Poll of the Day > NFTs in gaming?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Fuck yea!

I am biased tho. As you can clearly tell from my signature ;-)

I got my own i sell...but yea could be a nice way to profit off you gaming habits

Valve has historically been a big proponent for new technologies and business models. They banned crypto and NFTs from Steam entirely.

Like almost every actual fan of gaming, I loathe the idea, and I hope literally everyone who pushes the idea forward in the industry or includes it in their games dies of ultracancer.

Indifferent.

NFTs accomplish absolutely nothing unique that couldn't be reproduced another way and are a blight on everything they touch

agesboy posted...

NFTs accomplish absolutely nothing unique that couldn't be reproduced another way and are a blight on everything they touch

They make you rich

so do pyramid schemes, which NFTs are

agesboy posted...

so do pyramid schemes, which NFTs are

How do you figure?

people invest in something with no inherent value and speculate based on perceived value, with the allure of quick profits bringing in more investors

at best the only utility it can provide is facilitating money laundering

Nah, not into financial scams.

agesboy posted...

people invest in something with no inherent value and speculate based on perceived value, with the allure of quick profits bringing in more investors

at best the only utility it can provide is facilitating money laundering

Thats only if you are a trader.

Typically people create something (can be anything), convert it to an NFT, then sell it to someone who wants to buy it.

Its no different than making your own clothing then selling it at a flea market to someone who finds it fashionable and wants to wear it.

The only difference is that that clothing example is easy for you everyday average working man to understand. Its nearly impossible for a person working the daily grind to understand why someone wants to shell out thousands of dollars for what is basically a .jpeg that could be downloaded for free off of Google Images.

The truth is, rich assholes are rich assholes. They have more money than they know what to do with, so they just spend it on stupid shit. Nowadays having a Bored Ape or a Crypto Punk is the equivocal of owning a 100 thousand dollar watch, or a Lamborghini.

When someone needs to know the time they dont look at their watch, they take out their phone. When someone needs to drive to the grocery store to pick up some milk they dont take the lambo, they call an Uber. So then why own these expensive items?

Its a flex. Nothing more nothing less. I had a homie gift me an Ape in October so I could attend the BYAC Halloween party in New York. The dude is a pothead slacker, but has millions of dollars because he bought these things early because he thought they looked cool.

He already had too much money from investing in crypto. He basically took an inheritance, but it into BTC in 2017, kept it there, took out some profits and kept reinvesting. By 2021 money had no meaning to him anymore. So he kept buying NFTs because he enjoyed being apart of online communities much they same way you all enjoy GameFaqs and Reddit.

A few hundred bucks to grab a unique piece of art and hang out with likewise folks on Discord was worth it to him. He was basically paying 200-500 bucks on a club membership. Or perhaps a better example, he was paying 200-500 bucks on action figures, and then joining a committee to talk about it.

The point being, he was so rich the money didnt matter. He actually wanted to buy these jpegs. As a result those jpegs are now worth millions.

Its one of those things where once you have money you lose concept of value and just start spending but those frivolous purchases be then lambos or NFTs do have value and it accumulates.

Anyhow, if you take anything away from this its that there are rich idiots who will purchase NFTs simply because they like them. Thats what ultimately gives something its value who is willing to buy it.

So take advantage. All those hours you spent crafting a sword in a game, or all the time youve put into creating or customizing a character NFT that shit and sell it to a rich asshole!

You are all going to be spending hundreds of hours playing games, crafting items, and customizing heroesmight as well be able to profit off your time and work.

Think of it like being able to trade in a videogame for money. Only instead of collecting $6 dollars from GameStop, you are actually collecting $6,000 dollars from some rich gamer with too much time & money on their hands.

Thats not a bad thing. Its s good thing.

Edit: that ape my friend gave me is worth 108 ETH which is the equivalent of $333,000 and he told me I could keep it. Halloween doubles as my birthday rich people have no concept of money.

We can laugh at them now, but if you all get with the program and play the game, then you too might find yourself buying up frivolous NFTs by this time next year. You get rich quick in this game!

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/9/1/AABajLAACyan.jpg

Good for indy games, but concern over big companies use of private chains is valid.

Environmental and energy consumption criticism, while likely only in issue in the short term, has potential to poison general perception of the tech, which could hinder widespread adoption.

