Board 8 > So what is your thoughts of NFT/Crypto in videogames?

(+) Yeah! (+)

So around 2% look forward to have NFT's in their gbames. Damn!

That's about the same amount of people who love DLC

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/poll/8382-now-that-its-ubiquitous-how-do-you-feel-about-dlc

I understand why companies keep making DLC and NFT and such. 2% make sound like not much but with so many gamers it is a huge number.

Gamers don't "like" those but they sure as hell spend money on them

I was thinking a bit about NFTs today and I'd like someone to tell me why this gross idea isn't going to happen... Or god help us maybe it's happened already...

Say there's a rouge-like game. For the purposes of this post, lets just use Spelunky as the example. In Spelunky, each play is randomly generated, based upon a seed. And there are millions of seeds.

Could you sell each of those seeds as an NFT? One would think the answer would be yes.

Now lets get to the insidious part. What if, once someone owned a seed, you couldn't play that seed unless you paid the owner? And maybe each owner could set their own rates. So for seed 12345, owned by me, I want 5 cents. But for seed 67890, owned by SBAllen, well he wants 50 cents.

And then you get to an eventual endpoint where you can't play the game anymore without paying because every single seed is owned. Likely because some big company bought half the seeds for half a cent each as an investment opportunity. There could be a day where it's like "hey you gotta pay for seed 48576 because that's the one where you can get Achievement X really easy."

Can't there be an almost infinitely large number of seeds?

Don't know how that works though

in practice I dont think thats a real danger if only because I dont think theres big crossover between the indie roguelike and nft crowds. I dont see Derek Yu getting into that scheme.

in related news: Klepek talked to people who own Ghost Recon NFTs:

https://twitter.com/patrickklepek/status/1481664436725338114?s=21

Yeah, that article was my impetus for thinking about this.

pjbasis posted...

Can't there be an almost infinitely large number of seeds?

Of course. That is, unless you artificially limit the supply. Drop 500 seeds per month, sold off as NFTs, to make profit for the dev from the sale of the NFTs and for the NFT owners from people wanting to play the seed.

You'd probably have to allow play based on some in game currency. You give the players free currency to start so they get used to buying seeds to play. Then they eventually run out and buy more. The dev takes a cut then splits the earnings with the NFT owners based on number of plays of a seed.

You could even have a mechanic where "beating" a seed puts you in a drawing to win the NFT.

I mean this all sounds feasible and awful and not really too far off how a lot of free to play game commerce already operates.

https://comicbook.com/gaming/amp/news/logan-paul-pokemon-cards-fake-confirmed/

Too bad the collectible wasn't verified by a block chain transaction.

this is literally the exact same thing as the fake banksy NFT sale

a PR stunt for attention

This is the contract address for cryptopunks:

https://etherscan.io/address/0xb47e3cd837ddf8e4c57f05d70ab865de6e193bbb

All legitimate crypto punks were created using this contract and are inexorably linked to that contract. Full stop.

You could right click -> save as a cryptopunk and have a jpeg that looks the same, but you would not be the owner, because the blockchain would not say you were the owner.

You could that jpeg and mint an NFT using out of it, but it would not be on the correct contract so it would not be legitimate. It would just be some other non crypto punk NFT that used the same image.

Edit: And I don't know all the particulars of the banksy situation, but it sounds like banksy has not made any NFTs of his artwork, so bidding on one that is supposedly from him would be pretty suspicious.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

but it would not be on the correct contract so it would not be legitimate

What's so special about that 1 contract?

foolm0r0n posted...

What's so special about that 1 contract?

its the only one like it in the whole world

You're being sarcastic, but it is.

This copycat NFT is also on a globally unique contract:
Forceful_Dragon posted...

It would just be some other non crypto punk NFT that used the same image.

Why should I care about one of those contracts more than the other?

foolmo, people have already explained this a dozen times in this very thread and you're just not absorbing the information

Seanchan posted...

