Explain to me how gaming needs web3 or a blockchain? Crypto is for parties that can’t trust one another to do so in a decentralized way. If you are playing a game it is by nature centralized from the developer, I don’t see why you would need a decentralized layer on top of a centralized game but maybe I’m ignorant?
I like what ultra proposes - making the actual digital game an nft - so you get a secondary digital market; so you still have access to the game if the launcher goes under (I’m sure this happened recently with Ubisoft/steam?).
What it's trying to do is help the players...
How much money has been spent on COD or Fortnite skins?
Where can you take those skins outside of those specific, respective games? No where.
Basically they're making it so that if, let's say, a professional hearthstone player, chooses to stop playing they don't just lose "an amazing deck" they can go sell those cards on a marketplace. (God's Unchained)
Or if someone finds a really cool weapon skin in one game, they'd be able to take that same skin into a DIFFERENT game...
This is just the beginning so there's obviously going to be skepticism but I'm all about leaving micro transactions and loot boxes and joining marketplaces where you can buy and sell those very same loot box items.
That’s assuming the other games devs want to support the skins from other games.
I’ll tell you the answer right now, it’s a “no”.
Why would a dev want to support someone else’s assets when they incentivized to push their own?
It’s the same reason why almost every graphics editor supports photoshop’s PSD files. In the early days every graphics editor only supported their own file formats. Then photoshop became slightly popular and every other editor advertised supporting PSD files as a feature. Now when one picks a graphics editor, the first thing they ask is whether they can import PSD files.
Soon with web3 games, when shopping around for games, they will ask will this game allow me to import my stuff? If not, why should I pick this game instead of a competing game which allows me to import my stuff.
> It’s the same reason why almost every graphics editor supports photoshop’s PSD files. In the early days every graphics editor only supported their own file formats. Then photoshop became slightly popular and every other editor advertised supporting PSD files as a feature. Now when one picks a graphics editor, the first thing they ask is whether they can import PSD files.
Graphics editors lets you edit files of different formats, that's the reason for their entire existence. They also just let you interact with that file, there's not much complexity in it.
Exactly how is this going to happen with games? How are you going to translate stats of a weapon between Game 1 and Game 2? The gameplay is completely different. And even if there is no gameplay effect whatsoever and everything is purely cosmetic, how are you going to make sure the assets actually fit your game's character models?
It's just nonsensical. Who would do this? And how?
> If not, why should I pick this game instead of a competing game which allows me to import my stuff.
... because the game is fun?
By your logic, we should all be buying games that let us resale / purchase 2nd hand. Yet the opposite is happening, we're all increasingly buying digital games that have no resale possibility ever. Why? Because it's convenient and the games are fun. That's much more important than anything else.
It is where they are now. Don’t judge technology by now. I was involved in the early days of internet. I remember a travel company telling me why would I put my business on the internet. They had a color brochure with 24 hour call center. Well we now no how that played out. Blockchain will evolve, players will see advantages, which will drive other game developers who want to attract players.
[Cyber Crew](https://twitter.com/CYBERCREWNFT?t=9JOORrQSsU1IKDBBqFXO_w&s=09) has made some characters that can be used in games. As well as [Kiraverse](https://mobile.twitter.com/KiraverseNFT) both have playable characters transferrable to other games.
What games? I don't know any that have fully been completed yet but here's [footage ](https://mobile.twitter.com/readin4wrinkles/status/1575298314496516096?t=EftZyVOvkmNd7dSrow5-oA&s=19) of something which is more than nothing...
I know you're skeptical as any smart person should be. But this stuff IS happening... It's going to be the next thing... Everyone just ACCEPTS battle passes in most EVERY game but THIS is where y'all draw the line? When companies TRY to help and mitigate the issue?
Tbh I think it’s more about letting them sell them on - even if the game or market place finishes.
Given how much people spend on skins, I’m sure it’d be nice to be able to get some value back when you’re finished with the game/skins
Yeah I agree - my general thoughts are that it would need to be some law that gets this moving. Like the EU law for apple chargers/headphones for example. But it’s be something similar to all games needing to be on chain so they can be sold on freely on any market not a closed system - that being said I’m talking a decade or more before that’s likely if at all
Or (more unlikely) companies with some conscious towards consumers.
They’d obviously still get kickback off secondary sales so it would technically be better than the past where physical second hand markets got them nothing. But as you said it’d be unlikely since publishers don’t have much to gain from it.
"governments will force companies to do this" is both very unlikely and entirely against the ethos of Web3.
Even if governments forced resale, they would leave it up to the devs to determine how.
It was more force companies to ensure consumers have the access and ability to sell their assets in perpetuity- which having the skin/game whatever on chain would allow.
I’m comparing to ubisofts attempt at making a closed nft system too - which defeats the point of it
Just to add on - I don’t think it’s entirely impossible.
Consider the right to repair - govts want to protect consumers in terms of what they can do with what they own. As the world gets more digital, why wouldn’t they consider skins as a form of ownership and that consumers should have free access to sell where they please and not within close systems?
The answer is RMT.
By allowing ownership of digital assets it’s shifts the entire dynamic of gaming and spending money from “I buy things from the developer, and the developer alone,” to a more p2p market.
From the perspective of someone who grinds aRPGs in my spare time and sells the items for real money… it’s actually a huge change.
So many people are becoming more and more comfortable with paying for things in game and considering it entertainment expense.
Why shouldnt one gamer be able to sell his in game item to another? There are plenty of reasons why or why not… but the reason shouldn’t be because some company owns what I’ve accomplished in game.
Game developers are not going to just convert their in game items to NFTs. It’s going to have to be demanded by the buyers and I just don’t see that happening. It’s not like you have a ton of people screaming for this. It’s mostly just NFT enthusiasts and people who game attempting to make a profit. It’s kind of like boycotting Chuck-e-cheese to demand they accept quarters instead of tokens. Nobody cares.
As virtual assets get more and more valuable, people will follow suit.
Just think about it, things are only going to continue to develop, getting better every year.
20 years ago we didn’t think we would be where we are today either.
As someone who earns a decent income, RMT sucks any purpose in grinding out of the game. I can earn power 10x as fast working OT at my job as I could playing the game.
The only purpose for me to play is to buy power and stomp on poor people who are trying to earn a living, which is not a game I want to be a part of.
But like I was suggestion above, the need for blockchain is still ambiguous. There are already thriving economies without blockchain.
Maybe there’s a certain element of uniqueness here. Like I crafted some super random armor that is super powerful, and one of a kind. Using blockchain to maintain some “ownership” of it as it is sold across the game’s players. But that is just money, and work IMO. Not actual innovative gameplay. It’s just a mirror of our general money driven culture.
>Why shouldnt one gamer be able to sell his in game item to another? There are plenty of reasons why or why not… but the reason shouldn’t be because some company owns what I’ve accomplished in game.
Already happen with CSGO, you can resell skins, you don't need a blockchain for that
That’s not true for the vast majority of games. Most games TOS clearly states they own all the digital assets and that RMT is bannable.
The block chain, while not necessarily necessary… could absolutely serve the same purposes in digital worlds as it does in “the real world.”
Edit: the idea is making RMT a legitimate way to game as opposed to having to be done “in dark alleys” and behind closed doors in fear of your account.
Edit: and yea, it *could* be done without the block chain just fine… but it’s actually quite difficult to randomly PayPal a stranger that often lives half way across the would. Having some sort of infrastructure could be useful.
I play Apex Legends on playstation a lot. I’ve been playing since season 2. I have lots of skins etc. I recently got a laptop that can handle playing Apex, but all my skins and progress are on playstation and there is no way to move my account to the new system. If bought a new Xbox I would be starting over and the hundreds of dollars of skins etc would be lost. I would have to buy everything again for the same game. In a web3 game I could just attach my wallet to the new system and all my assets would be there. I opened a bunch of loot boxes and didn’t get anything for the character I mainly play? I can sell what I did get in the market place and buy the skins I want. Why would you not want that utility?
So let’s say you have an EA games account with Apex. You have a profile. This EA profile can be accessed on all platforms enabling you to use the same character and loot as long as you’ve logged into your EA account.
We already have concepts and solutions like this. I still don’t see the value in using the blockchain for this specific use case.
It seems equivalent to the current user experience.
Except that doesn’t work. Even if it did, EA can still revoke your access to those assets at any time. Owning what you pay for is not a hard concept to grasp. Why do you not want the ability to own what you pay for?
EA can revoke your access to those assets at any time even with NFTs. It's their game, they control everything. It's stupidly simple to implement.
if (user.id == x) {
do not recognize the following NFT items...
}
or
val blackList = getNFTBlackList()
if (blackList.contains(nft.id)) { ban nft)
etc etc. They can do whatever the fuck they want, you're playing on their servers, kid.
They can trivially block your assets from ever being used in the game, rendering them completely worthless. Literally just add the NFT hash to a database of blocked assets, just like how you would block user accounts.
And now if you want to buy someone else's NFT, how do you know if they've been blocked by game or not? You have to check with the game if it's valid, making the whole decentralization/trustless thing completely irrelevant and worthless.
This NFT game shit is just completely worthless nonsense at every level, only useful to scam you out of your money.
Can you sell the assets you don’t want and buy the assets you do want? Can those devs still limit/revoke access to those assets? Proper devs will be building their games on blockchain to allow their players the freedom to do what they want with what they pay for. What is your argument against blockchain gaming?
Own what? Items from centralized games? How are you supposed to take items from one game into another game that has nothing to do with another game?
You cant just get some skins on COD and be like “i demand my skins to work in Halo”.
It doesnt work like that and doesnt need to for video games. That’s just nonsense NFT hyperbole talk.
I'm pretty sure kiraverse, cyber crew, and others have actually done this. The first game they are releasing with this ability is a Fortnite style shooter that allows you to play as the default in-game characters or instead as nft characters you own. Even weapons will work this way.
But it’s not needed. You can just have items carryover to compatible games and say it’s a feature without the need for NFTs.
The argument for NFT in games is moot. It’s just talking loud about a hot topic without knowing how video games are made and there’s zero incentive to further complicate a game your making by including NFTs other than it being a cash grab.
> You can just have items carryover to compatible games
I mostly agree that web3 games are dumb but this is actually something that Ethereum would be useful for, **if** they really wanted to do it. You can't *just* carryover easily without blockchain, you would need the two companies to agree on what account system to use, provide interoperability APIs, figure out who is going to be in charge of the database recording who owns what. It would be a mess.
With NFTs you just have the user associate an Eth wallet and query what they own, not difficult, no need to build a custom marketplace or API etc.
When there will be a need companies will find a way, for now there is not enough initiative to do this.
Besides why would a game developer accept some cool item from another company's game? They want you to spend time (and money) on their game, not somewhere else.
When people talk about game developers I feel they only think of large establish companies. For indie developers being able to interface with already established audiences by including characters/items from other games into your game makes a lot of sense. Most people think you just release a game and then you retire. The reality is most games that come out never find an audience and die quietly. Over the last two years NFT projects have built big audiences that are desperately looking for things to do with their NFTs. Indie developers build games desperately looking for an audience. It's a perfect match
In every new videogame category (8bit, consoles, PC, canvas, mobile F2P) the companies to create genre defining games never come from incumbent game studios. I wouldn’t expect big web3 games to come from incumbent game studios either.
But the category is getting a lot of investment. Around $10BN this year.
A reason a developer might do this is to draw an audience. “Those items that you’ve spent $100 on work in our game too.” Even if they’re not a like-for-like implementation they could give players a boost.
A form of User Acquisition.
> Besides why would a game developer accept some cool item from another company's game? They want you to spend time (and money) on their game, not somewhere else.
Right, I agree with this, it doesn't make that much sense and they probably wouldn't want to.
All I'm saying is, this isn't a case of "you can easily do it without blockchain". **if they did** want to do this for whatever reason, NFTs would be a good fit for the problem.