STEROLIZER posted...

get rich quick

well that was a whole lot of words to arrive at the same conclusion most everyone else did

STEROLIZER posted...

We can laugh at them now, but if you all get with the program and play the game, then you too might find yourself buying up frivolous NFTs by this time next year. You get rich quick in this game!

STEROLIZER posted...

Its a flex. Nothing more nothing less. I had a homie gift me an Ape in October so I could attend the BYAC Halloween party in New York. The dude is a pothead slacker, but has millions of dollars because he bought these things early because he thought they looked cool.

literally a pyramid scheme

Kanatteru posted...

well that was a whole lot of words to arrive at the same conclusion most everyone else did

I mean I guess, but I was trying to explain thats its not a scam its just fucking stupid. There is a difference.

Its rich people spending their money on stupid shit, and artist, creators, and soon to be gamers capitalizing off of it.

agesboy posted...

literally a pyramid scheme

Oh. You dont know what a pyramid scheme is. Got it.

your friend got in early and the bubble hasn't burst yet, the fact that he has made money off of it just mean's he's near the top of it

STEROLIZER posted...

Its rich people spending their money on stupid shit, and artist, creators, and soon to be gamers capitalizing off of it.

you don't have to be a creator to make NFTs, part of the reason the art community at large fucking loathes NFTs is unauthorized NFTs

that is millionaires making money off of poor artists' backs

agesboy posted...

your friend got in early and the bubble hasn't burst yet, the fact that he has made money off of it just mean's he's near the top of it

you don't have to be a creator to make NFTs, part of the reason the art community at large fucking loathes NFTs is unauthorized NFTs

that is millionaires making money off of poor artists' backs

What! No. This is a way for starving artists to no longer be starving. The whole point of an NFT is to prove its legitimacy. Artists NFT their work to prove their ownership its like a receipt for an origin story.

People can try to NFT random shit, but its not going yo sell unless the hash matches the one owned by the original creator.

If you visit the link in my signature youll see I actually spoke several times during Art Basel last month. Art Basel is the worlds largest Art conference and this year was all about NFTs. It was about 60% of the Art Basel Festivities.

The Art World is welcoming NFTs with open arms because it means they get to sell their shit for helluva lot more money its easier too.

STEROLIZER posted...

What! No. This is a way for starving artists to no longer be starving. The whole point of an NFT is to prove its legitimacy. Artists NFT their work to prove their ownership its like a receipt for an origin story.

People can try to NFT random shit, but its not going yo sell unless the hash matches the one owned by the original creator.

On that note, big billionaire corporations are upset at NFTs for not respecting their copyright. You have the original artist NFT original pencils of comic books from the golden age and Disney getting upset because they think they own the characters and legally they do.

The problem is it say Marvel tries to NFT original pencils from Jack Kirby nobody is going to buy it because its not actually worth anything, it has no value coming from Disney. But if, per say, it comes from the actual estate of Jack Kirby then theyll sell like mad because they have value.

Hell, technically Jack Kirbys family could just download a jpeg of a Kirby cover off of Google Images and NFT it as the original because the actual jpeg itself doesnt matter, its the hash and what that hash represents. In this case the hash is representing ownership of Kirbys work the only people in the world who are entitled to declare they are the original owners are Jack Kirbys estateand by making that hash (NFT) and selling it they are agreeing to transfer ownership.

Not legally of course, but that doesnt matter as the point is that some rich asshole comicbook fan can brag to his friends that he owns Kirbys original Silver Surfer #1 cover. Does he actually? Probably not, Disney still owns that legally, but doesnt matter because the hash is proof that Jack Kirbys daughter sold him the rights.

As far as the comicbook world is concerned this rich asshole now owns the pencils to Silver Surfer #1. If marvel were to try and NFT their own version it wouldnt sell for shot because it would be considered fraudulent in the eyes of the consumer.

So no, the only entities NFTs hurt are the billion dollar corporations. They help the artists.

Maybe an easier example to understand. Shepard Farey created the Hope Obama image that went viral for many years. He was sued by some photographer from the Associated Press that claimed Shephard used his photo for reference.

Shepard admitted that he did. He couldnt paint Obama from memory so he did a Google Image search, chose a random photo to look at and then painted it. However, the argument was that he created these art itself and the meaning behind it. All the emotion, and vibe behind it is that if his own creation spawned from the depths of his own soul.