I was thinking a bit about NFTs today and I'd like someone to tell me why this gross idea isn't going to happen... Or god help us maybe it's happened already...

yeah, it might happen. i personally think it's unlikely, but it's possible

if i were being argumentatively selective, i might say that games can already do this without NFTs. but it does seem like a game studio high on crypto would be more likely to attempt that kind of garbage

foolm0r0n posted...

This copycat NFT is also on a globally unique contract:

Why should I care about one of those contracts more than the other?

For the same reason that people care about originals more than a counterfeit.

At least with blockchain it's *impossible* to be fooled as long as you do the small amount of research necessary to verify the asset you are purchasing is legitimate. You can pull up the address of the asset before you buy it. You can verify in the blockchain explorer which contract minted that asset. You can verify that the comtract address is THE correct address for that collection. In this particular instance Logan Paul would have been better served by spending his millions on crypto punks.

I think right here we're demonstrating another shortcoming of NFT, they all claim they "empower artists" and whatever the fuck but I can't tell you the names of any artist involved in any of the big-name NFT projects. Partially because they're all generative art that nobody technically "made" any individual piece for but also because these projects are entirely uninterested in crediting and celebrating the artists who made the assets, they just want to make money off of speculators

Without knowing who made it why should people care that one contract was the original and one wasn't?

Forceful_Dragon posted...

This is the contract address for cryptopunks:

https://etherscan.io/address/0xb47e3cd837ddf8e4c57f05d70ab865de6e193bbb

All legitimate crypto punks were created using this contract and are inexorably linked to that contract. Full stop.

You could right click -> save as a cryptopunk and have a jpeg that looks the same, but you would not be the owner, because the blockchain would not say you were the owner.

You could that jpeg and mint an NFT using out of it, but it would not be on the correct contract so it would not be legitimate. It would just be some other non crypto punk NFT that used the same image.

Edit: And I don't know all the particulars of the banksy situation, but it sounds like banksy has not made any NFTs of his artwork, so bidding on one that is supposedly from him would be pretty suspicious.

ok but who cares? If the right click versions are literally exactly the same, who cares?

Forceful_Dragon posted...

For the same reason that people care about originals more than a counterfeit.

ok but do you understand the difference?

If someone makes a counterfeit Van Gogh, the counterfeit wasnt actually painted by his hands, he didnt touch it, so there is a difference.

If you right-click save a jpeg, it as just as much a copy of the image youre buying direct as the one youre seeing online. Unless you get the actual physical machine the digital art was made on, youre still getting a literal copy.

For the same reason that people care about originals more than a counterfeit.

ok but why do you actually care about that

why does the distinction have value to you? if theres no difference in the experience of the art between the owner and a person who has right clicked it, why choose to place value on the original? How does that benefit you or anyone other than the person making Cryptopunks?

Walter Benjamin must be rolling in his grave.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

ok but do you understand the difference?

If someone makes a counterfeit Van Gogh, the counterfeit wasnt actually painted by his hands, he didnt touch it, so there is a difference.

If you right-click save a jpeg, it as just as much a copy of the image youre buying direct as the one youre seeing online. Unless you get the actual physical machine the digital art was made on, youre still getting a literal copy.

I think the best way to think about purchasing physical/digital items is what you are really paying for is the "certificate of authenticity." The item in this case is just a bonus.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

https://comicbook.com/gaming/amp/news/logan-paul-pokemon-cards-fake-confirmed/

Too bad the collectible wasn't verified by a block chain transaction.

Okay, first of all, being on the blockchain wouldn't help in any case involving a physical medium - so all you have here is the notion that you think digital collectibles are simply better to deal in than physical collectibles, which, you do you I guess, though we've already explained why you don't really need the blockchain for this either

Second, if the use case for NFTs is that "it will help Logan Paul not get scammed out of 3.5 million dollars" then I DEFINITELY don't want NFTs to exist

The conclusion I keep coming to is NFTs are a more annoying and time consuming way to do a bunch of functions we already have. Digital goods? We have them. Digital signatures and certificates of authenticity? We have them. Currency mining and gacha shit? We have them. Disliking them isnt really you are denying the future of technology so much as I dont want to buy this useless product I saw on an infomercial that does nothing new. The only people Ive ever seen defend NFTs are people that actively make money off them. I think that tells you all you need to know.

