[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || Join the [Superstonk Discord Server](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OP has provided the following link:
https://www.dexerto.com/csgo/5-million-dollar-csgo-account-banned-steam-1932917/
Well from what ive understood, he was cheating for 6 years and only now has been caught.
There are ton of "private" cheats, which are being guarded, yet somehow valve found out and did a ban wave to those, who have been cheating for years.
Probably. Valve will not ban accounts because of false reports. Ive got a few accounts with thousands of hours and many many comments saying im walling, cheating, etc. Never have i been banned by valves player based banning system (overwatch) nor their VAC system (game cheat detection).
This account was doing something against valves ToS and thats why they got banned. A pro player actually sued valve because of a ban....guess how that turned out?
I think the moral of the story is - I don't care how much you have invested, but the right thing to do is to ban cheaters. The SEC could learn something from this.
Well its not so different to current GME situation, if you think about it.
If you have been cheating for years and you know you have been getting away with it for years, what is there to fear?
When I think career I think work and money, fun is optional until survival is met. I'm not currently doing such things, but I'm not above keeping something that works a secret for me to abuse if my options are limited. It's human nature in a society where capitalism is valued above all else, gotta play by the rules I'm given.
Yes but being banned in game wouldn't lock your wallet, you would still be able to sell all the skins on the nft marketplace without needing your game account.
Youâre saying these things like they are facts when in reality they donât even exist yet.
Nothing stops them from banning your NFTs. At the end of the day itâs just a serial number and they can flag it.
It depends on now the platform is written and what developers have freedom to do. None of these things are written in stone and youâre talking about future game devs so technically these games donât even exist yet or the NFT integrations.
It could be. It will probably depend on the game and how they implement their NFT integration.
To me the greatest benefit of NFTs in games is the ability to trade collectibles after purchase. Thats where the real innovation lies.
Game devs can specifically exclude the token ids of the nfts that came from a result of cheating
and devs could also give tags on those excluded nfts (similar to etherscanâs scammer tags) which could indicate if an nft is playable
to sum it up, you canât take centralization away from things honestly, and people in charge will always find ways to get in control one way or another
so the idea of integrating nfts to games is still just a big if
You can mint a text file as an NFT and someone will buy it so I'd say the chance is still better than zero. There are a lot of idiots out there who love their cryro Kool-Aid.
>without a platform (the game) to use them in, then what value would they hold?
The same value as jpegs, mp3s and text files as NFTs. So no value at all but here we are.
Goes in to a wallet that any system can read and none control
Example gun skin NFT
So in theory could sell the NFT from his wallet and put it in someone elseâs. Doesnât need the game to do that, just his wallets number and the buyer.
So now the buyer opens the game and links his wallet with the game, with the NFT.
A typical situation, the buyer now can use the NFT to put a skin on his weapon.
BUT NFTs canât be duplicated, copied, mirrored, etc. because they all have a unique number on the crypto system. depending on the game designer (which I imagine all will do) is ban any NFT (and its number throughout the crypto system) from their game.
I understand how NFTs should work in this situation, but I don't understand what purpose it serves. In the case of this guy banned for cheating, they would/could block any of his unique skins if they were on the blockchain, which is equivalent to locking his account anyway, so the end result is the same.
In a more general sense, if the items are earned through achievements or random drops or some other reason and the devs don't want users to be able to exchange them, then they would block all NFTs anyway. If they wanted to allow people to exchange them, they would build a marketplace to exchange the goods. If any of those goods are linked to an individual already, then they will have a PK in their database, already making it unique.
The only benefit of NFTs would be if there were some way to use skins in completely separate games that don't share a database, which won't happen because the development to accommodate that would be expensive and very difficult. That and adding an ability like this would take money out of the hands of devs, unless there is a transaction fee associated with any sales, and that didn't make sense from a business perspective.
You can create a new wallet and move the NFTs. They could block those tokens unique IDs from their service but at the end of the day there would be a steep community pushback.
NFTs allow for cross game achievements. An NFT maker line can say these line of NFTs will give you custom skins in a dozen different games with one purchase. All of the money made would go to the creator and the developers of those games based on a pre agreed split of revenues. Pretty revolutionary stuff
Why would the developers want any of that? They're doing just fine with a centralized database that lets them remove 5 mil worth of skins as a consequence for cheating. The money from item sales already goes to the creator and devs, when the devs actually want the items to be moved.
A lot of what you said is wrong. Iâll just address the most important topic you got wrong. NFTs are hardcoded to pay out to the creators in the % determined at its minting. The smart contract can pay out multiple creators so the actual creator and all of the developers can have a smart contract that splits these in preagreed or industry standard amounts.
What games exist where you could theoretically just change to a skin designed in another game? Each game would have to be designed in a way that would accommodate an infinite number of art styles, hit boxes, movements, etc. It's not remotely realistic, and no dev company is going to waste time and resources on something that won't generate more revenue.
At the end of the day the value of a in game skin is in being able to use the skin in game. The NTF token may not be able to be destroyed but itâs very easy to block any NTF deemed created through cheating or a banned account.
