Game developer shares insight on why NFT games (and NFTs in general) suck

[Farlander]

NFTs are a fad that will pass relatively quickly.

It's 'trending' nowadays so of course investors in publishing companies want to hear how the publishers will jump onto the train and publishers of course want to please the investors, planet be damned.

The truth of the matter is though there's nothing you can do with NFTs that you can't already do with cheaper and easier to manage systems that already exist. "Oh we can have a unique asset". That asset still has to be done by an artist, integrated by a developer, tested by QA, have an ownership switch within a game, and you could literally do stuff like this for at least more than a decade already. Only now there would be extra work and extra cost to make it connected to NFTs somehow.

So even if publishers don't care about the global impact of blockchain on our environment, they at least care about profit margins, and long-term NFTs provide none.

 

[Thordinson]

• NFTs create fake scarcity for digital items, when that literally shouldn't ever be the case for digital items. That's why they're digital. If you want scarcity, look into physical items.

Click to shrink...

There is plenty of scarcity in digital items though. Tons of games have skins available for limited times and loot boxes are artificial scarcity.

 

[Vash]

If I could go the rest of my life without having to spare a second hearing about NFTs and blockchains that'd be swell

Click to shrink...

Hear hear!

I am glad Doc wrote his piece, it's been causing quite a stir. We need more stuff like this in mainstream media, instead of the fluff pieces glamorizing NFTs.

 

[L Thammy]

Not a cryptolord but I dunno if this was ever the main purpose of crypto.

Click to shrink...

Maybe "appeal" is a better word? Like, I don't know if money laundering was ever the main purpose, but it's pretty accepted that crypto is great if that's what you're going to do.

 

[Psittacus]

I mean this is a pipe dream because Sony, Nintendo and Xbox would be against it, but the dream use of NFTs would be digital games that can be bought and sold second hand.

Click to shrink...

See that's the thing. The keys not being on the blockchain isn't what prevents that from happening. The use-cases being proposed for NFTs in games are all things that are easily possible with current tech, the reason they don't happen more often is because developers don't want to do them.

There is plenty of scarcity in digital items though. Tons of games have skins available for limited times and loot boxes are artificial scarcity.

Click to shrink...

The author isn't saying it can't be and isn't done currently, they're saying we shouldn't be leaning into it.

 

[Deleted member 41520]

Overall really interesting stuff thanks for sharing but this -

and the blockchain is unenforceable.

Click to shrink...

- isn't true, I don't think? Sounds like fearmongering over blockchain technology, which in itself is very flexible and enforceable and clever.

 

[Scuttlefluff]

Thanks OP! I'll read all of this as it's super relevant to what's going on with my job right now.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

 

[hydrophilic attack]

They're not going to sell one Mario character, to one person. They'll sell a "limited edition", numbered series of the Mario character. 10,000 copies, with the higher numbers costing more. They'll make a killing, and those 10,000 people can lord over everyone else with their special character.

...until they release Mario to the general public, a few months later, having made all that extra cash up front. And those 10,000 people can still feel special about having a numbered version. And if they don't still feel special, they can pony up the money for the next NFT character.

Click to shrink...

why would you need nft for this

they could still store the magic number server-side if someone wants to feel special

 

[Deleted member 81119]

See that's the thing. The keys not being on the blockchain isn't what prevents that from happening. The use-cases being proposed for NFTs in games are all things that are easily possible with current tech, the reason they don't happen more often is because developers don't want to do them.

Click to shrink...

I'm still optimistic that the technology could be used for beneficial means in the future. I mean there's nothing immoral about the tech itself, its just its currently only beneficial to scammers. People say that existing tech does everything that NFTs do, and that is true, but its centralised, and that means companies like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have a frustrating amount of control over our digital purchases.

 

[spam musubi]

I'm still optimistic that the technology could be used for beneficial means in the future. I mean there's nothing immoral about the tech itself, its just its currently only beneficial to scammers. People say that existing tech does everything that NFTs do, and that is true, but its centralised, and that means companies like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have a frustrating amount of control over our digital purchases.

Click to shrink...

The thing is, NFTs won't alleviate that problem. The NFT will be decentralized, sure, but the NFT alone means nothing. It's just a certificate of ownership. The console still has to validate that certificate for you to be able to play a game. So it boils down to the exact same situation we have right now. And that's one of the main criticisms of NFTs as well. An NFT is useless without a centralized authority that can validate your NFT and give you the content that it "proves" you own, since the NFT cannot contain the content itself.