Perhaps helping logan paul is not the right tact, but it would help *anyone* not get scammed out of millions.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

ok but do you understand the difference?

If someone makes a counterfeit Van Gogh, the counterfeit wasnt actually painted by his hands, he didnt touch it, so there is a difference.

If you right-click save a jpeg, it as just as much a copy of the image youre buying direct as the one youre seeing online. Unless you get the actual physical machine the digital art was made on, youre still getting a literal copy.

Ignore oil paintings, there are other collectibles, like pokemon cards or baseball cards that *can* be replicated with the right materials and type of printer in a way that would be virtually impossible to detect. And yet knowing something isn't legitimate makes it worthless.

.

charmander6000 posted...

I think the best way to think about purchasing physical/digital items is what you are really paying for is the "certificate of authenticity." The item in this case is just a bonus.

This is a good way to put it as well.

And i'm definitely not saying everyone *has* to deal in NFTs.
Nor am I saying they are innately better than their physical counterparts.

But I think there is room enough for both to exist and there is at least a purpose to them existing.

WazzupGenius00 posted...

Partially because they're all generative art that nobody technically "made" any individual piece

Yeah, that's why I singled out PFP projects as the worst type of NFT. The randomly generated projects, with a few notable exceptions, are an oversaturated speculative bubble.

But there are many small time artists who went from struggling to get by to being able to survive on the money they've earned selling their own personal art as NFTs. They don't have to be the person who makes millions overnight, but making thousands can be enough to live on and for many digital artists who were being forced to accept laughably small sums for their work, it's a big step forward. Being able to actually sell the ownership of your digital artwork gives you more control.

banananor posted...

foolmo, people have already explained this a dozen times in this very thread and you're just not absorbing the information

I'm making an argument, not asking for an explanation. I know more about crypto than anyone itt.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

but it would help *anyone* not get scammed out of millions.

Yeah, I don't know, people getting scammed out of millions sounds awesome to me

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Perhaps helping logan paul is not the right tact, but it would help *anyone* not get scammed out of millions.

Ignore oil paintings, there are other collectibles, like pokemon cards or baseball cards that *can* be replicated with the right materials and type of printer in a way that would be virtually impossible to detect. And yet knowing something isn't legitimate makes it worthless.

.

This is a good way to put it as well.

And i'm definitely not saying everyone *has* to deal in NFTs.
Nor am I saying they are innately better than their physical counterparts.

But I think there is room enough for both to exist and there is at least a purpose to them existing.

Yeah, that's why I singled out PFP projects as the worst type of NFT. The randomly generated projects, with a few notable exceptions, are an oversaturated speculative bubble.

But there are many small time artists who went from struggling to get by to being able to survive on the money they've earned selling their own personal art as NFTs. They don't have to be the person who makes millions overnight, but making thousands can be enough to live on and for many digital artists who were being forced to accept laughably small sums for their work, it's a big step forward. Being able to actually sell the ownership of your digital artwork gives you more control.

Its not a big step forward in any way, because the only art that gets bought is the things people think they can flip.

Im not speculating, pun intended, all of the most diehard NFT supporters or digital artists like Beeple literally talk about this. Beeple was on Joe Rogan and literally said other people can get rich buying art, so the artists and the buyers win. Except eventually someone has to stop buying, which leaves someone scammed and holding the bag.

Like Para said, thats very funny, but lets not act like this is a good thing to support artists, because read my first paragraph again.

I know several working artists, none of them think NFTs are a good idea that would help them in any way

It's like I always say - if the furry community had any use for NFTs we would have been using them since years ago (and we probably would have been the ones to invent them in the first place)

Paratroopa1 posted...

I know several working artists, none of them think NFTs are a good idea that would help them in any way

It's like I always say - if the furry community had any use for NFTs we would have been using them since years ago (and we probably would have been the ones to invent them in the first place)

This is by far the most compelling argument in this entire topic.

Troy Baker sure had a line about NFTs
"You can hate or you can create."
Which is funny since NFTs technically do more destruction than creation

speaking of Troy https://twitter.com/skillupyt/status/1482100114185670657?s=21

htaeD posted...

