-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Discord CEO appears to suggest some sort of Ethereum/NFT integration in Discord is coming
- Thread starter HybridEidolon
- Start date
- Rumor
Do you know what the Steam marketplace is? It's not on Steam interest to let NFT in in their ecosystem because it clashes with their own centralised solution. People thinking Steam doing this is the best for them are either ignorant or delusional.
I wasn't talking about procedural generated content. I was talking about human made assets.
It's good for me since I then don't have to deal with games that have this.
You say this like I have to interact with the steam marketplace to use steam.
At least with NFT games being banned from the platform they're not being platformed/have ease of distribution.
I knew Discord would go down the shitter after they didn't get acquired. I know people dislike big companies acquiring smaller ones. But Discord is so hard to generate revenue from and it's so expensive to run that something had to happen that would piss off a lot of people, whether that was ads or this.
You seem to be fundamentally opposed to any sort of NFT related system at all but seem to consistently stop short of saying why.
Let's say hypothetically that a game in the future was using a proof-of-stake, distributed blockchain ledger to track ownership of a loot item you won in a game.
In what way specifically is this a problem for you?
I think they are trying to inflate their price not trying to remain independent.
I am opposed to it because I don't see the need for it.
What's the benefit of such an item over... a random generated item?
Here's the thing tho. Why? What benefit does that bring that currently existing games already don't have?
Just canceled my Nitro Subscription; sounds like they'll have enough money without my subscription. And all I used my sub for was the 100mb upload limit.
I mean theoretically it's just a different form of ledger to identify which in game assets belong to the inventory of which player. It doesn't inherently imply some some of monetisation or even use of cryptocurrency. That is just one potential use case, in the same way that same way Steam/Epic/Fortnite/Playstation Network/Nintendo Switch Online/Xbox/Apple App Store/Google Play etc assign digital licenses to players, some of which are monetised and others which are free. If certain types of monetisation are dealbreakers for you, you just don't consume those products. Games using a NFT/blockchain back end will be no different in that regard.
I don't see how random generation is a factor here? What are you talking about.
No offence but a few posts back you had no idea what proof-of-stake was, which is a pretty big tell you don't really understand blockchain tech to even a moderate degree. That's fine, but you seem to be passionately and disproportionately opposed to something you don't seem to know much about, to the extent that you are making some very specific slippery slope assumptions about use cases in order to justify the passion.
I'm cool with not understandig it. I am not the brightest candle, as you said.
And no one has yet explained to me what I would gain out of it, other than making some investors happy.
And that's why NFT game stans sound like actual children, because they don't even start to think about any single step of this whole process. I'm actually convinced now this is just astroturfing, because holy fuck y'all aren't even trying.
Most of the proposals and early implementations have been for egregious pay to win mechanics where you can buy/sell unique NFTs that give you a mechanical advantage in the game, so probably that.
On one hand, it means all game balance is ruined forever, but you might be able to sell a god roll weapon in Destiny 3 to some sweaty crucible player for a few hundred bucks.
There are lots of decisions businesses make, visible and invisible, that don't necessarily translate to direct gains for the consumer. Some of them can just be financial restructures, supply chain improvements, hardware revisions to reduce manufacturing costs, changing middleware, outsourcing elements of production etc. Utilising some sort of existing blockchain technology instead of developing in house solutions could simply be another one of those.
Ultimately most businesses do exist to deliver returns to investors. If you are going to hold every decision that make to a standard of "but how does it benefit the consumer directly", you're going to be angry most of the time.
My dude, content keys for games based on real world products have existed for a LONG time, are my WoW TCG cards NFTs? Because if that's the case, content keys died off pretty hard.
As expected then. Don't want.
Then I stay angry. Think I am done here, you really sound like someone that is heavily invested already (maybe also financially). So godspeed and good luck.
YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING ARGUMENTS ABOUT "LOOK HOW NFTS ARE GOING TO BENEFIT THE CONSUMER" THO
EDIT: ABOUT SHIT THAT DOESN'T EVEN BENEFIT THE COMPANIES IN THE LONG RUN
and then they talk down to people who (logically) think it sounds kind of pointless and stupid
As I said earlier, I have one 2 dollar NFT that I bought for a laugh to burn a couple of bucks worth of Wax in a wallet. That is the extent of my current "investment".