The court somewhat agreed but had to rule in favor of the photographer because thats how the law works, and all money made off the image must go directly to that guy. The court deemed the photographer as the owner of the Obama Hope image.

If that photographer were to NFT the Obama Hope image no one would buy it. It would be considered fraudulent. If Shepard were too NFT it then it would sell for millions because as far as the consumers are concerned hes the owner.

Theoretically anyone could download the thing off of Google Images and NFT it, but as far as the consumer base is concerned it only has value coming directly from Shepard himself.

Shepard is NFTing his art nowadays and making more money than he ever has. Hes completely free from any pesky legalities.

STEROLIZER posted...

So take advantage. All those hours you spent crafting a sword in a game, or all the time youve put into creating or customizing a character NFT that s*** and sell it to a rich a******!

You are all going to be spending hundreds of hours playing games, crafting items, and customizing heroesmight as well be able to profit off your time and work.

So... the RMT model that already exists in pretty much any game that includes trading (officially or otherwise), only with an added layer of crypto because that's what's cool now?
agesboy posted...

NFTs accomplish absolutely nothing unique that couldn't be reproduced another way

I got modded for calling myself an asshole. Insane!

just buy pokemon cards. far less destructive to the environment and also speculated on based on abstractions

Kanatteru posted...

just buy pokemon cards. far less destructive to the environment and also speculated on based on abstractions

Okay sure. Buy Pokemon cards with the money you make selling NFTs

Seeing TC go on about NFTs, I somehow find myself thinking of Victor Chaos

https://youtu.be/N8f-BQFo7lw

STEROLIZER posted...

I got modded for calling myself an asshole. Insane!

Not going to dispute it?

Didn't he lose the case in large part because he destroyed evidence and lied during the trial?

Fairey has been criticized for failing to obtain permission and to provide attribution for works he used.[124][125][126] Fairey has threatened to sue artists for the same technique. Austin, Texas-based graphic designer Baxter Orr did his own take on Fairey's work in a piece called Protect, with the iconic Obey Giant face covered by a SARS respiratory mask.[127] Orr marketed the prints as his own work. On April 23, 2008, Orr received a cease-and-desist order from Fairey's attorneys, telling him to stop selling Protect because it violated Fairey's trademark. Fairey threatened to sue, calling the designer a "parasite".[128]
Originally, Fairey had claimed his HOPE poster was based on a 2006 copyrighted photo of then-Senator Barack Obama seated next to actor George Clooney, taken in April 2006 by Mannie Garcia on assignment for the Associated Press, which wanted credit and compensation for the work.[129] Garcia believes that he personally owns the copyright for the photo, and has said, "If you put all the legal stuff away, Im so proud of the photograph and that Fairey did what he did artistically with it, and the effect it's had".[130] Fairey said his use of the photograph fell within the legal definition of fair use.[131] Fairey claims he used pieces of the photo as raw material to create a heroic and inspirational political portrait, the aesthetic of which was fundamentally different from the original photo.[132] Lawyers for both sides tried to reach an amicable agreement.[133]
In February 2009, Fairey filed a federal lawsuit against the Associated Press, seeking a declaratory judgment that his use of the AP photograph was protected by the fair use doctrine and so did not infringe their copyright.[134] At first, Fairey claimed that he used the photo of Clooney and Obama, cropped the actor out of the shot, and made other changes. In October 2009, Shepard Fairey admitted he had tried to deceive the Court by destroying evidence that he had instead used the photograph alleged by the AP. Fairey admitted he had used a close-up shot of Obama, also taken by Mannie Garcia, as the AP had long alleged. The solo photo appears much more similar to the final HOPE poster than the photo of Clooney and Obama. Fairey's lawyers announced they were no longer representing him, and Laurence Pulgram, an intellectual property lawyer, stated that the revelation definitely put Mr. Fairey's case "in trouble".[135][136]
In May 2010, a judge urged Fairey to settle.[137] The parties settled in January 2011.[138] On February 24, 2012, Fairey pleaded guilty to criminal contempt of court for "destroying documents and manufacturing evidence."[139][140] On September 7, 2012, Fairey was sentenced to 300 hours of community service, ordered to pay a $25,000 federal fine, and placed on probation for two years by U.S. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas.[141]
Shepard Fairey was also charged with destruction of property in 2015 for tagging 18 posters at unsanctioned sites. The case was later dismissed.[91]

Revelation34 posted...