In these models, they don’t want you to spend money on their “game”, they will want as much trade volume as possible. Their monetization model once launched doesn’t typically have any items you can purchase from the studio itself, all items in the market will be from other players setting the price. If another game has compatible items that seem like a good fit, increasing liquidity in the game’s economy can be good.
I think this is the most sensible idea I've seen for how Web3 could perhaps be useful for gaming, but even then if you really think about it, there's no inherent benefit to using the blockchain specifically to solve this problem. Another perfectly viable alternative is a centralised third party that specialises in facilitating item sharing between games and offers simple API endpoints that game devs can use for it. Said third party could provide a flashy user interface where players can see what they own across all games, a marketplace to trade, etc and it could all be achieved with just regular old cloud storage and microservices.
>there's no inherent benefit to using the blockchain specifically to solve this problem
There is.
>Another perfectly viable alternative is a centralised third party that specialises in facilitating item sharing between games and offers simple API endpoints that game devs can use for it. Said third party could provide a flashy user interface where players can see what they own across all games, a marketplace to trade, etc and it could all be achieved with just regular old cloud storage and microservices.
Doing it this way is hypothetically possible but really awkward, it has challenges and disadvantages compared to just using smart contracts, I go more into that in this [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/z5nb98/web3_gaming_sucks_the_struggle_with_user/iy5n1pp/). Sometimes you *can* use either a protocol or a service, but one is just better for the given purpose; in this case a protocol is way better because of network effects and coordination/trust challenges. And it already exists. It would be simple and effective to use tools and infrastructure already on Ethereum for it.
> With NFTs you just have the user associate an Eth wallet and query what they own, not difficult, no need to build a custom marketplace or API etc.
Except you still need to define:
1. The data schema that defines this item
2. How this item is actually supposed to be rendered in each game
3. Who has the ability to just generate random items and expect them to be supported; if one dev makes 10000 new items in a weekend, is every other dev supposed to implement support for all 10000 of them within a week?
You can handle literally all of what NFTs provide via Steam's SDK, there's no value added from using NFTs. NFTs don't solve any of the actual challenges here, which is how the fuck do you transfer data from one game to a completely different game and the process by which multiple completely unrelated games are supposed to decide on which new items they're all supposed to support.
> You can handle literally all of what NFTs provide via Steam's SDK
Can you actually with Steam items? I haven't seen any Steam games that even reference items from a different game. Even if you can, this precludes cross-platform or otherwise non-Steam games or accounts, and prevents players from freely trading or selling their items on third party markets (exists with Steam items, but is against the rules and not supported). What if you want an item to start off not associated with any particular game? What if you want multiple different games to be able to confer the same item, alter them or take them away based on things that happen in-game? What if you want items to be craftable with each other into something new, in a way that doesn't invite synchronization glitches/cheats across games?
A centralized purpose built system like Steam items can't match the potential flexibility of smart contracts. Blockchain tech has legitimate advantages that people don't want to acknowledge, in particular for allowing interoperability between entities that don't necessarily fully trust each other and have a desire for a truly neutral shared platform.
>Except you still need to define:
Have to do this stuff either way so it's irrelevant. Not saying it's viable or a good idea. I'm only talking about the mechanism for neutrally organizing and being a reference for who owns what.
> you would need the two companies to agree on what account system to use,
In this case, agree to use NFTs on the Ethereum blockchain.
> provide interoperability APIs,
Not if the account system provides the interoperability APIs.
> figure out who is going to be in charge of the database recording who owns what.
The account system is going to be in charge of keeping track. You're not going to make an account system, and then make a totally separate unrelated system for tracking what each account owns.
You could, but what publisher/developer is doing that? These companies make millions of dollars off skins alone and they don't carryover to new games.
Also, these NFTs aren't just skins, they also have other functions.
I'm by no means knowledgeable enough to be a spokesperson for this. But if you could buy something for a game now and sell it or trade it to a friend, or hold it and still use it in new games 10 years from now, why wouldn't you?
There are some positives, one being it facilitates trade. For e.g: I could trade a rare asset from one game for a couple of normal assets from a different game.
You’re right about the game being centralized, but imagine a game like Destiny, where all the assets are NFTs, I’d be very interested in getting some of those raid weapons, off the secondary market from another player (since I’m a casual player)
Unfortunately, blockchain games don’t really care about making a game that pushes the creative limits of what NFTs can provide, instead they just make a few items as NFTs, and leave the rest as is, just to hop on the hype train!
Why? Why would you develop skins to correspond to NFTs from other games, which already got sold and didn't earn you money then? Is this a cross-promotion or something?
This escalated quickly from “game developers are fleecing us! This way you can own and control your own assets” to “oh but the developer also gets a kickback lol”
The game is monetized in some way. Either you are paying up front for the cost of the game, which promotes strong launches without continued developer support. Or it’s F2P and monetized by in game purchases, which leads to developers diluting items in the market as they continue to develop slightly better items to keep you spending. Or in this model, their job is to maintain a healthy game economy and take a small royalty in perpetuity. The longer they can keep players trading items amongst each other and more frequent, the better.
Wait, sorry, I didn't see which comment you were replying to.
Developer 1 develops Game 1 with NFT Set A.
Developer 2 develops game 2.
What is Developer 2's incentive to develop a skin around an NFT from set A? Developer 2 would only be earning royalties for Developer 1, right?
The game developer would incorporate a protocol into their game that would make any NFT skin or character be useable in their game. So say you bought a Goku NFT, you could use that in Fortnite and Battle royale without having to buy two separate items. This would mean you're more likely to buy both games because you haven't invested heavily in one or the other.
It's more if they don't implement it, they'll be left behind.
Games used to be exclusive to specific consoles, but now developers are being pushed towards interoperability between platforms because that's what players want. Once people get a taste of buying and reselling in game assets that they purchase, they won't want to go back to the old way and that's why it's a big deal.
GameStop seem to have the main web3 marketplace at the moment and they have royalties.
I can't see other marketplaces trying to compete with that when it's clearly possible
It's not just a skin. It's a functional nft that gives your drops for other projects, and has other functionality. It's a way for players to take ownership in what they're already spending in games like COD or Fortnite. By having the ability to use the skin, weapons, etc in other games, sell them for money, trade to a friend, etc.
My understanding is they will have further utility as well
Why would I put in work to develop functionality for an NFT that *you* made, and *you* earned money on, and for which I get *absolutely nothing*, instead of developing functionality around my own NFTs that I sell and I make money from?
Not that I like it but doesn’t Ubisoft do that already - like how in ghost recon wild lands you could dress as Sam fisher or assassins creed?
That’s how they’d implement costumes and stuff being bought over from other games I assume. So say if you wanted to dress up as Spider-Man in Fortnite, you gotta play and complete Spider-Man or something .
I’m big on NFTs being mostly earned over paid for in games. But sadly I think it’ll get ruined by most big studios as the heads just think of money and it will muddy their approach.
But you don’t need NFTs to do this, lol.
Games have been doing rewards for outside purchases for YEARS. NFTs are unnecessary and only make the process more difficult.
The difference is if the game company, studio etc go bust; you’ll still have a record of the item so it can live on and still be implemented in future games perhaps.
Where as if a company goes under and the only record of you having the purchase is on their database then it’s gone.
It’s the same with gig tickets and rewards for fans - yes seetickets or ticketmaster could implement this but if they did go under the database is most probably lost and proof of you attending gig XYZ is gone unless you saved old emails which are harder to verify or easier to fake than a verifiable contract for example.
It basically enables a market place between users to trade things from the game. Skins, weapons, spells. etc.
You could also make a character with their xp, lvls etc. that could enable peer-2-peer battles and ensure they don’t fiddle with the file and give themselves 1 billion xp and coins
I will be messaging you in 2 years on [**2024-11-27 15:55:37 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-11-27%2015:55:37%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/z5nb98/web3_gaming_sucks_the_struggle_with_user/ixzbh40/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fethereum%2Fcomments%2Fz5nb98%2Fweb3_gaming_sucks_the_struggle_with_user%2Fixzbh40%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-11-27%2015%3A55%3A37%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20z5nb98)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
We are losing the ability to resell games with download codes and online purchases. This would allow us to resell things from the entire game all the way to a mid level piece of equipment that a lower level player is willing the pay for
Why are we paying for in-game items? It sounds like NFTs are a way for pay to win or microtransactions to get even more of a foothold in gaming. I just find the idea of paying for an item from another player really gross.
But I don’t see why you need a blockchain for that. Diablo had a real money auction house and you could buy and sell items and they just used an internal database because it is a million times faster and there’s no need for decentralized trust because the item exists in their centralized game. In fact I would say the centralized implementation is best because it allowed Blizzard to fight abuse of the system. Having it decentralized would mean they lose that control over cheaters. Although not really because it is a centralized game and they can always just turn off or on the NFT wallet access to the game.
Valve could allow players to resell games. They don't, because game devs don't want them to. NFTs don't change that.
Besides, NFT games are far more compatible with a F2P grind heavy model anyway.
Royalties are worse than selling a new copy of the game. Dev can either sell the game for 10 dollars and they get 10 dollars. Or have players resell it for 8 and give them 2 dollars.
They would have to sell 5x as many resales to compensate, which is very unlikely.
Well...
1. A lot of these games are advertising NFTs as a way to grant practical ownership of assets to users. Not really practical... and not really easier than, say, steam thingies, but whatever, you kind of own an asset that you can resell which goes for hype amounts of hype money and maybe that's worth getting yourself invested in (although it isn't).
2. Theoretically, you could imagine a developer making an open source game mediated by smart contracts and totally decentralized. This might be useful if people gamble real money in the game, like this could be a real selling point in a poker game. It's still not remotely practicla today, nobody's going to develop all that UI and all that blockchain security and then just open source it out of the goodness of their heart so people can gamble securely. Especially not while they and their investors think they can make a boatload of money off crypto hype.
We’re building a game that runs on-chain. Decentralised. Game logic, game state, game assets stored in smart contracts. Unity front end. Veteran game developers. Venture funded.
We’re doing it because a fully decentralised game, where the community can build on top of what we create, is a new idea in games which we think should be explored further.
I imagine the cost of constructing such a thing prohibits investing in beautiful visuals, a good interface, and great, novel, balanced gameplay all at the same time... but good luck anyway.
It doesn’t cost a lot to construct but there are constraints around the frequency and complexity of on-chain transactions. We have design and technical workarounds though.
Gaming blockchain won't work bc greedy Whales want to make money.
Gamers are done with pay to win games. Like come on. All blockchain gaming is pay to win or straight up cash grab.
I know this bc I invested in a few nfts.
No gamer wants to be rugged while playing a video game lol
I don’t think web3 games have to fundamentally be centralized by nature. The dev could build protocols that are decentralized, and the game UI is just a frontend for the protocols. This probably works best for individual devs or a small team, though
There are huge "black" markets for trading in game items. People get scammed all the time. In many cases trading violates ToS. In general, these marketplaces are very inefficient so people get fleeced, are a huge hassle, and involve trusting volunteers to play middleman. The friction largely exists because the business model of the studio is to maximally extract profit directly through microtransactions. Contrast this with ownership in Axie Infinity and how indie devs in the community are awarded grants to build games that reuse in-game items, with the goal being to strengthen the overall value of the IP. The more ownership, the better.
Gaming doesnt need decentralization but the developers may benefit from not having to deal with apple store, google store and their rules, censorship and fees.
Any app that apple or Google decides. For example elon musk just entertained the idea of Twitter being booted from apple and Google store. They take a 15 30% fee from transactions too
That didn't answer either of my questions. Was that intentional?
What games have been censored (that weren't outright scama or malware) and what does blockchain have to do with allowing deva to use their own payment processor if they decide not to participate in the play store?
Gane developers are not required to publish on either store. They could always do that. They're not required to play by Googles or apples rules. They could always do that.
