Maybe you should do your own research? Because a lot of "NFTs are bad..." arguements are not compelling and get debunked shortly after they are posted.I'm on this forum 4 hours a day and I haven't learned how NFT's effect a game. I'm just told it's really bad and I trust you all.
What?Maybe you should do your own research? Because a lot of "NFTs are bad..." arguements are not compelling and get debunked shortly after they are posted.
Maybe you should do your own research? Because a lot of "NFTs are bad..." arguements are not compelling and get debunked shortly after they are posted.
You have yet to provide any meaningful argument why NFTs are necessary and what they bring to the table. And you got a lot of arguments against them that you chose to ignore.
I told him to actively seek information not just to form an opinion based on comments, problem?
The value add proposition from NFTs is dubious; they don't add anything new that games haven't done before (Valve's inventory system for Team Fortress 2 is basically an NFT)
Publishers are getting hyped because they're looking at it like their own Valve style inventory, where they get to take royalties on each transaction, without having to build any of the infrastructure themselves. To them it's free money
What they aren't thinking about are the gas fees to make this possible. You could spend $100 per transaction on an Ethereum NFT because the network is congested (think like all of the people trying to log onto FF14 all at once; you pay "surge pricing" to get your transaction through and "log on")
Those gas fees will heavily disincentive people from actually trading these things. They aren't going to have speculative value like the "funny monkey jpg" because there's no meme status to be had with a corporate picture of a mask in a video game. The cosmetics themselves are uninspired and just numbers on armor.
Then you have the ethical issues with the potential damage to the environment by incentivizing this technology to be used when there's a clear alternative (have Ubisoft set up their own databases for their cosmetics and their own marketplace) that could be a lot more environmentally friendly. These exclusive cosmetics could be taken to a ridiculous extreme too, I.E. you have to own the Mario Amiibo NFT in the first edition set to play as Mario in Mario Odyssey 2 or something.
All of those drawbacks to the customer, just because they think they'll get some easy money. It's not hard to see why this might not end well for Ubisoft.
You have yet to provide any meaningful argument why NFTs are necessary and what they bring to the table. And you got a lot of arguments against them that you chose to ignore.
That's because there aren't any.
Even Ubisoft's Quartz FAQ had a question "Isn't it possible to do all this without NFTs?" and the answer was a simple "Yes."
Don't know why that question was there though, maybe legally required.
The point is that there's literally nothing that NFTs can do for games that we weren't already be able to do, there is absolutely no reason to use the technology.
I won't defend Yves, but Vivendi would have been infinitely worse, I have no proofs but I have no doubts either. Ubisoft was in a good position back then.I remember when people were hoping the Yves family held on to the company since the "evil corporate overlords" were going to take over years ago. Such irony.
As long as they're entirely cosmetic and there's some kind of way to just turn that content off
It's basically Second Life, Matrix, Ready Player One etc. Not a new concept but companies are heavily investing in it because of the rise of VR/AR and other stuff, it's creepy af but what you can do.I feel at this point we've had enough people explain NFTs in Era for me to get the idea... But is the "metaverse" exactly supposed to be?
Because the only things it makes me think of is Seto Kaiba and Digimon and if I don't get a Palmon out of it, I couldn't give a damn.
Everytime these asshole ceos come out with this bullshit I think of Dick Jones:'
I told him to actively seek information not just to form an opinion based on comments, problem?
There's too much fud on this subject right now. I read through this forum occasionally and when it comes to NFTs and blockchain there's a lot of misinformation. Like this post for example:
Parrots the environmental arguement (which has already had it's irony highlighted) when NFTs or blockchain aren't inherently environmentally unfriendly. In fact UBISOFT is using a proof of stake system so the arguement doesn't work here.
This benign tech will be used for what people want it to be used for, just like AI or robotics. Can be good or bad. If posters want to get up in arms every time it gets mentioned then let's at least try to make the arguements factual...
For example, NFTs and blockchain aren't inherently a grift, Ponzi, or laundering scheme either, it's just tech that will be used by whoever to do what they wish to do with it. If and when you find some that are bad and do those things, by all means, direct your ire there. I wont stop you, I'll probably join in...
I ignored them because they amounted to "let's just keep the status quo because I fear what will happen" based on the same mentioned arguements. I'm not as invested as some of you seem to be...
I don't need to make a case for these technologies btw, all these threads are doing it for me. This tech is in use and posters are still here asking 'tell me what uses their are!' ... 'why would any company ever use it?'
