may be a niche for traditional games, everyone big enough to be considered a non-indie publisher should absolutely go all-in on NFTs because they're going to make money hand over fist.

I guess my question is, what good are NFTs for games that aren't addictive grinds? If the answer is, "nothing", then is "singleplayer game that you beat in 4-30 hours" going to be a strictly indie field dominated by retro art?

Big publishers now make a shit-load of money from loot boxes and other MTX, yet still not everything they release is saturated with those. The very nature of their business, to appeal to as many customers as possible, means they don't ever really go completely "all-in" on anything. Especially not when a vocal minority on social media can cause them so many PR headaches. But NFTs do have real potential to be the same sort of paradigm shift as what we know as MTX have been, so they certainly can't ignore it.

Even if indies were the only ones left making traditional games, that wouldn't be such a bad thing IMO. I enjoy more of that stuff than of the AAA releases we get these days anyway, and the technology is getting to the point where making something that looks like it is less than 10 years old is not that much harder than doing pixel art. But that's a different discussion.

FloodAnxiety wrote on Jan 12, 2022, 15:46:
The blockchain does not include the digital good, it is only proof of purchase. An NFT becomes worthless as soon as the server hosting the digital good goes offline.

That's not completely true, it's just the cheapest/laziest way to go about doing it. Especially if you're using the Ethereum network with its absurd fees for something like a high-quality image file several megabytes in size. You can store more than enough data directly on a blockchain* to distinctly describe a specific digital item or entity as it would be represented in a game. The only requirement for making it compatible with other games would be to correctly interpret and implement that data.

*Keep in mind that there are several blockchains out there, or you could even custom-make a new one for your specific purposes.

saluk wrote on Jan 12, 2022, 16:59:
Oh hey look! A sponsored article written by the owner of a company that promotes NFTs trying to push back against the pr that NFTs are bad for games (which they are).

This is literally just an ad.

"It's A Trap Ad"

Thank You @saluk for pointing that out.

What a perfect way to end the thread.

fakespyder wrote on Jan 12, 2022, 16:37:
Upper Echelon Gamers has a good video on this subject.
The stats may be a little old but - When 10% of traders are doing 85% of the trading on 97% of all NFTs - it becomes obvious that they're trying to generate a market that looks amazing, at a cursory glance, but is built on crap.

This is where we get the insane stories of ridiculously priced NFTs. They're hoping we are stupid enough to put our own money into it because... look at all the activity and huge prices paid!

How they'd get this to work on derivative items in a game, where the only thing unique is a serial number? I don't think they know yet. Maybe the pricing would be low but the transactions so great that they get enough from that.

/Sorry, thinking out loud a bit. I find this whole subject fascinating and sad at the same time

While that was the lowest-effort video I've ever seen (just listen to it, it's a video that's really just an audio file), it absolutely nails why NFTs are a scam, and why the idea of having items you could use across different games is a pipe dream. Thanks for the link, fakespyder, good 15 minute listen you found!

Oh hey look! A sponsored article written by the owner of a company that promotes NFTs trying to push back against the pr that NFTs are bad for games (which they are).

This is literally just an ad.

So it all comes back to "owning a game". That NFT is only as good as long as the game is supported and runs.

Upper Echelon Gamers has a good video on this subject.
The stats may be a little old but - When 10% of traders are doing 85% of the trading on 97% of all NFTs - it becomes obvious that they're trying to generate a market that looks amazing, at a cursory glance, but is built on crap.

This is where we get the insane stories of ridiculously priced NFTs. They're hoping we are stupid enough to put our own money into it because... look at all the activity and huge prices paid!

How they'd get this to work on derivative items in a game, where the only thing unique is a serial number? I don't think they know yet. Maybe the pricing would be low but the transactions so great that they get enough from that.

/Sorry, thinking out loud a bit. I find this whole subject fascinating and sad at the same time

FloodAnxiety wrote on Jan 12, 2022, 15:46:

The promise of NFTs is to move power and ownership in the metaverse away from big tech corporations and back to individuals as they exist within their communities. In today’s gaming landscape, players either spend money or substantial amounts of time on acquiring virtual goods that are only effectively rented from the game-maker, with no real-world value or possibility of existing outside the confines of that world. With the passage of time and as certain consoles or titles fall out of favor, all of this effort dissolves into nothing.

Blockchain gaming spells the end of this reality.

The author clearly explains why NFTs won't work in the first paragraph. Then in the second state that blockchains are going to fix it, but they never bother explaining how the blockchain is magically going to fix the problem they describe. The blockchain does not include the digital good, it is only proof of purchase. An NFT becomes worthless as soon as the server hosting the digital good goes offline.

Succinct and excellently put. At least currently, NFTs are a glorified link to whatever content, with massively increased speculation. Zero benefit to end users in regards to the actual games.

The promise of NFTs is to move power and ownership in the metaverse away from big tech corporations and back to individuals as they exist within their communities. In today’s gaming landscape, players either spend money or substantial amounts of time on acquiring virtual goods that are only effectively rented from the game-maker, with no real-world value or possibility of existing outside the confines of that world. With the passage of time and as certain consoles or titles fall out of favor, all of this effort dissolves into nothing.

Blockchain gaming spells the end of this reality.