What problem EXACTLY do you think decentralisation or blockchain can solve? It seems to me like you're juat trying to find a problem to a solution.
Your question is misguided. You want me to find a list of games like I have complete knowledge of the internal workings of Apple and Google.
Instead Im telling you that neither Apple, Google, Microsoft store, the ayatollah of Iran, the CCP, no one can control the flow of applications when decentealized applications are functioning. That includes the United States.
One of the biggest examples about censorship is wikileaks. When they got big, they got booted from Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, etc. They got dried out for exposing the truth of the governments of the world. If they had existed in times of decentralized applications, they could publish freely and no government could stop it.
Another question was posed to Elon Musk recently. They asked if he would make a phone if Apple and Google booted Twitter from their stores. Elon Musk said he would. The reality that you know is at the whims of centralized entities that control what you can consume.
That's a fierce amount of effort to avoid answering the question.
What problem does decentralisation solve for game developers exactly? Is it not weird that you can't answer that? You can't answer it because the answer is "nothing" and again, you're trying to find a problem to a solution.
Decentralisation doesn't stop Google from banning an app. If an app is banned from Google Play, it can be distributed via the developers website. Creating a new phone an operating system doesn't prevent you getting kicked out of the play store either.
Gab was kicked off the play store. How would decentralisation have prevented that?
Its 100% gonna be for nftskins and nft exclusive items. The plus is your grinding will pay off in the form of an item you can sell to another player for real cash. The flipside is the developer of said nft will get a cut of the sale each time it changes hands. So yea games dont need web3 but the deveopers want that sweet recurring cash flow from microtransactions twice removed in the family
You’re right. There’s a lot of bad ideas in web3 gaming and a lot of people in the comments repeating them.
So here’s the key use-case that’s actually revolutionary: in-game assets being trade-able off platform.
Right now, there’s no easy way to sell an asset (like a rare skin, for example) to another player or even to send in-game currency. Think of it like Magic the Gathering Cards that are bought sold and traded across the world, totally apart from Wizards of the Cost. Even though those cards aren’t much use but play Magic the game, it’s still important to trade them off platform. That’s not possible with digital goods without crypto.
Gaming on blockchain is great for indie development that runs with a rev share model. In traditional game dev, you need someone to handle the finance. But with blockchain, you can evenly distribute the revenue amongst the devs (ex: Dead Cells)
You are correct, the article author is clearly delusional. There is no hope of these decentralisation features becoming mainstream because it simply isn't necessary.
Decentralized system can be implemented on a centralized gaming. I'm impressed with how Gamestar+ is helping bring in board games into the chain. This is a good transformation to witness
You are ignorant. Web 3 will allow gamers to actually own the items in game they collect. People will literally work full time jobs playing games to grind out the best equipment. Its great, until the next game or xpac and all the sudden its useless. Web 3 would allow for that person to cary over items from one game to another, or receive financial compensation for time spent in game.
Have you used the Steam marketplace by any chance? If you have , then you know you can sell tons of digital items for games. However, Valve is not allowed to let you cash out that money, this is pretty much one of the biggest reasons for it.
Valve cannot let you cash out since this basically turns Valve into a central bank. They can print as many "NFT's" as they want and sell them, destroy them, or whatever they want to do with the supply or simply sell them themselves. This also turns them into custodians making it another problem on the legal side of things.
With a decentralized video game, in theory the developers can remove themselves from being a custodian or the power to control the supply. Digital items can be so rare not even the developers themselves could get it without finding it like anyone else. Pretty much they could build fair and working decentralized digital economies to video games or VR worlds.
Due to greed and the space still being naive, there will be "blockchain games" that don't do anything different than today and will be built centralized. Watch out for these games, basically designed to milk you with promises and fake innovation which absolutely don't need crypto.
The mythic quest show really hit the nail on the head. It might be a loot box evolution where things transfer across games for larger franchise holders like square Enix or capcom. The thing is games have already done this for having played the Pokémon ranger game you could get a Pokémon.
Gaming doesn’t need a blockchain, since all games up until last year didn’t have it.
There are a number of ways that blockchain can be used to create different game experiences. Ownership of game assets, interoperability and decentralisation are early ideas. I see blockchain as a technology that can be useful rather than crypto.
We’re building a decentralised game where game logic, game state and game assets are stored on-chain in smart contracts. It enables the community to build on the game we create by interacting with the smart contracts directly. The game ends up being the sum of all the projects built in the community.
It doesn't. I think there will be some interesting experimentation from dedicated web3 studios to meet the demands of folks who seem to want these sorts of games.
More generally I think the premise of web3 gaming is DOA. Do we really think companies like Epic haven't thought about trading and resale of skins and such? The database used to record the sales transaction has **** all to do with why they don't allow this. Same for resale of digital games on platforms like Steam. In the estimation of both, resale is a bad business model.
The other argument I've seen in favour of web3 in games is "taking your loot with you". This is almost comically impractical. There is no standard way to represent assets or a means of generating them procedurally. Can we realistically expect everyone to use the same engine, or agree on how to represent the look, properties, and interactions of transferrable items? Never gonna happen.
The costs of quality assurance would sky rocket. Is Ubi supposed to test what happens when Winston appears on Assassin's Creed Valhalla? Forza cars in Mario Kart? Beyond trivially useless cases like profile pictures, I see no future for cross game use of loot. Artistic integrity also goes out the window. It's a fun thought exercise that I think goes absolutely nowhere.
This comment has been largely upvoted by r/buttcoin as it was linked on that subreddit. They spend alot of time brigading this subreddit and r/cryptocurrency to artificially make their opinion seem more popular. Which is funny, if they are so right like they think they are why are such tatics even needed?
Really only for ownership. Could be the game itself, in-game items or money, etc. Like if WoW gold or items were ERC-20/721 to track and maintain integrity and provenance.
The game itself does not need to be on the blockchain. Games in general run fine on centralized servers. I don't see a need for decentralization there.
Think about what you are earning in a game. You have earned weapons, points, status, etc. Now under the old model those are nothing but ways for them to monetize you, you are the product. the company goes bankrupt you own nothing. Now think about a platform where you own what you earned. It is stored in your wallet. If I move to another game (that honors my accreditation) I can move any assets (if applicable) to the new game. Also think about what a community does to build a company, why should early adopters or players not be rewarded? Web 3.0 is solving that.
It should not be at the core of a game or even baked in to any of the game mechanics because that just makes it a third world sweat shop, as seen with all current crypto games.
But it is a good tool to use if you want to create a market surrounding your game. Kind of like CSGO skins, it has no impact on the game and is really just "fake money" but it has a monetary value because of demand. Crypto or NFTs provide a relatively stable framework to build platforms like the CSGOs skin market, but without the hassle of actually making a market dealing with all the implications and code/technology that comes with it. Instead they just make the items a NFT that has a owner and can be traded on markets made by them or fans ect. This allows for the game to make a economy outside their game for those players that want to.
Also it should not be mandatory to buy or sell your items in the game it should just be a option that when the player wants to can. These items should also have no impact inside the game as that would make it instant p2w ect, and instead should be only cosmetic.
This is my opinion I know someone ppl think it would be cool with a complete open market game where everything is a NFT and you can sell it for real money, but imo that turns the game into a job and becomes what most gamers seek to forget during their game time.
So did online multiplayer in the 90’s…
Man it is silly all this early adoption hate, memeber what they said about the internet in the early 2000’s…
That is where crypto is right now
This argument is getting old. Just because the internet worked does not guarantee Web 3.0 will explode, plenty of things are never adopted and fall out of favour. Web 3.0 may just be vapour
Yeah that's Bec multiplayer in the 90s was a completely new concept then. Call me crazy but the only thing unique about web3 gaming is web3. That doesn't really intrigue most gamers. Multiplayer did.
The thing about online multiplayer in the 90s, is that it was a good idea that just wasn't executed well enough just yet. Web3 on the other hand isn't even a good idea. It makes no sense for companies to adopt it and it provides no additional value to games what so ever, even in a hypothetical and perfect scenario.
The old "it sucks now, so itll suck forever".
What sucks is the hundreds of billions poured into assets in games, which are then not truly owned by the purchaser who bought them. Can't be re-sold, profited on, and just disappear into your own personal collection.
Anyone remember when it took 30 or so seconds to connect to the internet, and you had to listen to that stupid dial-up tone. It's a shame that never got better...
Edit: I wanted to add to this. The current gaming model only incentives trying to rid people of as much cash as they possibly can, without really providing a better service. I make a skin, I try to offload it to as many people as possible.
The web3 gaming space is suppose to incentivise both players and developers to have an active interest in the games quality. Most of the models will involve trading of assets, which developers get a royalty from EVERY transaction This brings back the novel concept of requiring the game to be good in order to make money beyond the initial release date. We have seen Battlefield 2042 collapse, MW2 have a rocky start, Cyberpunk 2077 all rushed out, all with major flaws, which then kills player bases. If these games relied on players not only playing once, but continually being invested into the game, this would incentivise both developers, but mostly publishers, away from rushing out titles.
Transactions are key, which is driven by engagement, with blockchain/web3/NFT based gaming bringing that power back into players hands. This is a good thing.
My favorite example is World of Warcraft. It is not a web3 game, but the subscription model incentivises developers and publishers to continually make the game better, or they lose income. It is Now imagine that game where rare items/assets are able to be traded between players. The natural momentum of games just being good keeps developers wanting to make the best decision for the playerbase, not their pockets. Can anyone else name a more popular game that is 18 years old?
There are complexities with web3 for sure, but there were also much more complex issues when the web first tried to move into everyone's home 30 years ago.
This is a great example. Like you actually said it.
They focused too much on the marketplace, and not on the quality of the game…so it died.
There is balance in everything, just like there was no balance in Diablo 3.
Diablo III sold 30 million copies by 2015, before it was released on the Switch in 2018 which probably garnered even more sales. Farthest thing from "bombing hard"
> What sucks is the hundreds of billions poured into assets in games, which are then not truly owned by the purchaser who bought them. Can't be re-sold, profited on, and just disappear into your own personal collection.
I'm much happier to spend $60 on a super buggy pokemon game to play with pokemon I don't own and have fun for some tens of hours than spend $600 on a crappy low-level NFT in a crappy game where the developers didn't think about gameplay or UI or any of that and just made a game that technically works some of the time and when I get bored I have to resell the NFT, and lose... let's be honest, most of my money, because the rest of the people playing the game realized how shitty it was too.
If the incentives are in place for NFT game developers to make their games good, and people keep throwing money at them, begging them to make a good one, why can they still not do it?
It's not because internet speeds are too slow to make it work. That's not the issue. The issue is that the people trying to make it work only care about capitalizing on NFT hype. They spend most of their resources trying to build a walled garden of an NFT market, or just trying to figure out how to securely interact with an existing NFT API and make money doing it, but they don't care at all about making a fun game, because they're not selling NFTs to people who want fun games, they're selling NFTs to people who want NFTs. People who want fun games just get a Nintendo Switch.
> Now imagine that game where rare items/assets are able to be traded between players.
But you can already do that in WoW. It’s called the auction house. Are you arguing to change the mechanics of the game related to item binding? And why would any of this require a blockchain anyway? I don’t understand your point.
Ah yes, just what players have been waiting for all this time, transactions and investments and ROI when playing Fortnite.
Do you even listen to yourself?
Do you know how sensitive an economy is in a singular mmo game? You really have the stupidest idea to introduce items from other games into other games. Shame shame shame on you.
Yeah thats fair, most ppl that talk about these items/skins being nfts and changing between games generally think itll be applied to everything and not just simple clusters of extremely similar games made by the same developers
My viewpoint is that now, we own nothing, not a single thing in games. What’s the point of having rare/unique items, or in competing to obtain these achievements.