We are not doomed, the world is not ending, this tech will not bring about the end of gaming or life as we know it. It will be here in 5 years and barely anyone will recall the initial friction in places like these...
aight I believe you now shill your monkey jpgI told him to actively seek information not just to form an opinion based on comments, problem?
There's too much fud on this subject right now. I read through this forum occasionally and when it comes to NFTs and blockchain there's a lot of misinformation. Like this post for example:
Parrots the environmental arguement (which has already had it's irony highlighted) when NFTs or blockchain aren't inherently environmentally unfriendly. In fact UBISOFT is using a proof of stake system so the arguement doesn't work here.
This benign tech will be used for what people want it to be used for, just like AI or robotics. Can be good or bad. If posters want to get up in arms every time it gets mentioned then let's at least try to make the arguements factual...
For example, NFTs and blockchain aren't inherently a grift, Ponzi, or laundering scheme either, it's just tech that will be used by whoever to do what they wish to do with it. If and when you find some that are bad and do those things, by all means, direct your ire there. I wont stop you, I'll probably join in...
I ignored them because they amounted to "let's just keep the status quo because I fear what will happen" based on the same mentioned arguements. I'm not as invested as some of you seem to be...
I don't need to make a case for these technologies btw, all these threads are doing it for me. This tech is in use and posters are still here asking 'tell me what uses their are!' ... 'why would any company ever use it?'
We are not doomed, the world is not ending, this tech will not bring about the end of gaming or life as we know it. It will be here in 5 years and barely anyone will recall the initial friction in places like these...
I feel at this point we've had enough people explain NFTs in Era for me to get the idea... But is the "metaverse" exactly supposed to be?
Because the only things it makes me think of is Seto Kaiba and Digimon and if I don't get a Palmon out of it, I couldn't give a damn.
That's because there aren't any.
Even Ubisoft's Quartz FAQ had a question "Isn't it possible to do all this without NFTs?" and the answer was a simple "Yes."
Don't know why that question was there though, maybe legally required.
The point is that there's literally nothing that NFTs can do for games that we weren't already be able to do, there is absolutely no reason to use the technology.
In fact UBISOFT is using a proof of stake system so the arguement doesn't work here.
Ubisoft is using the tezos blockchain, not Ethereum. Its carbon footprint is tiny. It doesnt use any more energy than a regular server room of the same scale would.The irony of Avatar being an immensely environmental and eco-friendly franchise, being supported by this shit?
I wonder if Cameron knows.
Haha it does sound weird when you think about it but I can see it especially because Dick Jones strikes me as the type of guy that doesn't mind loss of life.To this day I don't get why it had ammunition loaded for presentation
Everytime these asshole ceos come out with this bullshit I think of Dick Jones:'
Yeah that's... like a very interesting peek at just how delusional he has to be to say that with a straight face. Like... MTs and lootboxes - especially lootboxes - are not exactly beloved lol.
Facebook thinks middle aged parents and racist grandparents will buy Oculus products if it had just one realistic Roblox they own, when the reality is every big company will have their own realistic Roblox if there's any money from it. And considering how sanitized all these big money projects would be, all you're getting is a palmon shirt that costs $30 in real life and can't resell.I feel at this point we've had enough people explain NFTs in Era for me to get the idea... But is the "metaverse" exactly supposed to be?
Because the only things it makes me think of is Seto Kaiba and Digimon and if I don't get a Palmon out of it, I couldn't give a damn.
You make it sound like PoS is somehow completely carbon neutral, rather that it being an utterly frivolous addition to our energy consumption.
The same object won't get sold over and over again, they make more money selling new objects and forbidding reselling.But games filled with that shit still sell gangbusters, AND make bonus money with it. Going by his logic, you'll still buy the next Ghost Recon, AC or whatever, and if 5% of players buy some NFTs, that's just free money on top.
NFT for them is actually genius. They do nothing and take a cut on every transaction, every time the same object gets sold over and over again. It's literally free money to them, how can we expect them to not do it.
I would assume games like this are required to be "always online" too since they'd need connections to whatever marketplace is selling the tokens, right?What will really be telling is the games that won't just have NFTs tacked on but will have this NFT push from the beginning of their design and development.... like the just announced Splinter Cell. Can guaran-fucking-tee you that NFTs are some kind of core pillar for that game if this is how Yves is talking today.