 

[Kahhhhyle]

Good lord anybody who thinks an NFT would mean your gear would carry over game to game understands the concept even less then I do. And I'm an idiot lol.

A LOT of the people in this thread latching on to the only one Mario line are kind of missing the forest for the trees. He said in the main article that a very important part of giving NFTs value is scarcity, which is absolutely true. It doesn't need to necessarily be one of a kind, but it can't be super common or there's no value. Yes he did say 1, but that was just an example.

The truth of the matter is though there's nothing you can do with NFTs that you can't already do with cheaper and easier to manage systems that already exist. "Oh we can have a unique asset". That asset still has to be done by an artist, integrated by a developer, tested by QA, have an ownership switch within a game, and you could literally do stuff like this for at least more than a decade already. Only now there would be extra work and extra cost to make it connected to NFTs somehow.

Click to shrink...

This is what I never understood with regards to NFTs in gaming. Like there are already systems in place where gamers can buy, sell, and trade in game items. So I never understood what NFTs would do that's different from these systems...

Seems like the answer is nothing lol.

 

[Billfisto]

For anyone who says "that Mario example is weak", that's.. the point? That's a use case some dipshit at Bloomberg suggested. He's only saying "look at the bad idea someone suggested. It's pretty self-evidently bad, but the target audience is investors or whatever, so I'll explain why."

- isn't true, I don't think? Sounds like fearmongering over blockchain technology, which in itself is very flexible and enforceable and clever.

Click to shrink...

It's true. If you get your shit stolen, there's basically no recourse to get it back. Who do you think is actually doing the enforcing?

I'm still optimistic that the technology could be used for beneficial means in the future. I mean there's nothing immoral about the tech itself, its just its currently only beneficial to scammers. People say that existing tech does everything that NFTs do, and that is true, but its centralised, and that means companies like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have a frustrating amount of control over our digital purchases.

Click to shrink...

They could literally change the level of control now, if they wanted to.

And what does "decentralized" even mean across operating systems and games?

JPGs can work across operating systems and browsers and stuff because they're platform independent. Games or in-game items are a whole different story.

 

[Deleted member 41520]

It's true. If you get your shit stolen, there's basically no recourse to get it back. Who do you think is actually doing the enforcing?

Click to shrink...

… but it's entirely possible to make a blockchain system which has real names attached to keys. The technology doesnt preclude that. Ethereum is even being used for contracts between huge companies - accountability and legal protection is totally possible with the software.

 

[Billfisto]

… but it's entirely possible to make a blockchain system which has real names attached to keys. The technology doesnt preclude that. Ethereum is even being used for contracts between huge companies - accountability and legal protection is totally possible with the software.

Click to shrink...

I'm not following. If the NFT was transferred, wouldn't that value change? If it's immutable, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of it being transferable?

 

[jsnepo]

So NFTs are just to make some people special?

What a load of bullshit! That's dumber than what I thought NFTs are for. Fucking ridiculous!

 

[Deleted member 41520]

I'm not following. If the NFT was transferred, wouldn't that value change? If it's immutable, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of it being transferable?

Click to shrink...

We're talking about blockchain technology. Not NFTs. Not specific problematic blockchain-based currencies like Bitcoin.

Blockchain technology in itself is flexible and can be used for many ends. For example: recording changes to car ownership registration. Many of its uses can be completely enforcable, accountable and transparent.

I'm not talking about NFTs which by and large are dumb as fuck.

edit: the contention here could be that when you said "the blockchain" you were referring to the NFT-specific blockchains in question. If so, fair enough!

 

[Version 3.0]

why would you need nft for this

they could still store the magic number server-side if someone wants to feel special

Click to shrink...

You need NFT so people think it's cool, instead of incredibly stupid.

 

[spam musubi]

We're talking about blockchain technology. Not NFTs. Not specific problematic blockchain-based currencies like Bitcoin.

Blockchain technology in itself is flexible and can be used for many ends. For example: recording changes to car ownership registration. Many of its uses can be completely enforcable, accountable and transparent.

I'm not talking about NFTs which by and large are dumb as fuck.

edit: the contention here could be that when you said "the blockchain" you were referring to the NFT-specific blockchains in question. If so, fair enough!