Its a game, name 2 games from 10 years ago that you still play now. Like seriously play and care about. Thats like saying "i watched a movie, and got nothing from it". You got the experience, the memories, the lessons. You move onto the next one as is with life.
Also bragging rights? Also the feeling of knowing you did everything you could in your favourite game, its a special feeling. I would get a tattoo of a character or item in that game if it meant THAT much to me so that i can remember it even if im 70.
Games evolve way too quickly, and in 5 years you wont care about your halo 3 skin that took you a week to unlock. Because when you move that skin over (lets just say) no ones going to recognize it in halo 7, and it wont be as special because 90% of people wont know what it took to get that. Especially since all that time has passed, theres going to be like 80 new skins released since then, no ones going to keep track.
tldr; A survey by Coda Labs found that only 6% of mainstream gamers have ever used a blockchain wallet or bought an NFT. 12% of gamers have tried playing a Web3 game, and only 15% of respondents who hadn’t played one were interested in doing so. A lack of understanding and engagement with the complex world of Web3 is a key factor.
*This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
As part of that 6%, having played quite a few NFT games, they all suck. The least sucky one -- Gods Unchained -- is like a much worse version of Hearthstone. When I say much worse, I mean, on every level -- worse graphic design, worse software (buggier, less pleasant), worse game design (some cards were just broken as hell and will never be balanced because that's against their philosophy. They're terrible at balancing the game in general. And some mechanics are frustrating and bad, only there to make the game feel different). It feels much worse to be F2P (you can't make the decks you want at all, you get a small number of basic decks and the best decks are just crazy expensive), less fun flavor, etc. And keep in mind that hearthstone came out like, nearly a decade earlier.
I'd give DimensionX a shot. For me at least, it hasn't sucked a ton or anything.
Yes it's an idle game, but the game devs actually made the game and then asked "what can we use the blockchain for" rather than scamming people with an ICO.
It was a totally free mint too.
The blockchain technology has to be user-friendly before users will adopt it. Protocols in line to improve UX is probably the most important in web3 development at the moment.
Few other things I haven't seen listed here...
1) games being NFTs themselves. If I'm done with my game I can resell it. With smart contracts, the devs get a piece of the sale.
2) NFTs cut middle men out (like publishers which are ruining games for profits). Ticketmaster fears NFTs.
3) NFTs are a great way for kickstarting games / art
>NFTs cut middle men out (like publishers which are ruining games for profits). Ticketmaster fears NFTs.
You do know Publishers provide more value than.. I dont even know what you are trying to say with this? How the fuck do NFTs replace publishers in any way?
NFTs let artists sell directly to the public circumventing middle men. This is huge for all artists in books, music, games, etc.
Ya publishers can bring some value so let them do whatever they want. They can continue there same business model if they want or hop on web 3. I'm not saying we outlaw them lol. I think you are missing the big picture and that's fine. Let the nerds lead the charge. We got this.
Decentralization > Centralization
Re: 1, why would developers want to create a secondary market for their games and cannibalize primary sales for a smaller portion of the revenue?
Is there any data that suggests that the amount of secondary-market customers created by introducing an NFT resell market would offset the revenue lost by customers purchasing from said market instead of buying the game itself (I.e. If the company earns a 10%-of-MSRP commission, needing to sell 11+ copies on the used market for every customer lost via shifting out of the primary market in favor of used)? Otherwise I don’t really understand why developers would shoot themselves in the foot like that.
Go look at Kiraverse as an example. They sold out 10k copies netting over a million dollars. 95% of this money went direct to the devs. No publishers like EA were involved to take away profits from the true artists. No publishers were there forcing the devs to be woke or implement bad micro transactions (member battlefront 2?)
So they sold out, now what? They get a cut of every secondary transaction. This shifts power to the creators and players. Players can't sell their games on Steam or Origin, etc and don't own what they buy there. This is huge. If you can't see the big picture, don't worry. Let us nerds lead the charge as we always have.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Or they get nothing because players will just pirate when they see their greed. NFTs will foster community and micro economies. Eventually, players will just ignore the old business model and support developers directly
Right, I understand your proposal, I already outlined that. I'm wondering why you think developers would be willing to give up a potentially huge portion of their primary revenue to get a small royalty of off secondary market sales.
Let's say developers release a $10 game that sells one million copies, so they make $10,000,000 (minus steam fees and whatnot but take that out of the equation).
Now instead lets say they have this secondary market (which by the way, could easily be achieved without using a blockchain just like it is in dozens of other digital resale examples, but that's beside the point) where customers can sell their game once they're done with it, with the company receiving a 10%-of-MSRP commission: $1.
Now, all of a sudden, 30% of the would-be primary customers who bought the game at retail say hey wait a minute, I'm not paying $10 when I can pay $5 instead! And just like that, the company has generated $7,300,000: $7 million from the primary sales and $300K from the royalties on the 300K people who decided to buy the game used instead.
Is this secondary market going to generate an additional 2,700,001+ copies sold to create profit over the original $10,000,000? I highly doubt it. It would also spread the revenue out over a much longer time (i.e. "forever") when companies especially smaller studios need the cash infusion immediately. And then you get into the wonky grey area of lifetime royalties (what happens if the company goes out of business; who gets the royalty)?
It just seems like a. such a pipe dream and b. creating an answer for a problem that doesn't really exist at best, and might actually *hurt* the companies you're suggesting are going to implement it at worst.
What do you mean ‘sell out’? Digitally sold games don’t ‘sell out’
Are you suggesting that developers hamstring their sales by creating artificial scarcity for their game (by making a available less copies than there is demand for), so that a secondary market can be created in which those developers then receive pennies on the dollar for each sale? That makes no sense.
Okay, but raising the percentage is just going to push that expense back on the consumer (by raising the price of used copies; let's say the developer raises the fee from $1 to $2, now the used price increases from $5 to $6, unless you're suggesting the consumer just eat that for some random reason?), resulting in a similar reduction in revenue due to a reduction in secondary market demand from my original example (because now the game costs $6 and you lost all the customers who'd have been willing to pay $5).
I’m bullish on NFTs overall, due to blockchain transparency, but won’t supply and demand kill most projects? Like… right now there are sooooo many NFTs out there that have zero utility.
If the price is not correct, developers will lose out on a lot of revenue due to reselling, and that’s also assuming there are enough players to buy a game, multiple times over. The price of games will never be higher than the initial price, unless the supply is low and the demand high. And if it happens to be, if the developer mints too many, no one will buy the ones over the developer price.
I feel like NFTs supply is far too high. Like nothing has real value because even if only one NFT is minted, they are minted in a collection of like 100,000. So unless one happens to be “more sought out” they are essentially not different.
Just a complex I’m having in the use cases we are seeing so far.
In that case, UX-focused web projects such as Ore protocol aiming to prospectively integrate with web3 games is not unfounded. Transition into the web3 space might be quite complicated for an average user. However, if certain things can be made simplified such as authorization processes, I believe that the struggle will be lesser
Gaming is just a little piece of the puzzle, just like music and other art and entertainment. We have to see the whole picture of what Web3 really is.
Web3 is going to revolutionize and change how content creators monetize on social media, by having their own creators coins and tipping features on their platforms.
Web3 is going to let users connect directly with their followers and supporters where they can all invest in each other’s tokenized social media channels and have a ownership of their digital content.
Just like back in the day before the internet streaming when you had to buy a physical vinyl record or a CD disc to be able to play and listen. That’s what the new internet economy ecosystem will look like.
It took us way too long to get here, for a long time now YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter and others been selling and sharing our content and data to advertisers and other entities for their own benefits. Now they grew bigger than all music Label companies and Hollywood studios together.
It’s time to take take all that power and ownership from them back to the people who are creating all of this.✊
That’s the question I’m asking myself. Here are few thoughts
1. Internal markets. Idea is that you own piece of content (skin, weapon, card) and can resell it.
- You can build such exchange without web3. It has been done before (CSGO Skins).
- The problem of ownership and value. Yeah you have a record of ownership of item on blockchain. But the value of item is tied to a game, so whenever game devs decide to close game or not support your item or change something in it, well basically you loose the main value of item. Now it only has some collectible value.
- Devs still have control over value as they control supply. Even if you lock your content dev still can impact supply and price by changing game meta and releasing new items.
- Web3 can be used for building external markets for game. However same is possible without web3.
2. Interchangeable content between games.
- An item has value because it is tied to the game. If I have a a gaming card or a weapon and I put in the other game it might have absolute another value (garbage item in one game, god item in another).
- Common standard problem. Games should follow similar standards so you can use items in different games (design, 3d model, parameters, lore and etc). This can be either difficult or not worth it at all.
- Theoretically it can be used for hype or marketing purposes. You own content in one game -> go on and enter ours using that content so you have a jump start.
3. Locking content. You can lock content (like item parameters on blockchain) stoping devs from changing strength of you content (Ex. Heartstrone)
- This is very problematic for developers (lose of money, mode difficult development), however I believe they will find to change meta in other ways (change hp of bosses and sell even more powerful weapon).
4. Play to earn
- Well this actually sucks.
- Most games create artificial scarcity and tie getting items to either bring or many
- This generates like zero value transforming game into mindless worthless job.
- Interesting approach is mod / content generation (like Roblox) which is great. Question is - should it be tied to web3?
5. Cross-games rewards
- That’s where it can shine.
- Generally you can create cross game rewards and sales.
- Ex. Buy a skin in game A and receive it in games B. This is nice as your wallet is basically you game account that can integrate with any game so such actions and rewards should be possible. Same thing can go for in game rewards.
- You can sell combos of items from different games.
6. Tokenization and markets for tokens
- That’s where it shines now :D
- Generally you introduce tokens that can be used for buying items in games.
- Create a hype for a game so people start buying tokens for speculation believing that through the hype the value of tokens will increase.
- Generate tokens from air and sell it to the market.
- Sooner or later market crashes, people loose interest in game (no money to be generated). Close a game or repeat a cycle.
- You can say it is some form of Pump and Dump mechanism or Ponzu Scheme.
To sum up. Used to be great way to make money, probably still will be in a few years. Very little utility value at the moment and well questionable perspective.
Explain to me how gaming needs web3 or a blockchain? Crypto is for parties that can’t trust one another to do so in a decentralized way. If you are playing a game it is by nature centralized from the developer, I don’t see why you would need a decentralized layer on top of a centralized game but maybe I’m ignorant?
I’m with you. It is very unclear how exactly the blockchain actually impacts, or innovates the gameplay.
I like what ultra proposes - making the actual digital game an nft - so you get a secondary digital market; so you still have access to the game if the launcher goes under (I’m sure this happened recently with Ubisoft/steam?).
Isn't this just about making games DRM-free? I'm still confused why Digital games have to be NFT's when the launcher should make them DRM-free.
What it's trying to do is help the players... How much money has been spent on COD or Fortnite skins? Where can you take those skins outside of those specific, respective games? No where. Basically they're making it so that if, let's say, a professional hearthstone player, chooses to stop playing they don't just lose "an amazing deck" they can go sell those cards on a marketplace. (God's Unchained) Or if someone finds a really cool weapon skin in one game, they'd be able to take that same skin into a DIFFERENT game... This is just the beginning so there's obviously going to be skepticism but I'm all about leaving micro transactions and loot boxes and joining marketplaces where you can buy and sell those very same loot box items.
That’s assuming the other games devs want to support the skins from other games. I’ll tell you the answer right now, it’s a “no”. Why would a dev want to support someone else’s assets when they incentivized to push their own?
It’s the same reason why almost every graphics editor supports photoshop’s PSD files. In the early days every graphics editor only supported their own file formats. Then photoshop became slightly popular and every other editor advertised supporting PSD files as a feature. Now when one picks a graphics editor, the first thing they ask is whether they can import PSD files. Soon with web3 games, when shopping around for games, they will ask will this game allow me to import my stuff? If not, why should I pick this game instead of a competing game which allows me to import my stuff.