Not going to dispute it?

I did just go laugh at it. But its not getting overturned lol

DrPrimemaster posted...

Didn't he lose the case in large part because he destroyed evidence and lied during the trial?

Fairey has been criticized for failing to obtain permission and to provide attribution for works he used.[124][125][126] Fairey has threatened to sue artists for the same technique. Austin, Texas-based graphic designer Baxter Orr did his own take on Fairey's work in a piece called Protect, with the iconic Obey Giant face covered by a SARS respiratory mask.[127] Orr marketed the prints as his own work. On April 23, 2008, Orr received a cease-and-desist order from Fairey's attorneys, telling him to stop selling Protect because it violated Fairey's trademark. Fairey threatened to sue, calling the designer a "parasite".[128]
Originally, Fairey had claimed his HOPE poster was based on a 2006 copyrighted photo of then-Senator Barack Obama seated next to actor George Clooney, taken in April 2006 by Mannie Garcia on assignment for the Associated Press, which wanted credit and compensation for the work.[129] Garcia believes that he personally owns the copyright for the photo, and has said, "If you put all the legal stuff away, Im so proud of the photograph and that Fairey did what he did artistically with it, and the effect it's had".[130] Fairey said his use of the photograph fell within the legal definition of fair use.[131] Fairey claims he used pieces of the photo as raw material to create a heroic and inspirational political portrait, the aesthetic of which was fundamentally different from the original photo.[132] Lawyers for both sides tried to reach an amicable agreement.[133]
In February 2009, Fairey filed a federal lawsuit against the Associated Press, seeking a declaratory judgment that his use of the AP photograph was protected by the fair use doctrine and so did not infringe their copyright.[134] At first, Fairey claimed that he used the photo of Clooney and Obama, cropped the actor out of the shot, and made other changes. In October 2009, Shepard Fairey admitted he had tried to deceive the Court by destroying evidence that he had instead used the photograph alleged by the AP. Fairey admitted he had used a close-up shot of Obama, also taken by Mannie Garcia, as the AP had long alleged. The solo photo appears much more similar to the final HOPE poster than the photo of Clooney and Obama. Fairey's lawyers announced they were no longer representing him, and Laurence Pulgram, an intellectual property lawyer, stated that the revelation definitely put Mr. Fairey's case "in trouble".[135][136]
In May 2010, a judge urged Fairey to settle.[137] The parties settled in January 2011.[138] On February 24, 2012, Fairey pleaded guilty to criminal contempt of court for "destroying documents and manufacturing evidence."[139][140] On September 7, 2012, Fairey was sentenced to 300 hours of community service, ordered to pay a $25,000 federal fine, and placed on probation for two years by U.S. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas.[141]
Shepard Fairey was also charged with destruction of property in 2015 for tagging 18 posters at unsanctioned sites. The case was later dismissed.[91]

IDK maybe man. I pulled that whole thing out of my ass from a very thin Doc I watched years ago.

I think there is a legitimate case in favor of it.

Take Hearthstone, a game where you can buy cards that you don't own and can't trade. If nothing else changed about that game, but the cards were nfts, where you can buy a pack for a constant $5 or whatever and sell them individually, it would be objectively better.

The flaw is this, that wouldn't be a system designed for maximizing profit, so it would be abused and the designers would inevitably be selling cards for $10k because a pyramid scheme is one step away.

Kanatteru posted...

just buy pokemon cards. far less destructive to the environment and also speculated on based on abstractions

Proof of stake crypto takes no real resources and will hopefully kill off the demand for shitty proof of work (GPU mined) coins.

There's a lot of shit in crypto and it will keep going on until they figure it out. NFTs are literally URLs to images being sold for millions with no real value. There are a million shit coins that serve no purpose other than to make the creators rich. Sadly it will only end when the scammed run out of money to be scammed with.

What is the light at the end of crypto's tunnel? I see it being a useful method of paying people for crowd hosting and supplying third world countries with a stable currency. I see NFTs being a way to resell DLC outside of the developer's control. I don't see 5000, 50, or even 5 different kinds of crypto being useful in the future. We don't have 8 versions of the dollar.

I could see maybe EA using NFTs to carry content across sports games, or Activision with Call of Duty.
But the question remains, what's the point, when they can make just as much money without doing so?