Click to shrink...

you can also do this without a blockchain, and with the blockchain you still need an external authority to validate the transaction record. Ultimately the bits on the blockchain are meaningless without some external mapping between those bits and the real world.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

when the article said that the blockchain is unenforceable, they were making a comparison to conventional money and banking systems. the conventional system already has lots of tools to punish bad faith actors. banks help monitor your account for suspicious activity, credit cards can do chargebacks, the government has regulations in place to combat pyramid schemes, frauds, anticompetitive behaviour and pump-and-dumps. at the extreme end, the government has a monopoly on force and can arrest people and lock them up if they're defrauding others on a large scale. meanwhile, such systems are not as established in crypto. i mean, the entire purported selling point of crypto at the start was that it was free from government meddling.

so if you're managing a service, for example a game, there is a lot of overhead for you if you're using a crypto infrastructure compared to the conventional banking system. if a seller is trying to scam a buyer on ebay, ebay can help put a stop to that by using all these enforcement mechanisms in the conventional system. meanwhile, if a user of your crypto game is getting scammed by another user, it'll be more difficult for you as the owner of the platform to arbitrate between the parties. it may not be impossible, but there'll be an overhead in cost and effort to do this if you're using a crypto system compared to if you're using the conventional banking system

 

[JustTeaThankYou]

We're talking about blockchain technology. Not NFTs. Not specific problematic blockchain-based currencies like Bitcoin.

Blockchain technology in itself is flexible and can be used for many ends. For example: recording changes to car ownership registration. Many of its uses can be completely enforcable, accountable and transparent.

Click to shrink...

Which you can do that without the blockchain, with much better results. The system works faster, is less resource intensive by a factor of a few billion, and can have recourse built in for error and the hairy uneven unpredicable reality of the physical world.

 

[samcastor]

I'm waiting for examples beyond this still. EA and Square Enix and whomever giving presentations about 'blockchain games' or NFT items in game sounds so abstract. I know it's partially just buzzwords for shareholders but what are they even referring to.

Also:


Not a cryptolord but I dunno if this was ever the main purpose of crypto.

Click to shrink...

I do not think its that hard to imagine. SE makes many Gacha games that essentially already give you JPEGS for real money. So now, the JPEGS can be NFTs, thats it really. It changes nothing except that you can pay for your waifu JPEGS with crypto instead of other currencies.

 

[Falchion]

Some really great points here. The whole digital scarcity is so dumb. They're just chasing whales who want to dump thousands of dollars on some assets in the game.

 

[Brood]

The fact that there are many examples of "NFT implementation" done without NFTs makes me think that the reason why Corporations are pushing heavily into NFTs is suckering people into more demand for their digital purchases.
Average Joe would hear "NFT" and they'll start buying these digital items hoping that they would make money off it.
Scummy and borderline fraudulent

 

[Falk]

the metaverse will allow games made by different developers to use assets in each other's games just like the internet will enable consoles made by sony and microsoft to have crossplay

Spoiler

lmao

 

[Sande]

It's pretty obvious what NFTs can be used for in gaming once you get out of the jpeg scam mindset.

A whole game can be an NFT, which would allow people to trade and lend digital games just like physical ones. And sure, platform holders could go through massive efforts to create their own real money marketplaces to do the same, but NFTs would allow all the heavy lifting to happen elsewhere and platform holders would only need to check what games you have. Of course here we run into the question of what's in it for platform holders, but that's a separate issue from the viability or use cases of NFTs.

And it could work similarly for any expansions, single items, anything like that.

The main issue is how resource intensive it is. I'm far from an expert on that, but obviously anything that could provide electricity to a small country just to mint one thing makes absolutely no sense. But from what I've understood there are already massively better ways that are being adopted.

The other issue people like to bring up is that it could accelerate artificial scarcity and... I just don't know about that. Games are already full of items that are priced in hundreds of dollars based on how many gacha pulls they take. And lootboxes can get so much more obnoxious with or without NFTs. Just like most of the upsides of NFTs can technically be achieved by other means, the ugly possibilities like complete artificial scarcity can as well.

 

[New Username]

Edit: deleted post

 

[Jobbs]

Their point is no developer is going to make a single asset for a single person to "own".

Click to shrink...

No one thinks they will.

They create many copies of them the same way Nintendo makes many copies of an amiibo. Each copy has a unique block chain identifier. That's how it works in a nft collectible like those from veve.