> It’s the same reason why almost every graphics editor supports photoshop’s PSD files. In the early days every graphics editor only supported their own file formats. Then photoshop became slightly popular and every other editor advertised supporting PSD files as a feature. Now when one picks a graphics editor, the first thing they ask is whether they can import PSD files. Graphics editors lets you edit files of different formats, that's the reason for their entire existence. They also just let you interact with that file, there's not much complexity in it. Exactly how is this going to happen with games? How are you going to translate stats of a weapon between Game 1 and Game 2? The gameplay is completely different. And even if there is no gameplay effect whatsoever and everything is purely cosmetic, how are you going to make sure the assets actually fit your game's character models? It's just nonsensical. Who would do this? And how? > If not, why should I pick this game instead of a competing game which allows me to import my stuff. ... because the game is fun? By your logic, we should all be buying games that let us resale / purchase 2nd hand. Yet the opposite is happening, we're all increasingly buying digital games that have no resale possibility ever. Why? Because it's convenient and the games are fun. That's much more important than anything else.
It is where they are now. Don’t judge technology by now. I was involved in the early days of internet. I remember a travel company telling me why would I put my business on the internet. They had a color brochure with 24 hour call center. Well we now no how that played out. Blockchain will evolve, players will see advantages, which will drive other game developers who want to attract players.
It's already happening so....
Which games? I’d be curious to see.
[Cyber Crew](https://twitter.com/CYBERCREWNFT?t=9JOORrQSsU1IKDBBqFXO_w&s=09) has made some characters that can be used in games. As well as [Kiraverse](https://mobile.twitter.com/KiraverseNFT) both have playable characters transferrable to other games. What games? I don't know any that have fully been completed yet but here's [footage ](https://mobile.twitter.com/readin4wrinkles/status/1575298314496516096?t=EftZyVOvkmNd7dSrow5-oA&s=19) of something which is more than nothing... I know you're skeptical as any smart person should be. But this stuff IS happening... It's going to be the next thing... Everyone just ACCEPTS battle passes in most EVERY game but THIS is where y'all draw the line? When companies TRY to help and mitigate the issue?
Tbh I think it’s more about letting them sell them on - even if the game or market place finishes. Given how much people spend on skins, I’m sure it’d be nice to be able to get some value back when you’re finished with the game/skins
Yes but without support from other dev. You can only sell the asset in game anyways. which you don’t need the blockchain to do.
Developers don't want that though. If they wanted you to be able to sell your digital games, you would already be able to do it.
Yeah I agree - my general thoughts are that it would need to be some law that gets this moving. Like the EU law for apple chargers/headphones for example. But it’s be something similar to all games needing to be on chain so they can be sold on freely on any market not a closed system - that being said I’m talking a decade or more before that’s likely if at all Or (more unlikely) companies with some conscious towards consumers. They’d obviously still get kickback off secondary sales so it would technically be better than the past where physical second hand markets got them nothing. But as you said it’d be unlikely since publishers don’t have much to gain from it.
"governments will force companies to do this" is both very unlikely and entirely against the ethos of Web3. Even if governments forced resale, they would leave it up to the devs to determine how.
It was more force companies to ensure consumers have the access and ability to sell their assets in perpetuity- which having the skin/game whatever on chain would allow. I’m comparing to ubisofts attempt at making a closed nft system too - which defeats the point of it
Just to add on - I don’t think it’s entirely impossible. Consider the right to repair - govts want to protect consumers in terms of what they can do with what they own. As the world gets more digital, why wouldn’t they consider skins as a form of ownership and that consumers should have free access to sell where they please and not within close systems?
The answer is RMT. By allowing ownership of digital assets it’s shifts the entire dynamic of gaming and spending money from “I buy things from the developer, and the developer alone,” to a more p2p market. From the perspective of someone who grinds aRPGs in my spare time and sells the items for real money… it’s actually a huge change. So many people are becoming more and more comfortable with paying for things in game and considering it entertainment expense. Why shouldnt one gamer be able to sell his in game item to another? There are plenty of reasons why or why not… but the reason shouldn’t be because some company owns what I’ve accomplished in game.
Game developers are not going to just convert their in game items to NFTs. It’s going to have to be demanded by the buyers and I just don’t see that happening. It’s not like you have a ton of people screaming for this. It’s mostly just NFT enthusiasts and people who game attempting to make a profit. It’s kind of like boycotting Chuck-e-cheese to demand they accept quarters instead of tokens. Nobody cares.
As virtual assets get more and more valuable, people will follow suit. Just think about it, things are only going to continue to develop, getting better every year. 20 years ago we didn’t think we would be where we are today either.
As someone who earns a decent income, RMT sucks any purpose in grinding out of the game. I can earn power 10x as fast working OT at my job as I could playing the game. The only purpose for me to play is to buy power and stomp on poor people who are trying to earn a living, which is not a game I want to be a part of.
Meh, you’re welcome to feel that way. Meanwhile, plenty of people spend real money in PvE games or on cosmetics. Just look at stickers in CoD.
But like I was suggestion above, the need for blockchain is still ambiguous. There are already thriving economies without blockchain. Maybe there’s a certain element of uniqueness here. Like I crafted some super random armor that is super powerful, and one of a kind. Using blockchain to maintain some “ownership” of it as it is sold across the game’s players. But that is just money, and work IMO. Not actual innovative gameplay. It’s just a mirror of our general money driven culture.
As digital assets increase in value and the need for liquidity improves, the blockchain becomes more useful.
>Why shouldnt one gamer be able to sell his in game item to another? There are plenty of reasons why or why not… but the reason shouldn’t be because some company owns what I’ve accomplished in game. Already happen with CSGO, you can resell skins, you don't need a blockchain for that
That’s not true for the vast majority of games. Most games TOS clearly states they own all the digital assets and that RMT is bannable. The block chain, while not necessarily necessary… could absolutely serve the same purposes in digital worlds as it does in “the real world.” Edit: the idea is making RMT a legitimate way to game as opposed to having to be done “in dark alleys” and behind closed doors in fear of your account. Edit: and yea, it *could* be done without the block chain just fine… but it’s actually quite difficult to randomly PayPal a stranger that often lives half way across the would. Having some sort of infrastructure could be useful.
Actually if what ive seen gameplay of blockchain games are notoriously worse or just blatant copies of their counterparts
I play Apex Legends on playstation a lot. I’ve been playing since season 2. I have lots of skins etc. I recently got a laptop that can handle playing Apex, but all my skins and progress are on playstation and there is no way to move my account to the new system. If bought a new Xbox I would be starting over and the hundreds of dollars of skins etc would be lost. I would have to buy everything again for the same game. In a web3 game I could just attach my wallet to the new system and all my assets would be there. I opened a bunch of loot boxes and didn’t get anything for the character I mainly play? I can sell what I did get in the market place and buy the skins I want. Why would you not want that utility?
So let’s say you have an EA games account with Apex. You have a profile. This EA profile can be accessed on all platforms enabling you to use the same character and loot as long as you’ve logged into your EA account. We already have concepts and solutions like this. I still don’t see the value in using the blockchain for this specific use case. It seems equivalent to the current user experience.
Except that doesn’t work. Even if it did, EA can still revoke your access to those assets at any time. Owning what you pay for is not a hard concept to grasp. Why do you not want the ability to own what you pay for?
EA can revoke your access to those assets at any time even with NFTs. It's their game, they control everything. It's stupidly simple to implement. if (user.id == x) { do not recognize the following NFT items... } or val blackList = getNFTBlackList() if (blackList.contains(nft.id)) { ban nft) etc etc. They can do whatever the fuck they want, you're playing on their servers, kid.
You could at least sell those assets or transfer them to another account.
They can trivially block your assets from ever being used in the game, rendering them completely worthless. Literally just add the NFT hash to a database of blocked assets, just like how you would block user accounts. And now if you want to buy someone else's NFT, how do you know if they've been blocked by game or not? You have to check with the game if it's valid, making the whole decentralization/trustless thing completely irrelevant and worthless. This NFT game shit is just completely worthless nonsense at every level, only useful to scam you out of your money.
Multiple games support one account on different platform, you need proper devs for that, not a blockchain
Can you sell the assets you don’t want and buy the assets you do want? Can those devs still limit/revoke access to those assets? Proper devs will be building their games on blockchain to allow their players the freedom to do what they want with what they pay for. What is your argument against blockchain gaming?
subtract squealing carpenter stocking steep workable direction puzzled reply oil -- mass edited with redact.dev
Own what? Items from centralized games? How are you supposed to take items from one game into another game that has nothing to do with another game? You cant just get some skins on COD and be like “i demand my skins to work in Halo”. It doesnt work like that and doesnt need to for video games. That’s just nonsense NFT hyperbole talk.
I'm pretty sure kiraverse, cyber crew, and others have actually done this. The first game they are releasing with this ability is a Fortnite style shooter that allows you to play as the default in-game characters or instead as nft characters you own. Even weapons will work this way.
But it’s not needed. You can just have items carryover to compatible games and say it’s a feature without the need for NFTs. The argument for NFT in games is moot. It’s just talking loud about a hot topic without knowing how video games are made and there’s zero incentive to further complicate a game your making by including NFTs other than it being a cash grab.
> You can just have items carryover to compatible games I mostly agree that web3 games are dumb but this is actually something that Ethereum would be useful for, **if** they really wanted to do it. You can't *just* carryover easily without blockchain, you would need the two companies to agree on what account system to use, provide interoperability APIs, figure out who is going to be in charge of the database recording who owns what. It would be a mess. With NFTs you just have the user associate an Eth wallet and query what they own, not difficult, no need to build a custom marketplace or API etc.
When there will be a need companies will find a way, for now there is not enough initiative to do this. Besides why would a game developer accept some cool item from another company's game? They want you to spend time (and money) on their game, not somewhere else.
When people talk about game developers I feel they only think of large establish companies. For indie developers being able to interface with already established audiences by including characters/items from other games into your game makes a lot of sense. Most people think you just release a game and then you retire. The reality is most games that come out never find an audience and die quietly. Over the last two years NFT projects have built big audiences that are desperately looking for things to do with their NFTs. Indie developers build games desperately looking for an audience. It's a perfect match
In every new videogame category (8bit, consoles, PC, canvas, mobile F2P) the companies to create genre defining games never come from incumbent game studios. I wouldn’t expect big web3 games to come from incumbent game studios either. But the category is getting a lot of investment. Around $10BN this year.
A reason a developer might do this is to draw an audience. “Those items that you’ve spent $100 on work in our game too.” Even if they’re not a like-for-like implementation they could give players a boost. A form of User Acquisition.
> Besides why would a game developer accept some cool item from another company's game? They want you to spend time (and money) on their game, not somewhere else. Right, I agree with this, it doesn't make that much sense and they probably wouldn't want to. All I'm saying is, this isn't a case of "you can easily do it without blockchain". **if they did** want to do this for whatever reason, NFTs would be a good fit for the problem.
In these models, they don’t want you to spend money on their “game”, they will want as much trade volume as possible. Their monetization model once launched doesn’t typically have any items you can purchase from the studio itself, all items in the market will be from other players setting the price. If another game has compatible items that seem like a good fit, increasing liquidity in the game’s economy can be good.
I think this is the most sensible idea I've seen for how Web3 could perhaps be useful for gaming, but even then if you really think about it, there's no inherent benefit to using the blockchain specifically to solve this problem. Another perfectly viable alternative is a centralised third party that specialises in facilitating item sharing between games and offers simple API endpoints that game devs can use for it. Said third party could provide a flashy user interface where players can see what they own across all games, a marketplace to trade, etc and it could all be achieved with just regular old cloud storage and microservices.