Zareth posted...

I could see maybe EA using NFTs to carry content across sports games, or Activision with Call of Duty. But the question remains, what's the point, when they can make just as much money without doing so?

They can do this without NFTs, but as you point out they don't and won't because they can get people to spend all over again each iteration.

Veedrock- posted...

They can do this without NFTs, but as you point out they don't and won't because they can get people to spend all over again each iteration.

But NFTs will make the player rich. Do you not want to be rich?

STEROLIZER posted...

But NFTs will make the player rich. Do you not want to be rich?

Dont need NFTs for that either. See: Team Fortress 2, Counter Strike Global Offensive, and release Diablo 3.

Yellow posted...

I think there is a legitimate case in favor of it.

Take Hearthstone, a game where you can buy cards that you don't own and can't trade. If nothing else changed about that game, but the cards were nfts, where you can buy a pack for a constant $5 or whatever and sell them individually, it would be objectively better.

But there's already ample precedent for being able to sell in-game items. Pretty much every multiplayer Valve game that's been active in the last decade allows players to do this, and any remotely popular game that allows trading has an unofficial RMT market. NFT's do nothing to enable this model.

Furthermore, official RMT models tend to make the game *less* enjoyable, rather than more, as publishers design the games around such models for the sake of maximizing the cut they take. Diablo 3 is one of the better-known examples of this: Under the original loot system, the vast, vast majority of gear that dropped was useless for the character you were playing (even more so than most ARPG's), all but forcing players to rely on the RMAH for meaningful upgrades. They could offset the cost of doing so by selling their unwanted stuff, but all of that just translated into the game being made less enjoyable for anyone that didn't make Blizzard a little extra money with all of those extra transactions. Eventually, Blizzard decided they'd exhausted their ability to make money off of the RMAH, so they scrapped it and Loot 2.0 came around and changed the bias to favour players' current character, generally making for a much more enjoyable experience, but the original game definitely suffered for the decision to build it around RMT.

Ultimately, RMT is a variety of microtransaction. If it's officially implemented, you run into all the same issues that are associated with any other kind of official microtransaction, usually involving the game being designed to manipulate players into spending extra money (extra grind, exploiting FOMO, paywalling the interesting cosmetics...). If nothing else changed, addingRMT to a game like Hearthstone that is currently designed to manipulate players into spending publisher-set prices to make the game less grindy would indeed improve the game. The problem, however, is that other things would change. The game would become unbearably grindy for anyone that didn't want to trade, game balance and drop rarity would be manipulated to promote higher-value trades, and Blizzard would overall start basing their game design around what would result in the most trading, rather than what would result in the most playtime (specifically, maximizing exposure to purchase opportunities).

Yellow posted...

The flaw is this, that wouldn't be a system designed for maximizing profit, so it would be abused and the designers would inevitably be selling cards for $10k because a pyramid scheme is one step away.

Squenix's president's comments on the matter make several references to "token-based economies," as well as a couple suggesting systems wherein players can recruit other players to sell stuff for them (literally pyramid schemes). Whatever happens, these economies will be pretty tightly controlled by the publishers for the sake of making them extra money. It's exceedingly unlikely that they'll result in significant benefits for any more than a tiny handful of players that really dedicate themselves to making money off of the game, and even that will be beholden to the publisher's whims because they will always have the ability to make the tokens that comprise the economy worthless.

Veedrock- posted...

Dont need NFTs for that either. See: Team Fortress 2, Counter Strike Global Offensive, and release Diablo 3.

Wat?

Unless some Steam games I own have issued NFTs to their players; no.

STEROLIZER posted...

Wat?

All three listed games allow players to buy/sell some of the items that they find while playing the game, and have for over a decade (well, D3 stopped in 2014 with the Loot 2.0 system, and became a dramatically better game for it). NFT's are in no way needed for such a model.

adjl posted...

All three listed games allow players to buy/sell some of the items that they find while playing the game, and have for over a decade (well, D3 stopped in 2014 with the Loot 2.0 system, and became a dramatically better game for it). NFT's are in no way needed for such a model.

But it allows you to sell it outside the game. The items are transferable elsewhere, for instance they could be used as a flex or for the metaverse. This is what allows them to increase in dramatic value and be worth six figures.