The author clearly explains why NFTs won't work in the first paragraph. Then in the second state that blockchains are going to fix it, but they never bother explaining how the blockchain is magically going to fix the problem they describe. The blockchain does not include the digital good, it is only proof of purchase. An NFT becomes worthless as soon as the server hosting the digital good goes offline.

jacobvandy wrote on Jan 12, 2022, 14:51:
You're getting stuck on a problem that doesn't exist and probably never will -- nobody is saying that NFTs will pervade every aspect of every single game. There will still be traditional games made in the same manner they are now, just as there are still countless games being made today which explicitly imitate the stylings of 20-40 years ago.

I feel like you heavily implied it in the previous discussion.

Of course it scares the hell out of these traditional publishers who hesitate to give over any ownership of anything to players, but at the same time I think none of them want to be too far behind in adopting it because they would quickly become obsolete.

The tone there, and in this article, is that while there may be a niche for traditional games, everyone big enough to be considered a non-indie publisher should absolutely go all-in on NFTs because they're going to make money hand over fist.

I guess my question is, what good are NFTs for games that aren't addictive grinds? If the answer is, "nothing", then is "singleplayer game that you beat in 4-30 hours" going to be a strictly indie field dominated by retro art?

Orogogus wrote on Jan 12, 2022, 12:44:
It still sounds kind of... awful to me? I don't see why I should want to own my +5 longsword "for real"; I don't care that the game company "owns" that sword. I'm more worried about whether how well it's balanced in its game, allowing progression to continue at the intended pace while making it feel like characters are getting stronger. But pacing and plot seem to be taking a distant back seat to directly attacking the reward centers of people's brains. It really seems like the goal is to make every game into an always-online addictive grind. The main benefit of shared items and loot seems to be making it easy for people to get invested into more grinds. I assume someone's busy researching the techniques drug dealers and casinos use to grow their revenue streams.

You're getting stuck on a problem that doesn't exist and probably never will -- nobody is saying that NFTs will pervade every aspect of every single game. There will still be traditional games made in the same manner they are now, just as there are still countless games being made today which explicitly imitate the stylings of 20-40 years ago.

I've mentioned this before, but an interview with a former EA developer from a few years ago said he left the industry after more than a decade due to the shift toward making money. Meetings that used to be "how can we make the best game" had mostly shifted to "how can we best monetize the game." I see this as just an extension of granular and endless DLC, MTs, lootboxes, etc.

Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 12, 2022, 12:37:
Said it before, I'll say it again -- I need to figure out how to get into this scam of selling NFTs....

Take a picture of yourself, label it "Reasonable Man," and sell the NFT. 😀

For fuck's sake, I'm not playing games for an investment. When the fuck are these leeches going to learn that? Hopefully most gamers aren't playing games assuming they will get rich, or at least be able to significantly supplement their income.

Aside from that, the scam of the NFT is surely not going to benefit the end users more than the companies, otherwise why in the everloving fuck would they ever do it?

It's a real shame, the internet and gaming in general used to be a relatively harmless space, 25 years ago. Now it's beyond infected by corporate greed, like pretty much every aspect of human existence.

This will kill gaming as we know it in the end. It'll just be a second or third job with flashy lights.

"Gamers are ready for NFTs, whether they know it or not."

I got such negative vibes reading that article

This article echoes the same points that jacobvandy raised a few days ago regarding the benefits of NFTs for gaming:

The promise of NFTs is to move power and ownership in the metaverse away from big tech corporations and back to individuals as they exist within their communities. In today’s gaming landscape, players either spend money or substantial amounts of time on acquiring virtual goods that are only effectively rented from the game-maker, with no real-world value or possibility of existing outside the confines of that world. With the passage of time and as certain consoles or titles fall out of favor, all of this effort dissolves into nothing.
...
The way we see it, ensuring that value is cross-chain compatible will be essential, as no one metaverse will remain competitive if siloed from the others. The creation of a shared item and loot universe across games dramatically improves the value gamers derive from their virtual investments. This is akin to the advent of cross-continent navigation, something taken for granted today. The new trade routes between Europe and Asia connected the formerly siloed regions, generating greater wealth for all sides. The same will happen when blockchains and game universes are bridged.

It still sounds kind of... awful to me? I don't see why I should want to own my +5 longsword "for real"; I don't care that the game company "owns" that sword. I'm more worried about whether how well it's balanced in its game, allowing progression to continue at the intended pace while making it feel like characters are getting stronger. But pacing and plot seem to be taking a distant back seat to directly attacking the reward centers of people's brains. It really seems like the goal is to make every game into an always-online addictive grind. The main benefit of shared items and loot seems to be making it easy for people to get invested into more grinds. I assume someone's busy researching the techniques drug dealers and casinos use to grow their revenue streams.

It also talks about pay-to-earn.

But there are also advantages: smart contracts enable trustless systems, and most of the cut that would’ve been claimed by a middle-man can be given to the players. This is play-to-earn, and one of the early experiments helped poorer folks in the Philippines get through the pandemic. Finally we’re acknowledging the value non-paying players provide to a multiplayer game, and this formula will improve over time.

Damn those middlemen. So who's paying in the money for everyone to earn? It's not going to be the game company. Is it players in Western countries? New players at the bottom of the pyramid? Whales?