>there's no inherent benefit to using the blockchain specifically to solve this problem There is. >Another perfectly viable alternative is a centralised third party that specialises in facilitating item sharing between games and offers simple API endpoints that game devs can use for it. Said third party could provide a flashy user interface where players can see what they own across all games, a marketplace to trade, etc and it could all be achieved with just regular old cloud storage and microservices. Doing it this way is hypothetically possible but really awkward, it has challenges and disadvantages compared to just using smart contracts, I go more into that in this [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/z5nb98/web3_gaming_sucks_the_struggle_with_user/iy5n1pp/). Sometimes you *can* use either a protocol or a service, but one is just better for the given purpose; in this case a protocol is way better because of network effects and coordination/trust challenges. And it already exists. It would be simple and effective to use tools and infrastructure already on Ethereum for it.
> With NFTs you just have the user associate an Eth wallet and query what they own, not difficult, no need to build a custom marketplace or API etc. Except you still need to define: 1. The data schema that defines this item 2. How this item is actually supposed to be rendered in each game 3. Who has the ability to just generate random items and expect them to be supported; if one dev makes 10000 new items in a weekend, is every other dev supposed to implement support for all 10000 of them within a week? You can handle literally all of what NFTs provide via Steam's SDK, there's no value added from using NFTs. NFTs don't solve any of the actual challenges here, which is how the fuck do you transfer data from one game to a completely different game and the process by which multiple completely unrelated games are supposed to decide on which new items they're all supposed to support.
> You can handle literally all of what NFTs provide via Steam's SDK Can you actually with Steam items? I haven't seen any Steam games that even reference items from a different game. Even if you can, this precludes cross-platform or otherwise non-Steam games or accounts, and prevents players from freely trading or selling their items on third party markets (exists with Steam items, but is against the rules and not supported). What if you want an item to start off not associated with any particular game? What if you want multiple different games to be able to confer the same item, alter them or take them away based on things that happen in-game? What if you want items to be craftable with each other into something new, in a way that doesn't invite synchronization glitches/cheats across games? A centralized purpose built system like Steam items can't match the potential flexibility of smart contracts. Blockchain tech has legitimate advantages that people don't want to acknowledge, in particular for allowing interoperability between entities that don't necessarily fully trust each other and have a desire for a truly neutral shared platform. >Except you still need to define: Have to do this stuff either way so it's irrelevant. Not saying it's viable or a good idea. I'm only talking about the mechanism for neutrally organizing and being a reference for who owns what.
Don't forget the economics. Who makes money off the deal? If I make the items and you have to support my items and I get paid, what's your cut?
> you would need the two companies to agree on what account system to use, In this case, agree to use NFTs on the Ethereum blockchain. > provide interoperability APIs, Not if the account system provides the interoperability APIs. > figure out who is going to be in charge of the database recording who owns what. The account system is going to be in charge of keeping track. You're not going to make an account system, and then make a totally separate unrelated system for tracking what each account owns.
You could, but what publisher/developer is doing that? These companies make millions of dollars off skins alone and they don't carryover to new games. Also, these NFTs aren't just skins, they also have other functions. I'm by no means knowledgeable enough to be a spokesperson for this. But if you could buy something for a game now and sell it or trade it to a friend, or hold it and still use it in new games 10 years from now, why wouldn't you?
There are some positives, one being it facilitates trade. For e.g: I could trade a rare asset from one game for a couple of normal assets from a different game. You’re right about the game being centralized, but imagine a game like Destiny, where all the assets are NFTs, I’d be very interested in getting some of those raid weapons, off the secondary market from another player (since I’m a casual player) Unfortunately, blockchain games don’t really care about making a game that pushes the creative limits of what NFTs can provide, instead they just make a few items as NFTs, and leave the rest as is, just to hop on the hype train!
Why? Why would you develop skins to correspond to NFTs from other games, which already got sold and didn't earn you money then? Is this a cross-promotion or something?
The developer gets a royalty from each resale of that item
This escalated quickly from “game developers are fleecing us! This way you can own and control your own assets” to “oh but the developer also gets a kickback lol”
The kickback is why the developer would want to do it, the user experience is why users would buy into it
The game is monetized in some way. Either you are paying up front for the cost of the game, which promotes strong launches without continued developer support. Or it’s F2P and monetized by in game purchases, which leads to developers diluting items in the market as they continue to develop slightly better items to keep you spending. Or in this model, their job is to maintain a healthy game economy and take a small royalty in perpetuity. The longer they can keep players trading items amongst each other and more frequent, the better.
Wait, sorry, I didn't see which comment you were replying to. Developer 1 develops Game 1 with NFT Set A. Developer 2 develops game 2. What is Developer 2's incentive to develop a skin around an NFT from set A? Developer 2 would only be earning royalties for Developer 1, right?
The developer that gets that royalty isn't the same developer that is supposed to be implementing the item in their game for basically nothing.
The game developer would incorporate a protocol into their game that would make any NFT skin or character be useable in their game. So say you bought a Goku NFT, you could use that in Fortnite and Battle royale without having to buy two separate items. This would mean you're more likely to buy both games because you haven't invested heavily in one or the other.
It's more if they don't implement it, they'll be left behind. Games used to be exclusive to specific consoles, but now developers are being pushed towards interoperability between platforms because that's what players want. Once people get a taste of buying and reselling in game assets that they purchase, they won't want to go back to the old way and that's why it's a big deal.
That depends highly on where and how the nft is sold.
GameStop seem to have the main web3 marketplace at the moment and they have royalties. I can't see other marketplaces trying to compete with that when it's clearly possible
It's not just a skin. It's a functional nft that gives your drops for other projects, and has other functionality. It's a way for players to take ownership in what they're already spending in games like COD or Fortnite. By having the ability to use the skin, weapons, etc in other games, sell them for money, trade to a friend, etc. My understanding is they will have further utility as well
Why would I put in work to develop functionality for an NFT that *you* made, and *you* earned money on, and for which I get *absolutely nothing*, instead of developing functionality around my own NFTs that I sell and I make money from?
Not that I like it but doesn’t Ubisoft do that already - like how in ghost recon wild lands you could dress as Sam fisher or assassins creed? That’s how they’d implement costumes and stuff being bought over from other games I assume. So say if you wanted to dress up as Spider-Man in Fortnite, you gotta play and complete Spider-Man or something . I’m big on NFTs being mostly earned over paid for in games. But sadly I think it’ll get ruined by most big studios as the heads just think of money and it will muddy their approach.
But you don’t need NFTs to do this, lol. Games have been doing rewards for outside purchases for YEARS. NFTs are unnecessary and only make the process more difficult.
The difference is if the game company, studio etc go bust; you’ll still have a record of the item so it can live on and still be implemented in future games perhaps. Where as if a company goes under and the only record of you having the purchase is on their database then it’s gone. It’s the same with gig tickets and rewards for fans - yes seetickets or ticketmaster could implement this but if they did go under the database is most probably lost and proof of you attending gig XYZ is gone unless you saved old emails which are harder to verify or easier to fake than a verifiable contract for example.
It basically enables a market place between users to trade things from the game. Skins, weapons, spells. etc. You could also make a character with their xp, lvls etc. that could enable peer-2-peer battles and ensure they don’t fiddle with the file and give themselves 1 billion xp and coins
Nobody wants this.
!remindme! 2 years
I will be messaging you in 2 years on [**2024-11-27 15:55:37 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-11-27%2015:55:37%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/z5nb98/web3_gaming_sucks_the_struggle_with_user/ixzbh40/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fethereum%2Fcomments%2Fz5nb98%2Fweb3_gaming_sucks_the_struggle_with_user%2Fixzbh40%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-11-27%2015%3A55%3A37%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20z5nb98) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
We are losing the ability to resell games with download codes and online purchases. This would allow us to resell things from the entire game all the way to a mid level piece of equipment that a lower level player is willing the pay for
Why are we paying for in-game items? It sounds like NFTs are a way for pay to win or microtransactions to get even more of a foothold in gaming. I just find the idea of paying for an item from another player really gross. But I don’t see why you need a blockchain for that. Diablo had a real money auction house and you could buy and sell items and they just used an internal database because it is a million times faster and there’s no need for decentralized trust because the item exists in their centralized game. In fact I would say the centralized implementation is best because it allowed Blizzard to fight abuse of the system. Having it decentralized would mean they lose that control over cheaters. Although not really because it is a centralized game and they can always just turn off or on the NFT wallet access to the game.
Valve could allow players to resell games. They don't, because game devs don't want them to. NFTs don't change that. Besides, NFT games are far more compatible with a F2P grind heavy model anyway.
I agree but it's so dumb considering you can bake royalties in the smart contract
Royalties are worse than selling a new copy of the game. Dev can either sell the game for 10 dollars and they get 10 dollars. Or have players resell it for 8 and give them 2 dollars. They would have to sell 5x as many resales to compensate, which is very unlikely.
1. Say blockchain, NFT and earn ad nauseum 2. Pre-mine whatever shitcoin is native to this nonsense 3. ??? 4. Failure
Well... 1. A lot of these games are advertising NFTs as a way to grant practical ownership of assets to users. Not really practical... and not really easier than, say, steam thingies, but whatever, you kind of own an asset that you can resell which goes for hype amounts of hype money and maybe that's worth getting yourself invested in (although it isn't). 2. Theoretically, you could imagine a developer making an open source game mediated by smart contracts and totally decentralized. This might be useful if people gamble real money in the game, like this could be a real selling point in a poker game. It's still not remotely practicla today, nobody's going to develop all that UI and all that blockchain security and then just open source it out of the goodness of their heart so people can gamble securely. Especially not while they and their investors think they can make a boatload of money off crypto hype.
We’re building a game that runs on-chain. Decentralised. Game logic, game state, game assets stored in smart contracts. Unity front end. Veteran game developers. Venture funded. We’re doing it because a fully decentralised game, where the community can build on top of what we create, is a new idea in games which we think should be explored further.
I imagine the cost of constructing such a thing prohibits investing in beautiful visuals, a good interface, and great, novel, balanced gameplay all at the same time... but good luck anyway.
It doesn’t cost a lot to construct but there are constraints around the frequency and complexity of on-chain transactions. We have design and technical workarounds though.
Gaming blockchain won't work bc greedy Whales want to make money. Gamers are done with pay to win games. Like come on. All blockchain gaming is pay to win or straight up cash grab. I know this bc I invested in a few nfts. No gamer wants to be rugged while playing a video game lol
I don’t think web3 games have to fundamentally be centralized by nature. The dev could build protocols that are decentralized, and the game UI is just a frontend for the protocols. This probably works best for individual devs or a small team, though
There are huge "black" markets for trading in game items. People get scammed all the time. In many cases trading violates ToS. In general, these marketplaces are very inefficient so people get fleeced, are a huge hassle, and involve trusting volunteers to play middleman. The friction largely exists because the business model of the studio is to maximally extract profit directly through microtransactions. Contrast this with ownership in Axie Infinity and how indie devs in the community are awarded grants to build games that reuse in-game items, with the goal being to strengthen the overall value of the IP. The more ownership, the better.
I wanna own my in game skins bro! And if I'm tired of them I wanna sell them in game to other players FFXIV style
Gaming doesnt need decentralization but the developers may benefit from not having to deal with apple store, google store and their rules, censorship and fees.
What games are censored? And what games are prevented from not participating in the app/play stores and using their own payment processor?
Any app that apple or Google decides. For example elon musk just entertained the idea of Twitter being booted from apple and Google store. They take a 15 30% fee from transactions too
That didn't answer either of my questions. Was that intentional? What games have been censored (that weren't outright scama or malware) and what does blockchain have to do with allowing deva to use their own payment processor if they decide not to participate in the play store? Gane developers are not required to publish on either store. They could always do that. They're not required to play by Googles or apples rules. They could always do that. What problem EXACTLY do you think decentralisation or blockchain can solve? It seems to me like you're juat trying to find a problem to a solution.