Troy Baker sure had a line about NFTs
"You can hate or you can create."

sometimes I wonder whether or not all these people/companies/whatever realize how much backlash they're walking into

this line tells me he knew, and did it anyway

Troy Baker always sounds very worldly.

Sounds.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

For the same reason that people care about originals more than a counterfeit.

Quality and provenance? That's not it because NFTs do nothing for that. So what is it?

https://twitter.com/accursedfarms/status/1482419703360495617?t=A6l1npx2Y9hTzVOYoIVCaQ&s=19

So someone mints an nft with his logo

3 months ago

And it hasn't sold to anybody for any price

And it isn't verified

Shrug.

They got a good handful of channels I follow as well

https://www.nme.com/news/music/steve-aoki-stops-gig-show-off-new-859000-nft-3136229

Dude paid almost a million dollars for this:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/6/8/AAGQPmAAC0Eg.jpg

You absolutely cannot tell me this is normal.

I mean we see this all the time in the physical world.

Paintings, jewels, coins, baseball cards, video games etc...

Yeah, but then they're at least buying something that actually exists

They didn't even pay for that picture. They paid for a receipt for a place in a virtual line visually linked to that picture. Anyone could make their own set of NFTs and use the exact same picture for one of their own tokens.

Anyway yeah, NFTs are collectables fads (at least in theory, in reality they're mostly money laundering) but unlike sports cards, etc. fads they have no cultural value and are far less sturdy. That's all they are. Cosmetic microtransactions are obnoxious but at least there is some level of enhanced experience from their purchase, however valuable you might find that; an NFT doesn't even give that, and if it did, it would just be a roundabout and far more destructive cosmetic microtransaction.

charmander6000 posted...

I mean we see this all the time in the physical world.

Paintings, jewels, coins, baseball cards, video games etc...

Yeah but in all those cases there is actual literal scarcity.

You pay a lot because it literally doesnt exist anywhere else.

For it to be comparable to this, itd be like taking one of the million identical copies of FIFA at your local GameStop and paying a million dollars for the receipt.

Are NFTs a move by the big banks to get people to hate crypto??

A bad thing is also that people believe that items that buy via NFT's in a videogame will be usable in another video game. Yeah because companies want that!

The idea that game companies would want to generate and support assets for NFTs that theyd get 0 profit on is one that only a person with zero consideration for how games are made could have.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Yeah but in all those cases there is actual literal scarcity.

You pay a lot because it literally doesnt exist anywhere else.

For it to be comparable to this, itd be like taking one of the million identical copies of FIFA at your local GameStop and paying a million dollars for the receipt.

The same can be said about all the items I mentioned. It has nothing to do with the scarcity of the item and everything to do with the perceived value.

That mint condition copy of Super Mario Bros. is not really worth 1 million dollars, it's supposedly worth 1 million dollars because some people said it was worth a million dollars and were willing to pay for it. You can do that with any item.

I can take that receipt and if I can convince someone it's worth a million dollars then it becomes worth a million dollars. Welcome to an extreme version/quirks of economics

charmander6000 posted...

The same can be said about all the items I mentioned.

I meanyeah?

charmander6000 posted...

It has nothing to do with the scarcity of the item and everything to do with the perceived value.

Its both + suspected fraud.

The copy of Super Mario Bros that sold for 2 million was still factory sealed, making it rare, but also theres evidence that collector groups are coordinating sales in order to inflate the perceived value.

With NFTs you get the fraud but without the item actually being rarebasically double fraud.

Safer_777 posted...

A bad thing is also that people believe that items that buy via NFT's in a videogame will be usable in another video game. Yeah because companies want that!

they got Linkin Park talking this nonsense

https://twitter.com/mikeshinoda/status/1479865779822551040

like holy shit this isn't how digital assets work, nor would this be a function of NFTs if a company did want to share assets between certain games - not even getting into fantasy of different companies all cooperating with each other in this way, let alone the ridiculousness of dropping a Fortnite character into a Minecraft world