Say you happen to play Fortnite against a twitch streamer of modest following. That twitch streamer like your character's outfit, and comments on it -- his viewers also comment on it. One of his viewers is a rich guy who brokers a deal to purchase it from you, and then transfers it to the Metaverse, and now his Meta Avatar wears your Fortnite skin while its browsing Wikipedia.

Or ammore detailed example:

• You create cool skin
• You happen to play against twitch streamer who likes it
• That twitch streamer buys it and starts to use it on his streams
• That twitch streamer has a celeb follower like Logan Paul that wants the skin
• Logan pays half a million for it because money means nothing to him
• Other influencers, celebs, and rich people want what Logan has so they seek you out to make them custom Fortnite skins
• You are now known for better or worse as a High-End skin crafter. Like the Gucci of Fortnite. Anything you make sells for six figures, and you are now pulling in millions of dollars doing something that makes you happy.

Yea, that scenario is highly unlikely, but the point is...no matter how unlikely it is now opportunity that exists when previously it didn't. So, yea, NFTs do the same thing but provide more opportunity to the gamer...so why the fuck not, eh?

This has to be the worst gimmick in POTD history.

kangolcone posted...

This has to be the worst gimmick in POTD history.

What gimmick?

I work in the crypto & NFT industry. This is literally my job. Look at my sig, I run the GameFaqs Crypto Board, of course I'm going to be going against the grain and giving out Crypto & NFT insight from an insiders perspective. What else do you expect me to do?

The only reason I made a topic here was because on that particular day the Poll of the Day was about NFTs in Gaming.

Yellow posted...

Proof of stake crypto takes no real resources and will hopefully kill off the demand for s***ty proof of work (GPU mined) coins.

i can accept this but so far i've seen no plan outlined to actually make it happen, and most proponents seem to actually downplay it

STEROLIZER posted...

I work in the crypto & NFT industry.

That explains TC's enthusiastic bias for a terrible system. TC is a stakeholder so of course he/she will want to make this horrible system look like the best thing ever. It is in TC's interest.

Taaron posted...

That explains TC's enthusiastic bias for a terrible system. TC is a stakeholder so of course he/she will want to make this horrible system look like the best thing ever. It is in TC's interest.

You act as if Ive hidden this?

You have a bias too. You dont invest. You are watching everyone else get rich off a system you dont understand or do understand but just think its stupid, and rightfully so.

My key motivation is not to shill so the price goes up or whatever. Convincing randos on GameFaqs if the value within NFTs isnt going to do that.

It is however to evangelize something that has given me financial freedom within a very short time period. Because I know it could do the same for all of you if you all just took the chance to fully learn the game sotospeak.

STEROLIZER posted...

Say you happen to play Fortnite against a twitch streamer of modest following. That twitch streamer like your character's outfit, and comments on it -- his viewers also comment on it. One of his viewers is a rich guy who brokers a deal to purchase it from you, and then transfers it to the Metaverse, and now his Meta Avatar wears your Fortnite skin while its browsing Wikipedia.

Alternatively, they hit the PrintScreen button, pay a graphic designer $100 to replicate it for them, and get the same effect for a fraction of the cost.

STEROLIZER posted...

Yea, that scenario is highly unlikely, but the point is...no matter how unlikely it is now opportunity that exists when previously it didn't. So, yea, NFTs do the same thing but provide more opportunity to the gamer...so why the f*** not, eh?

Because when games are designed around players being able to purchase in-game bonuses, they tend to suck for people that don't spend the extra money. This is true whether we're talking about loot boxes, traditional microtransactions, or official RMT. The extent to which that is true varies by game. CS:GO's tradable items are pretty much all cosmetic (to my knowledge), and in both CS:GO and TF2's case, you get more than enough items (cosmetic or otherwise) dropping through normal play to have a good time, even if you'll have to resign yourself to never having the rarest cosmetic stuff if you don't want to buy it. DotA 2 similarly just has cosmetic stuff (plus the occasional extra minigames for those that purchase battle passes), with the rarest and most interesting stuff paywalled, but the game's quite enjoyable without that. Diablo 3, on the other hand, actively sabotaged its loot system to promote RMAH usage, and the whole game suffered tremendously as a result.