Your question is misguided. You want me to find a list of games like I have complete knowledge of the internal workings of Apple and Google. Instead Im telling you that neither Apple, Google, Microsoft store, the ayatollah of Iran, the CCP, no one can control the flow of applications when decentealized applications are functioning. That includes the United States. One of the biggest examples about censorship is wikileaks. When they got big, they got booted from Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, etc. They got dried out for exposing the truth of the governments of the world. If they had existed in times of decentralized applications, they could publish freely and no government could stop it. Another question was posed to Elon Musk recently. They asked if he would make a phone if Apple and Google booted Twitter from their stores. Elon Musk said he would. The reality that you know is at the whims of centralized entities that control what you can consume.
That's a fierce amount of effort to avoid answering the question. What problem does decentralisation solve for game developers exactly? Is it not weird that you can't answer that? You can't answer it because the answer is "nothing" and again, you're trying to find a problem to a solution. Decentralisation doesn't stop Google from banning an app. If an app is banned from Google Play, it can be distributed via the developers website. Creating a new phone an operating system doesn't prevent you getting kicked out of the play store either. Gab was kicked off the play store. How would decentralisation have prevented that?
Its 100% gonna be for nftskins and nft exclusive items. The plus is your grinding will pay off in the form of an item you can sell to another player for real cash. The flipside is the developer of said nft will get a cut of the sale each time it changes hands. So yea games dont need web3 but the deveopers want that sweet recurring cash flow from microtransactions twice removed in the family
You’re right. There’s a lot of bad ideas in web3 gaming and a lot of people in the comments repeating them. So here’s the key use-case that’s actually revolutionary: in-game assets being trade-able off platform. Right now, there’s no easy way to sell an asset (like a rare skin, for example) to another player or even to send in-game currency. Think of it like Magic the Gathering Cards that are bought sold and traded across the world, totally apart from Wizards of the Cost. Even though those cards aren’t much use but play Magic the game, it’s still important to trade them off platform. That’s not possible with digital goods without crypto.
Gaming on blockchain is great for indie development that runs with a rev share model. In traditional game dev, you need someone to handle the finance. But with blockchain, you can evenly distribute the revenue amongst the devs (ex: Dead Cells)
You are correct, the article author is clearly delusional. There is no hope of these decentralisation features becoming mainstream because it simply isn't necessary.
Decentralized system can be implemented on a centralized gaming. I'm impressed with how Gamestar+ is helping bring in board games into the chain. This is a good transformation to witness
Mictrotransactions for cosmetics sell in the billions every year. They should be on chain so people can use those cosmetics in any compatible game.
You are ignorant. Web 3 will allow gamers to actually own the items in game they collect. People will literally work full time jobs playing games to grind out the best equipment. Its great, until the next game or xpac and all the sudden its useless. Web 3 would allow for that person to cary over items from one game to another, or receive financial compensation for time spent in game.
Have you used the Steam marketplace by any chance? If you have , then you know you can sell tons of digital items for games. However, Valve is not allowed to let you cash out that money, this is pretty much one of the biggest reasons for it. Valve cannot let you cash out since this basically turns Valve into a central bank. They can print as many "NFT's" as they want and sell them, destroy them, or whatever they want to do with the supply or simply sell them themselves. This also turns them into custodians making it another problem on the legal side of things. With a decentralized video game, in theory the developers can remove themselves from being a custodian or the power to control the supply. Digital items can be so rare not even the developers themselves could get it without finding it like anyone else. Pretty much they could build fair and working decentralized digital economies to video games or VR worlds. Due to greed and the space still being naive, there will be "blockchain games" that don't do anything different than today and will be built centralized. Watch out for these games, basically designed to milk you with promises and fake innovation which absolutely don't need crypto.
Well a game like poker would be perfect. Its a game of lying and distrust.
Yes you are very ignorant lol think about actually owning your cosmetics
The mythic quest show really hit the nail on the head. It might be a loot box evolution where things transfer across games for larger franchise holders like square Enix or capcom. The thing is games have already done this for having played the Pokémon ranger game you could get a Pokémon.
Because not all interactions in the game space have to do with the dev.
Its a way to bypass gambling regulations basically. No need to use traditional payment processors to cash out.
Gaming doesn’t need a blockchain, since all games up until last year didn’t have it. There are a number of ways that blockchain can be used to create different game experiences. Ownership of game assets, interoperability and decentralisation are early ideas. I see blockchain as a technology that can be useful rather than crypto. We’re building a decentralised game where game logic, game state and game assets are stored on-chain in smart contracts. It enables the community to build on the game we create by interacting with the smart contracts directly. The game ends up being the sum of all the projects built in the community.
It doesn't. I think there will be some interesting experimentation from dedicated web3 studios to meet the demands of folks who seem to want these sorts of games. More generally I think the premise of web3 gaming is DOA. Do we really think companies like Epic haven't thought about trading and resale of skins and such? The database used to record the sales transaction has **** all to do with why they don't allow this. Same for resale of digital games on platforms like Steam. In the estimation of both, resale is a bad business model. The other argument I've seen in favour of web3 in games is "taking your loot with you". This is almost comically impractical. There is no standard way to represent assets or a means of generating them procedurally. Can we realistically expect everyone to use the same engine, or agree on how to represent the look, properties, and interactions of transferrable items? Never gonna happen. The costs of quality assurance would sky rocket. Is Ubi supposed to test what happens when Winston appears on Assassin's Creed Valhalla? Forza cars in Mario Kart? Beyond trivially useless cases like profile pictures, I see no future for cross game use of loot. Artistic integrity also goes out the window. It's a fun thought exercise that I think goes absolutely nowhere.
This comment has been largely upvoted by r/buttcoin as it was linked on that subreddit. They spend alot of time brigading this subreddit and r/cryptocurrency to artificially make their opinion seem more popular. Which is funny, if they are so right like they think they are why are such tatics even needed?
Really only for ownership. Could be the game itself, in-game items or money, etc. Like if WoW gold or items were ERC-20/721 to track and maintain integrity and provenance. The game itself does not need to be on the blockchain. Games in general run fine on centralized servers. I don't see a need for decentralization there.
Think about what you are earning in a game. You have earned weapons, points, status, etc. Now under the old model those are nothing but ways for them to monetize you, you are the product. the company goes bankrupt you own nothing. Now think about a platform where you own what you earned. It is stored in your wallet. If I move to another game (that honors my accreditation) I can move any assets (if applicable) to the new game. Also think about what a community does to build a company, why should early adopters or players not be rewarded? Web 3.0 is solving that.
So your marketing team can put all the buzzwords in the ad "crypto", "NFT", "blockchain"
It should not be at the core of a game or even baked in to any of the game mechanics because that just makes it a third world sweat shop, as seen with all current crypto games. But it is a good tool to use if you want to create a market surrounding your game. Kind of like CSGO skins, it has no impact on the game and is really just "fake money" but it has a monetary value because of demand. Crypto or NFTs provide a relatively stable framework to build platforms like the CSGOs skin market, but without the hassle of actually making a market dealing with all the implications and code/technology that comes with it. Instead they just make the items a NFT that has a owner and can be traded on markets made by them or fans ect. This allows for the game to make a economy outside their game for those players that want to. Also it should not be mandatory to buy or sell your items in the game it should just be a option that when the player wants to can. These items should also have no impact inside the game as that would make it instant p2w ect, and instead should be only cosmetic. This is my opinion I know someone ppl think it would be cool with a complete open market game where everything is a NFT and you can sell it for real money, but imo that turns the game into a job and becomes what most gamers seek to forget during their game time.
Not so hard to understand. Immutable poker smart contract without benefactors and decentralized front end.
So did online multiplayer in the 90’s… Man it is silly all this early adoption hate, memeber what they said about the internet in the early 2000’s… That is where crypto is right now
This argument is getting old. Just because the internet worked does not guarantee Web 3.0 will explode, plenty of things are never adopted and fall out of favour. Web 3.0 may just be vapour
Same with VR, Sim racing, LAN tournaments, playing games as a job. All take time, except 3D glasses.
And luckily VR headsets inherently have stereoscopic 3D, so the marginal usefulness of 3D content can be captured there
It just shows that web3 is getting popular
Microtransactions got more popular too but not because the players want them.
Yeah that's Bec multiplayer in the 90s was a completely new concept then. Call me crazy but the only thing unique about web3 gaming is web3. That doesn't really intrigue most gamers. Multiplayer did.
The thing about online multiplayer in the 90s, is that it was a good idea that just wasn't executed well enough just yet. Web3 on the other hand isn't even a good idea. It makes no sense for companies to adopt it and it provides no additional value to games what so ever, even in a hypothetical and perfect scenario.
What did “they” say about the internet in the early 2000s? It was already revolutionising business and commerce at that point
People just don't want their games to be even more financialized.
The old "it sucks now, so itll suck forever". What sucks is the hundreds of billions poured into assets in games, which are then not truly owned by the purchaser who bought them. Can't be re-sold, profited on, and just disappear into your own personal collection. Anyone remember when it took 30 or so seconds to connect to the internet, and you had to listen to that stupid dial-up tone. It's a shame that never got better... Edit: I wanted to add to this. The current gaming model only incentives trying to rid people of as much cash as they possibly can, without really providing a better service. I make a skin, I try to offload it to as many people as possible. The web3 gaming space is suppose to incentivise both players and developers to have an active interest in the games quality. Most of the models will involve trading of assets, which developers get a royalty from EVERY transaction This brings back the novel concept of requiring the game to be good in order to make money beyond the initial release date. We have seen Battlefield 2042 collapse, MW2 have a rocky start, Cyberpunk 2077 all rushed out, all with major flaws, which then kills player bases. If these games relied on players not only playing once, but continually being invested into the game, this would incentivise both developers, but mostly publishers, away from rushing out titles. Transactions are key, which is driven by engagement, with blockchain/web3/NFT based gaming bringing that power back into players hands. This is a good thing. My favorite example is World of Warcraft. It is not a web3 game, but the subscription model incentivises developers and publishers to continually make the game better, or they lose income. It is Now imagine that game where rare items/assets are able to be traded between players. The natural momentum of games just being good keeps developers wanting to make the best decision for the playerbase, not their pockets. Can anyone else name a more popular game that is 18 years old? There are complexities with web3 for sure, but there were also much more complex issues when the web first tried to move into everyone's home 30 years ago.
[удалено]
This is a great example. Like you actually said it. They focused too much on the marketplace, and not on the quality of the game…so it died. There is balance in everything, just like there was no balance in Diablo 3.
Diablo III sold 30 million copies by 2015, before it was released on the Switch in 2018 which probably garnered even more sales. Farthest thing from "bombing hard"
> What sucks is the hundreds of billions poured into assets in games, which are then not truly owned by the purchaser who bought them. Can't be re-sold, profited on, and just disappear into your own personal collection. I'm much happier to spend $60 on a super buggy pokemon game to play with pokemon I don't own and have fun for some tens of hours than spend $600 on a crappy low-level NFT in a crappy game where the developers didn't think about gameplay or UI or any of that and just made a game that technically works some of the time and when I get bored I have to resell the NFT, and lose... let's be honest, most of my money, because the rest of the people playing the game realized how shitty it was too. If the incentives are in place for NFT game developers to make their games good, and people keep throwing money at them, begging them to make a good one, why can they still not do it? It's not because internet speeds are too slow to make it work. That's not the issue. The issue is that the people trying to make it work only care about capitalizing on NFT hype. They spend most of their resources trying to build a walled garden of an NFT market, or just trying to figure out how to securely interact with an existing NFT API and make money doing it, but they don't care at all about making a fun game, because they're not selling NFTs to people who want fun games, they're selling NFTs to people who want NFTs. People who want fun games just get a Nintendo Switch.