I'm not an nft defender but this "point" in particular is definitely invalidating as the person making it has absolutely no idea what they're talking about

 

[Glio]

NFT is just a cool word for investors

 

[Roshin]

It's all for greed.

Click to shrink...

Yes, and that's why devs and publishers are falling all over themselves in a rush to get in.

Lootboxes 2.0.

 

[Sande]

This already existed before the blockchain, no one used it because for the most part existing games and platforms have generous refund policies, already go on frequent sale, have lending procedures, physical games have used copies, and ultimately an increasing percentage of game commercial is free games with premium transaction, that don't need any of those things. For the most part the only games for which any market would actually exist are digital-only removed-from-sale games.

And in fact, it also already existed on the blockchain before NFTs, there are about 5 or 10 game stores designed to be built around blockchain based reselling. None have actually launched because no one actually wants this. And also the blockchain metaphor works better without the label of NFT, because these are fungible goods, not non-fungible goods. Your copy of Doom 2016 is the same as my copy of Doom 2016. They're as fungible as any good in the world is.

Click to shrink...

If digital reselling doesn't become a thing, it's not because people don't want it, it's because publishers and platform holders don't want it.

 

[New Username]

Edit: deleted post

 

[Jobbs]

How is this "non-fungible"? At a minimum I would think it's important to understand what "N" and "F" in "NFT" mean to have a conversation about it. I can buy a box of eggs and it has a manufacturer's code that serves as a unique identifier for the box, but eggs are still fungible.

Click to shrink...

Because each one has a unique identifier on the blockchain. The unique part is the identifier. They can still share assets.

Using the beforementioned Veve as an example, they deal in digital NFT collectibles that are in the form of 3d models and comic books. So you're collecting virtual scale models and comic books. They typically do them in runs of 5,000 to 50,000 or so, and each copy has a unique mint number on it.

If they release a new batman statue, they don't use that asset, that model, on just one copy of the item. They do a run of them, much like you'd do a run of physical statues. If you buy the batman you might have mint number #1209 or whatever. Yours looks like the others, but it's unique, and there are a finite number of them that exist.

So, yes, in theory, in a video game, they might use NFT characters. And maybe only 50,000 of a character exist. Or 100,000. It can be whatever number they decide to mint.

 

[Hayeya]

I still don't know what NFT's are, and why they are popular, LOL

 

[Jebusman]

I'm not an nft defender but this "point" in particular is definitely invalidating as the person making it has absolutely no idea what they're talking about

Click to shrink...

He made that point because someone already had, in the media, as an actual example. As in, there are people on this earth who non-ironically believe that is a possible use-case.

If you think that point is stupid, then congratulations, you're already in disagreement with a number of NFT advocates.

Of course here we run into the question of what's in it for platform holders, but that's a separate issue from the viability or use cases of NFTs.

Click to shrink...

But it's not separate. It's entirely core to the usefulness of NFTs if the platform holders themselves are not actually benefiting from that change. They have been provided a solution to a problem they did not have.

This is part of the whole medium article, how NFT advocates believe the onus is on developers to figure out how to use the technology they created, as if NFTs are the "obvious" solution to "something", but it's not their job to figure that part out, and get angry when you refuse to get on board. It's putting the cart before the horse.

Gods Unchained. https://godsunchained.com/
Here is Gods Unchaineds market: https://market.x.immutable.com/assets?collection=0xacb3c6a43d15b907e8433077b6d38ae40936fe2c

Click to shrink...

So i just wanted to mention, because in my deep dive of NFT games to better understand the grift, Gods Unchained is a particularly egregious example because it's currently broken.

For anyone unaware, the "gimmick" of Gods Unchained is that as you win matches and collect cards/resources, you can "craft" versions of the cards that are actually sellable on the market (aka, you are creating a new NFT).

The problem is that because Gods built themselves on top of the Ethereum network, and currently transaction (gas) fees are so insane right now, it's not actually economically viable to "mint" a $0.01 common for the $13~ you'd pay to do so. So they disabled the feature.

Also, it wasn't even really economically viable to "trade" these cards because of those fees as well. Imagine wanting to trade pokemon cards but you had to pay a middle man $20.

But don't worry! They're launching a "layer 2" network that sits on top of Ethereum that should alleviate those transaction fees and make it viable again. Now you can buy/craft/trade cards to your heart's content!

Except, the crafting part is still disabled. And has been disabled for (almost?) a year. Because it's still not finished.