As much as publishers trot out the "it's optional!" excuse whenever people criticize them for greedy monetization schemes, they don't actually want it to be optional. They do everything in their power to encourage players to fork over extra money, stopping just short of making it actually mandatory because that would be bad PR. Any NFT integration is going to be no different. You'll get people defending it because they're clinging to get-rich-quick fantasies (*cough*), but ultimately, NFT's implementation is going to be done in a manner that pushes players that want to play for free (or not even free, since they already spent $70 on the game) into spending extra money. That makes for an objectively worse game for non-whales.

If you doubt this, just look at the letter Squenix's president wrote: He spends a great deal of it expressing thinly-veiled disdain for people that just want to buy a game from a game developer and play it for fun. These people don't like that paradigm, because it leaves control over that sweet, juicy revenue stream in the hands of players that are making the decision to play entirely on their own. The term "play to earn" is telling of what they want: They want players working for them. They want players to use their leisure time to make money for the companies not because they like the idea of playing the games, but because they feel compelled or obligated to. That is going to make for worse games. That's going to get even worse when the NFT bubble inevitably bursts and companies outright stop supporting the infrastructure, leaving countless players with nothing to show for the work they thought would be profitable for them and a terrible game that might not even run at that point.

adjl posted...

Alternatively, they hit the PrintScreen button, pay a graphic designer $100 to replicate it for them, and get the same effect for a fraction of the cost.

Because when games are designed around players being able to purchase in-game bonuses, they tend to suck for people that don't spend the extra money. This is true whether we're talking about loot boxes, traditional microtransactions, or official RMT. The extent to which that is true varies by game. CS:GO's tradable items are pretty much all cosmetic (to my knowledge), and in both CS:GO and TF2's case, you get more than enough items (cosmetic or otherwise) dropping through normal play to have a good time, even if you'll have to resign yourself to never having the rarest cosmetic stuff if you don't want to buy it. DotA 2 similarly just has cosmetic stuff (plus the occasional extra minigames for those that purchase battle passes), with the rarest and most interesting stuff paywalled, but the game's quite enjoyable without that. Diablo 3, on the other hand, actively sabotaged its loot system to promote RMAH usage, and the whole game suffered tremendously as a result.

As much as publishers trot out the "it's optional!" excuse whenever people criticize them for greedy monetization schemes, they don't actually want it to be optional. They do everything in their power to encourage players to fork over extra money, stopping just short of making it actually mandatory because that would be bad PR. Any NFT integration is going to be no different. You'll get people defending it because they're clinging to get-rich-quick fantasies (*cough*), but ultimately, NFT's implementation is going to be done in a manner that pushes players that want to play for free (or not even free, since they already spent $70 on the game) into spending extra money. That makes for an objectively worse game for non-whales.

If you doubt this, just look at the letter Squenix's president wrote: He spends a great deal of it expressing thinly-veiled disdain for people that just want to buy a game from a game developer and play it for fun. These people don't like that paradigm, because it leaves control over that sweet, juicy revenue stream in the hands of players that are making the decision to play entirely on their own. The term "play to earn" is telling of what they want: They want players working for them. They want players to use their leisure time to make money for the companies not because they like the idea of playing the games, but because they feel compelled or obligated to. That is going to make for worse games. That's going to get even worse when the NFT bubble inevitably bursts and companies outright stop supporting the infrastructure, leaving countless players with nothing to show for the work they thought would be profitable for them and a terrible game that might not even run at that point.

The T-Shirt example doesnt make any sense. Nothing to argue with about the second bot. You are 100% correct.

But NFTs are here, they arent leaving. Rebelling wont have any affect. So now its about learning the technology so you and other gamers can navigate the system to your own benefit and make realistic requests, and provide altruistic guidance to developers who are now forced to include NFT & Meta integration into their games.

smh I fell for a joke topic.

STEROLIZER posted...

You have a bias too. You dont invest. You are watching everyone else get rich off a system you dont understand or do understand but just think its stupid, and rightfully so.

There is a major difference between someone who is working in the industry and a consumer who may or may not buy into the product.

Someone who is in the industry have a obvious bias toward their products and want to sell and are more likely than not will fib and overblow the greatness of there product. Hence your words are not trustable. There are a lot of fallacies with the claims you have been making to overblow your product and industry but I honestly don't want to waste too much time arguing with someone who has a clear bias and motive to get someone on the NFC train.

Though I also recognize that people can be stupid. If enough stupid people buy into the NFC scheme then it can earn some people and businesses money and potentially become mainstay in the end... or eventually pop like the bubble it is.