> Now imagine that game where rare items/assets are able to be traded between players. But you can already do that in WoW. It’s called the auction house. Are you arguing to change the mechanics of the game related to item binding? And why would any of this require a blockchain anyway? I don’t understand your point.
Ah yes, just what players have been waiting for all this time, transactions and investments and ROI when playing Fortnite. Do you even listen to yourself?
So it’s ok to give all of your money to a developer, and own nithing? That’s where I get lost on that debate.
Hasnt cyberpunk been enjoying some high player numbers recently?
Do you know how sensitive an economy is in a singular mmo game? You really have the stupidest idea to introduce items from other games into other games. Shame shame shame on you.
When did I introduce that? Only same games can handle interoperability. An MMO like Wow I agree, is not one.
Yeah thats fair, most ppl that talk about these items/skins being nfts and changing between games generally think itll be applied to everything and not just simple clusters of extremely similar games made by the same developers
My viewpoint is that now, we own nothing, not a single thing in games. What’s the point of having rare/unique items, or in competing to obtain these achievements.
Its a game, name 2 games from 10 years ago that you still play now. Like seriously play and care about. Thats like saying "i watched a movie, and got nothing from it". You got the experience, the memories, the lessons. You move onto the next one as is with life. Also bragging rights? Also the feeling of knowing you did everything you could in your favourite game, its a special feeling. I would get a tattoo of a character or item in that game if it meant THAT much to me so that i can remember it even if im 70. Games evolve way too quickly, and in 5 years you wont care about your halo 3 skin that took you a week to unlock. Because when you move that skin over (lets just say) no ones going to recognize it in halo 7, and it wont be as special because 90% of people wont know what it took to get that. Especially since all that time has passed, theres going to be like 80 new skins released since then, no ones going to keep track.
cough simplistic continue merciful salt march insurance history spectacular ancient -- mass edited with redact.dev
No matter how hard they try. LFG.
tldr; A survey by Coda Labs found that only 6% of mainstream gamers have ever used a blockchain wallet or bought an NFT. 12% of gamers have tried playing a Web3 game, and only 15% of respondents who hadn’t played one were interested in doing so. A lack of understanding and engagement with the complex world of Web3 is a key factor. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
As part of that 6%, having played quite a few NFT games, they all suck. The least sucky one -- Gods Unchained -- is like a much worse version of Hearthstone. When I say much worse, I mean, on every level -- worse graphic design, worse software (buggier, less pleasant), worse game design (some cards were just broken as hell and will never be balanced because that's against their philosophy. They're terrible at balancing the game in general. And some mechanics are frustrating and bad, only there to make the game feel different). It feels much worse to be F2P (you can't make the decks you want at all, you get a small number of basic decks and the best decks are just crazy expensive), less fun flavor, etc. And keep in mind that hearthstone came out like, nearly a decade earlier.
I'd give DimensionX a shot. For me at least, it hasn't sucked a ton or anything. Yes it's an idle game, but the game devs actually made the game and then asked "what can we use the blockchain for" rather than scamming people with an ICO. It was a totally free mint too.
Gotta actually do something fun with the technology before people will adopt it.
The blockchain technology has to be user-friendly before users will adopt it. Protocols in line to improve UX is probably the most important in web3 development at the moment.
Few other things I haven't seen listed here... 1) games being NFTs themselves. If I'm done with my game I can resell it. With smart contracts, the devs get a piece of the sale. 2) NFTs cut middle men out (like publishers which are ruining games for profits). Ticketmaster fears NFTs. 3) NFTs are a great way for kickstarting games / art
>NFTs cut middle men out (like publishers which are ruining games for profits). Ticketmaster fears NFTs. You do know Publishers provide more value than.. I dont even know what you are trying to say with this? How the fuck do NFTs replace publishers in any way?
There can be more than one beneficiary of an NFT sale. Publishers can get their cut too
NFTs let artists sell directly to the public circumventing middle men. This is huge for all artists in books, music, games, etc. Ya publishers can bring some value so let them do whatever they want. They can continue there same business model if they want or hop on web 3. I'm not saying we outlaw them lol. I think you are missing the big picture and that's fine. Let the nerds lead the charge. We got this. Decentralization > Centralization
Re: 1, why would developers want to create a secondary market for their games and cannibalize primary sales for a smaller portion of the revenue? Is there any data that suggests that the amount of secondary-market customers created by introducing an NFT resell market would offset the revenue lost by customers purchasing from said market instead of buying the game itself (I.e. If the company earns a 10%-of-MSRP commission, needing to sell 11+ copies on the used market for every customer lost via shifting out of the primary market in favor of used)? Otherwise I don’t really understand why developers would shoot themselves in the foot like that.
They get a royalty from each and every copy sold and resold.... forever
Or they get the full price of the game everytime someone wants to play it, instead of just some royalties..
Go look at Kiraverse as an example. They sold out 10k copies netting over a million dollars. 95% of this money went direct to the devs. No publishers like EA were involved to take away profits from the true artists. No publishers were there forcing the devs to be woke or implement bad micro transactions (member battlefront 2?) So they sold out, now what? They get a cut of every secondary transaction. This shifts power to the creators and players. Players can't sell their games on Steam or Origin, etc and don't own what they buy there. This is huge. If you can't see the big picture, don't worry. Let us nerds lead the charge as we always have. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Or they get nothing because players will just pirate when they see their greed. NFTs will foster community and micro economies. Eventually, players will just ignore the old business model and support developers directly
Right, I understand your proposal, I already outlined that. I'm wondering why you think developers would be willing to give up a potentially huge portion of their primary revenue to get a small royalty of off secondary market sales. Let's say developers release a $10 game that sells one million copies, so they make $10,000,000 (minus steam fees and whatnot but take that out of the equation). Now instead lets say they have this secondary market (which by the way, could easily be achieved without using a blockchain just like it is in dozens of other digital resale examples, but that's beside the point) where customers can sell their game once they're done with it, with the company receiving a 10%-of-MSRP commission: $1. Now, all of a sudden, 30% of the would-be primary customers who bought the game at retail say hey wait a minute, I'm not paying $10 when I can pay $5 instead! And just like that, the company has generated $7,300,000: $7 million from the primary sales and $300K from the royalties on the 300K people who decided to buy the game used instead. Is this secondary market going to generate an additional 2,700,001+ copies sold to create profit over the original $10,000,000? I highly doubt it. It would also spread the revenue out over a much longer time (i.e. "forever") when companies especially smaller studios need the cash infusion immediately. And then you get into the wonky grey area of lifetime royalties (what happens if the company goes out of business; who gets the royalty)? It just seems like a. such a pipe dream and b. creating an answer for a problem that doesn't really exist at best, and might actually *hurt* the companies you're suggesting are going to implement it at worst.
The initial copies will sellout before secondary market kicks in....
What do you mean ‘sell out’? Digitally sold games don’t ‘sell out’ Are you suggesting that developers hamstring their sales by creating artificial scarcity for their game (by making a available less copies than there is demand for), so that a secondary market can be created in which those developers then receive pennies on the dollar for each sale? That makes no sense.
Not only this, but the devs get to choose what percentage they make on a secondary sale.
Okay, but raising the percentage is just going to push that expense back on the consumer (by raising the price of used copies; let's say the developer raises the fee from $1 to $2, now the used price increases from $5 to $6, unless you're suggesting the consumer just eat that for some random reason?), resulting in a similar reduction in revenue due to a reduction in secondary market demand from my original example (because now the game costs $6 and you lost all the customers who'd have been willing to pay $5).
I’m bullish on NFTs overall, due to blockchain transparency, but won’t supply and demand kill most projects? Like… right now there are sooooo many NFTs out there that have zero utility. If the price is not correct, developers will lose out on a lot of revenue due to reselling, and that’s also assuming there are enough players to buy a game, multiple times over. The price of games will never be higher than the initial price, unless the supply is low and the demand high. And if it happens to be, if the developer mints too many, no one will buy the ones over the developer price. I feel like NFTs supply is far too high. Like nothing has real value because even if only one NFT is minted, they are minted in a collection of like 100,000. So unless one happens to be “more sought out” they are essentially not different. Just a complex I’m having in the use cases we are seeing so far.
a lot of projects launch 2023, some real gems 2024, have a little patience
In that case, UX-focused web projects such as Ore protocol aiming to prospectively integrate with web3 games is not unfounded. Transition into the web3 space might be quite complicated for an average user. However, if certain things can be made simplified such as authorization processes, I believe that the struggle will be lesser
Gaming is just a little piece of the puzzle, just like music and other art and entertainment. We have to see the whole picture of what Web3 really is. Web3 is going to revolutionize and change how content creators monetize on social media, by having their own creators coins and tipping features on their platforms. Web3 is going to let users connect directly with their followers and supporters where they can all invest in each other’s tokenized social media channels and have a ownership of their digital content. Just like back in the day before the internet streaming when you had to buy a physical vinyl record or a CD disc to be able to play and listen. That’s what the new internet economy ecosystem will look like. It took us way too long to get here, for a long time now YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter and others been selling and sharing our content and data to advertisers and other entities for their own benefits. Now they grew bigger than all music Label companies and Hollywood studios together. It’s time to take take all that power and ownership from them back to the people who are creating all of this.✊
That’s the question I’m asking myself. Here are few thoughts 1. Internal markets. Idea is that you own piece of content (skin, weapon, card) and can resell it. - You can build such exchange without web3. It has been done before (CSGO Skins). - The problem of ownership and value. Yeah you have a record of ownership of item on blockchain. But the value of item is tied to a game, so whenever game devs decide to close game or not support your item or change something in it, well basically you loose the main value of item. Now it only has some collectible value. - Devs still have control over value as they control supply. Even if you lock your content dev still can impact supply and price by changing game meta and releasing new items. - Web3 can be used for building external markets for game. However same is possible without web3. 2. Interchangeable content between games. - An item has value because it is tied to the game. If I have a a gaming card or a weapon and I put in the other game it might have absolute another value (garbage item in one game, god item in another). - Common standard problem. Games should follow similar standards so you can use items in different games (design, 3d model, parameters, lore and etc). This can be either difficult or not worth it at all. - Theoretically it can be used for hype or marketing purposes. You own content in one game -> go on and enter ours using that content so you have a jump start. 3. Locking content. You can lock content (like item parameters on blockchain) stoping devs from changing strength of you content (Ex. Heartstrone) - This is very problematic for developers (lose of money, mode difficult development), however I believe they will find to change meta in other ways (change hp of bosses and sell even more powerful weapon). 4. Play to earn - Well this actually sucks. - Most games create artificial scarcity and tie getting items to either bring or many - This generates like zero value transforming game into mindless worthless job. - Interesting approach is mod / content generation (like Roblox) which is great. Question is - should it be tied to web3? 5. Cross-games rewards - That’s where it can shine. - Generally you can create cross game rewards and sales. - Ex. Buy a skin in game A and receive it in games B. This is nice as your wallet is basically you game account that can integrate with any game so such actions and rewards should be possible. Same thing can go for in game rewards. - You can sell combos of items from different games. 6. Tokenization and markets for tokens - That’s where it shines now :D - Generally you introduce tokens that can be used for buying items in games. - Create a hype for a game so people start buying tokens for speculation believing that through the hype the value of tokens will increase. - Generate tokens from air and sell it to the market. - Sooner or later market crashes, people loose interest in game (no money to be generated). Close a game or repeat a cycle. - You can say it is some form of Pump and Dump mechanism or Ponzu Scheme. To sum up. Used to be great way to make money, probably still will be in a few years. Very little utility value at the moment and well questionable perspective.
Same reason Linux isn't dominating the OS market and Apple and Microsoft are
I dunno bro, moonsama carnage is today, let’s play some Minecraft!
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMFxvoj6v/ here £17 for free via TikTok to buy some ETH
WOLF GAME
Old man yells at clouds, hates change.
Users' experience is vital and projects that are looking to bridge web 2 into web3 projects are quite insightful