So the whole "play to earn" thing hasn't actually been working. And has been "a few months out" pretty much every month.

In the mean time though, you can still "give" the developer money and earn rewards that "some day" you might be able to craft and sell on the market again.

Edit: Also I just want to say this game is complete ass and I feel bad for anyone who has spent real world dollars on this thing. Maybe NFTs would get a better rep if all the example of NFT games weren't worse than shovelware.

 

[Sande]

But it's not separate. It's entirely core to the usefulness of NFTs if the platform holders themselves are not actually benefiting from that change. They have been provided a solution to a problem they did not have.

This is part of the whole medium article, how NFT advocates believe the onus is on developers to figure out how to use the technology they created, as if NFTs are the "obvious" solution to "something", but it's not their job to figure that part out, and get angry when you refuse to get on board. It's putting the cart before the horse.

Click to shrink...

But most people are not attacking NFTs because of a pro-consumer thing that is unlikely to happen. They're attacking NFTs because they see anti-consumer practices as the only possible use cases. That's what I was trying to get at.

 

[Jebusman]

But most people are not attacking NFTs because of a pro-consumer thing that is unlikely to happen. They're attacking NFTs because they see anti-consumer practices as the only possible use cases. That's what I was trying to get at.

Click to shrink...

We see anti-consumer practices as the only "likely" use cases. Because the pro-consumer use cases were never technical problems in nature. So NFTs haven't actually solved things or provided a better justification for why companies should do something pro-consumer. They always could have done something, they just choose not to.

In effect, NFTs have provided an "alternative" to something that most companies already said no to.

If you offer me vanilla ice cream and I say "no I don't want ice cream", and then you're like "alright yeah but how about CHOCOLATE ice cream" and I still say "no I don't want ice cream" and you get mad because you gave me an alternative (in your mind) and it's my fault I didn't want it. That's what NFT advocates feel like right now.

 

[werezompire]

It's pretty obvious what NFTs can be used for in gaming once you get out of the jpeg scam mindset.

A whole game can be an NFT, which would allow people to trade and lend digital games just like physical ones. And sure, platform holders could go through massive efforts to create their own real money marketplaces to do the same, but NFTs would allow all the heavy lifting to happen elsewhere and platform holders would only need to check what games you have. Of course here we run into the question of what's in it for platform holders, but that's a separate issue from the viability or use cases of NFTs.

Click to shrink...

Allowing resell of digital games destroys the digital game market and for that reason, it's never going to be seriously attempted by any of the big companies. There's no functional difference between a new digital game and a used digital game so after initial launch, the developer/publisher would never sell a single copy again AND game prices would rapidly drop even faster than they do now (players would be encouraged to undercut each other to resell their game, unlike developers who have incentives to try to keep the price up) which would result in initial sales being far weaker than they are now. The only way you could avoid this would be if you kept initial stock far lower so that demand isn't met, but in order to make the same amount of money with far fewer copies of the game, you'd have to drastically increase the price - people complained about $70 games so I'm sure $500 games will go over really well.

Practically speaking, if it was ever mandated by law that digital goods that were sold had to be resellable, everyone would just stop selling digital goods entirely because you can't make a living that way. You'd be stuck with freemium games & subscription services.

Oh and I just want to add that this would hurt small developers far more than it hurt big corporations. Big corporations could transition to making everything subscription & freemium based (a lot of them are already doing this), but the vast majority of indie developers would go out of business immediately.

 

[Squid Bunny]

Not a cryptolord but I dunno if this was ever the main purpose of crypto.

Click to shrink...

It's the reason why celebrities like Tom Brady and Steph Curry are pushing crypto so much. Crypto is the new "off-shore account", but without the chance of getting Panama Paper'd.

 

[Stone Ocean]

We see anti-consumer practices as the only "likely" use cases. Because the pro-consumer use cases were never technical problems in nature. So NFTs haven't actually solved things or provided a better justification for why companies should do something pro-consumer. They always could have done something, they just choose not to.

In effect, NFTs have provided an "alternative" to something that most companies already said no to.

Click to shrink...

Yep yep. Publishers aren't going to use NFTs for pro consumer shit, they're going to use NFTs to appease shareholders because thats what they always do.

 

[spineduke]

the most embarrasing part is the amount of cryptobros shilling for this garbage while attempting to pitch the vision they have for "the videogames" . you can easily see who actually plays games, and who is here just to make money. Everytime i see a thread or video posted here, its so cringe as fuck. You're not fooling ANYONE.