Unfortunately there is a perception here (see MechaJackie's childish post above) that anyone who doesn't outright blanket condemn anything blockchain adjacent is a "stan" or a self-interested shill. It's a pretty hostile place to try and talk about any of this stuff with anything other than outright contempt.
"Play to earn" is such weasel language and it makes me viscerally uncomfortable. The way they pitch it its like you play a game you already bought like you normally would, and in the course of doing so you earn lotto tickets or real cryptocurrency that you can sell or trade for real money. Who wouldn't want that? Also who the fuck is going to build a game that gives out free money to all its players?
The reality is always going to be more like the Diablo 3 Real Money Auction House. And I'm going to ask this again since no-one has really addressed it directly yet: was Diablo 3 fun to play when the RMAH was active?
I mean have you read the open letter by some crypto bro devs that they send to steam to allow their garbage on Steam again?
As if there was any doubt before lol.
Probably the part where the company's going try using the ~blockchain~ to make money off that concept and make the game worse.
Like, again, there's no point for companies trying to utilize the blockchain if the end result is just going to be "well it's like what we had before except now we have to do it more clunkier with the blockchain compared to what we have before" for them. It's very obvious the whole point of blockchain efforts by the various companies showing interest in them is because they think they can make money off it, and there's no other reason I can see why hypothetical MMO where the loot drops are all NFTs would do that except if it was intending for real money to get involved with said loot drops in some way.
Like you can't just go "well what if it was just a completely normal game", because it seems very evident to everybody that the whole point of these efforts is to not just make yet another normal game?
Because if you were making a normal game...why on earth would you just kneecap yourself by going "ok now we just need to completely reinvent the wheel with this new technology, including making very weird workarounds to deal with the fact that there's basic expectations people have for a game that's going be very hard to normally do with a blockchain based backend".
Because I already addressed such stupid shit like "Company is gonna sell you an NFT that you're gonna use on other games!!!", and it's like WHY? Why would any company do that, why the fuck would some other dev spend time and money implementing your shitty NFT in to their game for NO MONETARY GAIN FOR THEM? Are you gonna pay everyone single one of these devs to implement your shitty Nike shoes into their game? If they are gonna put some shitty Nike shoes into their game, why wouldn't they sell it themselves the shitty nike shoe and make you pay for it again?
THIS POST RIGHT HERE
It sounds like your issue here is more the monetisation of games? If so, I share similar concerns.
I don't see what is is about the blockchain in particular that will inherently make this problem worse? Companies have proven perfectly capable of ruining games with monetisation without blockchain technology. Generally they incur the wrath (or lose the dollars) of consumers when they push it too far.
Because it's buying into a scam, there are environmentally harmful cryptocurrencies that work by generating unique hashes, which are bad.
But there are also ones that generate value on their currency by introducing more users buying into the platform. This is called a pyramid scheme.
NFTs are the doTerra, the Cutco, the Tupperware, the Avon, of the internet. People who try to sell people on them, are that old lady their mom or dad knew that would come by with a book to tell you all about these products you need, that if you buy they make money for themselves, that they then spend on buying more product to sell, slowly losing money. But earning money for the people who spearheaded the pyramid scheme.
Can you use blockchain verification tech independent of crypto at all? The examples I recall off the top of my head mostly need you to trade in an applicable currency (I assume part of the verification process requires gas fees in crypto, especially in a proof of stake system?)
Because so far the entire purpose of blockchain on the consumer end so far seems to have been re-implementing [real life thing] but worse in terms of both the far more intense speculation involved, the limited use people get out of it, and in terms of how easy it is for people to just get conned out of stuff.
We got stock market but worse (the misnomer that is cryptocurrencies), we got the art market but worse (NFTs as they currently exist), so why on earth would I want video games but worse?
like yeah that's more a factor of lol capitalism than something inherent to blockchain itself, but man it is weird how blockchain keeps coming up when it comes to the new "man this manages to be both a utter waste of money and a way for people to get scammed in a way that it's hard for them to recover whatever money they did spend into it" thing of the season, isn't it?
I don't think there is anything in that post talking that up as a great benefit for the consumerThe context was a hypothetical use case from a business perspective trying to find an angle how a gaming company might try and exploit NFTs in their profit model. It was not promoting it as something I want as a consumer. In fact, I find the idea of spending money on in-game cosmetics really stupid from a consumer standpoint, blockchain or otherwise. But a lot of companies make a lot of money from it.
Well as I said, it was a very loose hypothetical, I wasn't fleshing out a whole business case for it. That said, I did suggest that the smart contracts on the NFT's could be programmed to share sales revenue with various partners. I mean you don't need to look far to see similar sort of cross-brand promotions happening all the time. Epic make a killing with it in Fortnite with V-Bucks. But in any case, you are reading far too much into a very lose hypothetical that you have taken entirely out of context.
It would depend on the use case and if you are using it for monetisation or not. Then you would have varying options, including using stablecoins if you want to avoid more volatile cryptocurrencies.
Gas fees on proof-of-stake systems are decreasing rapidly. We're talking 3-5 cents on a lot of platforms, and they will keep going down.
You could maybe earn less than minimum wage if you were very diligent and played it like a job. That will probably still be the case, but the small number of items that sell for huge amounts will be much more publicized and you'll be able to display them on your social media profiles.
Ok seriously though what has happened in the last few weeks to where every corporation feels the need to jump in? I totally missed Pixar is fucking doing it.
The Facebook Metaverse announcement seems to have been the tipping point in getting literally every company to decide NFTs are the future and the future is now.
It will require more energy than not regardless of how you spin it and thats just not something we should be doing right now. Consumerism has already gone far enough.
Firstly, you need to get your scam terminology right. NFTs in the very specific use case I suspect you are talking about (i.e. people buying and selling shitty jpegs of pixellated monkeys for obscene amounts) are much more akin to a pump and dump scam, not a pyramid scheme, which is a very different type of scam.
But outside that specific use case, NFTs in a technological sense are just a way of keeping records that are as close to immutable as possible. For the records to be changed, it requires a level of mass consensus that just can't be replicated in any other way. We're talking use cases as banal as preserving contracts, asset purchases, legal agreements, records of correspondence.... anything really where keeping records intact and unable to be doctored is important.
So yes, as with any new discovery or opportunity, there is always an influx of scammers or people who try to exploit others. But then there is also genuine utility that emerges as well. In the same way that some people here make the following false conclusion.
A: Bitcoin is a Crypocurrency
B: Bitcoin is bad for the environment
Bad conclusion: Therefore Cryptocurrencies are inherently bad for the environment.
A: People are able to use Non-Fungible Technologies to exchange things
B: A lot of people are utilising NFTs in a pump and dump scam which is creating an idiotic bubble of people wasting money on worthless jpegs.
Bad Conclusion: NFTs are inherently a scam.
In reality, there are various use cases, and some companies are going to try and do some outlandish bullshit no doubt. As with other shitty monetisation schemes whether it is loot boxes in Battlefront or Pay to Win mobile games that play ads every 15 seconds, consumers usually make their displeasure known.
Legit, this is the same argument I heard from a friend who got into selling essential oils, just replaced with crypto/NFTs.
It's newest get rich scheme companies want to join. It's so low cost entry and potentialy free money for them.
If the global financial switched to a proof-of-stake digital currency system it would be far less of a resource hog than the existing financial/fiat system. Unfortunately we are trapped in the past by path dependency.
Yes but what kicked it off in like the last 2 weeks? I think this user has the right answer:
Legit, reductio ad absurdiums like the above are the same logical fallacies I hear from friends who have no interest in discussing things in good faith.
All of these companies track "aspirational play" (playing this game could make me rich and/or famous) as a metric and see this as a way to send it into the stratosphere.
Except, I have exactly heard these arguments from people who are lost in pyramid/mlm schemes, Just because essential oils have a use, doesn't mean that what they're a part of isn't a scam. Is all crypto a scam? No, but are the Cryptos that aren't a scam used for money laundering? Absolutely.
User Banned (2 Weeks): Trolling and Making Fun of People's Identity; History of Trolling
For the record, Stan is not the preferred nomenclature. Fomosexual is what I like to be called.
Not gonna quote anyone here, but NFTs are definitely not the Steam marketplace. It's not a logical point of comparison when NFT just sells you "ownership" of a thing that anyone else can also access. Items on Steam marketplace HAVE to be bought in order to use or display. If you could right-click/save a CS:GO skin to use in your own game but knew deep down you didn't "own" it, things would be different. If you could display any trading card on your profile but there wasn't a menu within a menu that said "ChrisD owns this card" then it'd be a fair comparison.
It's a bad comparison. It doesn't work.
It's a bad comparison. It doesn't work.