 

[Jakartalado]

The ideia behind NFT is corporate greed and make profits over scamming items that in real life has ZERO value.

When exploring the gameplay concept behind it.... I get it, it must be cool to own an exclusive item, but what games could be useful with this? Maybe Borderlands (because it has 6 trillion types of weapon, so anyone can have at least their own unique version). Or perhaps No Man Sky because that game is basically infinite and you could claim something for you.

But we know they are trying to exploit this shit for FUT Packs on Fifa and stupid XP boosters for Avengers. FUCK OFF.

 

[fermino]

I hope this stupid fad goes away quickly and makes every single company that invested in it absolutely embarassed. It's one of the worst things that ever happened in tech in the last few years.

And it doesn't make any sense, gameplay-wise. Even mobile games would be absolutely worse off with it due to the userbase fragmentation.

 

[Hektor]

This example invalidates this dudes whole take.

Thats not how a majority of NFT based games will work. This example isnt even something that will happen with any mainstream title is a bullshit example.
Want an actual Example of how NFT games will work. Infact I dont think any title will work like that. That would be incredibly limiting to your player base and would end in so much development the company would crumble since every character would have to be unique.

Gods Unchained. https://godsunchained.com/
Here is Gods Unchaineds market: https://market.x.immutable.com/assets?collection=0xacb3c6a43d15b907e8433077b6d38ae40936fe2c

They work like a normal card game. None of this "ONLY HE CAN USE MARIO" Boomer bullshit.

Click to shrink...

This "boomer bullshit" is literally an example created by NFT shills

Into the Metaverse: Where Crypto, Gaming and Capitalism Collide

From Manhattan to Manila, players are turning their backs on Wall Street careers and medical school to seek their fortune in an online arena.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[Leafshield]

The whole thing just feels like people trying to will a scam into existence that's terrible for developers and customers, while yelling at the former to find a way to make it sustainable and functional. Big companies listen to shareholders going 'get in on this, it's the next big thing!' so have to make some noise about it. Meanwhile NFT shills are selling worthless digital crap to themselves and their pals in order to make it look like there's been a market for years if it does take off. It's like: Step 1: throw ludicrous levels of cash at worthless trash to promote it. Step 2: yell 'make this work and find a mass-market use for this, tech industry!'. Step 3: ??? profit. It's like a start-up being done in the wrong order, when even most start-ups done in the right order fail.

 

[Runner]

assets/items/etc in a game are necessarily centralized. nfts are decentralized. it's completely incompatable.

 

[Jinfash]

Digital beanie babies.

 

[JuniperAndSage]

Waypoint/Vice had a good article and podcast covering NFT games this week. Including a discussion of how a few of the NFT games that are actually operating are working out.

Shit's a nightmare. You have broke people in poor countries farming NFTs for affluent people who then buy/sell/trade them and reap all the benefits as they appreciate in value. And the whole time the company is skimming a percentage of the value off every transaction. Basically feels like legitimized MMO gold farming, but it's also incinerating the planet along the way.

 

[Deleted member 36578]

Waypoint/Vice had a good article and podcast covering NFT games this week. Including a discussion of how a few of the NFT games that are actually operating are working out.

Shit's a nightmare. You have broke people in poor countries farming NFTs for affluent people who then buy/sell/trade them and reap all the benefits as they appreciate in value. And the whole time the company is skimming a percentage of the value off every transaction. Basically feels like legitimized MMO gold farming, but it's also incinerating the planet along the way.

Click to shrink...

Fuck.

 

[Leafshield]

Waypoint/Vice had a good article and podcast covering NFT games this week. Including a discussion of how a few of the NFT games that are actually operating are working out.

Shit's a nightmare. You have broke people in poor countries farming NFTs for affluent people who then buy/sell/trade them and reap all the benefits as they appreciate in value. And the whole time the company is skimming a percentage of the value off every transaction. Basically feels like legitimized MMO gold farming, but it's also incinerating the planet along the way.

Click to shrink...

I wish I could say that surprised me. I'd ask what the self-regulating gaming industry body has to say about this, but I suspect I know the answer.

It's taken years of investigation into lootboxes for them to be called akin to gambling in the media, meanwhile the gaming industry is like 'if you thought that scam was bad, hold my beer'.