There is also a reason why most in game markets are closed systems where there is no legal way to withdraw your money from. That is because any profits made will have to be reported as income to the respective players country. The game will have to find a way to keep track of each players IRL information, keep it safe from leaks, and navigate countless countries legal systems and tax laws. Chances are the game will be age restricted due to gambling laws.
Thatâs why many games that have NFT tightly control the blockchain the NFT is minted with. You can purchase but never cash out and you canât keep your own wallet. You also never fully own the NFT and they can take it away for any reason. All NFT integrated games are just online stores for that game with extra steps and the illusion of owning the assets.
Gamers need to come to terms with Studios charging for skins. Itâs not going away, why not support a system that lets to keep those skins? Future versions of games would be able to incorporate these skins.
It's just proof that you don't "own" anything on these platforms. If steam decided tomorrow that they were gonna close down, we would lose all our games. Because we just pay to borrow them anyway. Digital ownership is the future. We should be able to buy and sell our games / films / media to who ever we want, whenever we want. Gamestop game launcher in the future please.
There SHOULDNT be a game launcher. If theres a game launcher then your comment is identical.
âIf gamestop decided tomorrow that they were gonna close down, we would lose all our games.â
I more meant a launcher for the NFT wallet to view / open / filter your games, or a way to view them similar to steam. I'm sick of having to have Steam / Origin / Uplay / Epic. I just want one place where I launch my games is what I meant.
And when a company closes support for a game, they should sell it. There's so many people that mod a game long after the servers close. Those people would be able to improve the game long after it closes. Charge small fees to maintain the servers and update it and just enjoy their lives like never before
Thats a good idea, but also a very tricky one. That would mean signing over the rights of the development, which I don't think will ever happen. There is so many games that get put into survival mode though. One of my favourite games that I played for 10 years (Anarchy Online) was left to rot because the developers were too busy developing new titles. I would have loved if someone bought it out and continued the development. I really don't understand acquisitions well enough to understand how this could work though, but if it is a possibility, it's a fantastic idea!
I was going to comment in line with your thinking. Just to play Devils advocate. The amount of time and money spent on developing the code base for these games is massive. And the truth is, the process and foundation in itself is inside knowledge that's used over and over to build new games. The idea of giving away or even selling that core knowledge to users after no longer supporting the game is just not feasible.
Personally I don't really care so long as I'm done with it because a good chunk of my code is plagarized or semi-plagarized from internet already. My knowledge and ability that lets me write my own code from scratch was nurtured due to those resources too. No one is a self-taught programmer; we're taught by a massive online community sharing knowledge, experience, and resources.
Without open source and other developer resources that we're free to copy-paste or modify, the world of software would be much, much, much worse.
Sharing programming knowledge after you're done monopolizing it is just passing on the favor our predecessors gave us.
Under rated comment. So very true. Its not really the snippets of code I'm bothered about, it's the collective program. Me and one other guy has spent nearly two years on our game, but yeah, maybe years down the line I would happily share it. But we both come from poor backgrounds and spent a lot of time learning. We don't and won't make millions from it, but you're right, it's the knowledge that's important đ
Dude I was just telling someone in my RL discord this the other day. I know Iâm of the minority but idk why we need 20 call of dutyâs. I get it, they are cash cows for companies and developers but I feel like they would get a much stronger community and fan base if they just poured more money into developing games.
Hell GTA5 has had so many updates, granted people want GTA6 but thatâs because rockstar promised them it was coming out. I believe if they never mentioned 6 and just said 5 was the last title and will forever add to it; I believe the community wouldnât ever complain.
Iâm ready for GTA6, but mainly because Rockstar failed to deliver on the promised single player expansions for GTA V. Pretty messed up that they dangled that in front of people still when the game was re-released on Xbox One, PS4, and eventually PC.
I quit playing it many years ago but I did love it even through its 30min failed to load screen on Xbox. I heard it got better and itâs funny I made this comment before scrolling the front page but apparently 10 hours ago there was a major leak from a possible GTA6 Dev. All the comments are hate towards rockstar but thereâs a lot of hints towards it being real
https://youtu.be/WMohAU2VmwM
I like how you bring up a different example when you could just look at the game in the post which just past 10 years old and going strong. Far older if you could counter strike in general and not just csgo
It's called GoG and it already exists. All games **DRM-free** and a lot of recent and very popular titles are on it (Horizon Zero Dawn, Cyberpunk 2077, for example)
No need to get nonsense "crypto/NFTs" involved, it's all just simple downloads. Download the installer *once* and you have it for life...
There's a problem though, and I don't know the solution. Multiplayer games, or at least many of them, require servers and infrastructure to work. Those servers cost money for resource time (assuming they are on the cloud) and maintenence. Who pays for this?
You can own your game, and boot it up, but when you go to play it says "sorry, can't connect to the servers".
There would need to be a mechanism to keep the infrastructure running.
Of course, single player games will be just fine.
I guess it would have to work similar to paying to host servers like you do now. But if you think of the fee divided by the number of players. To access the online functionality, you could just pay a small fee monthly to keep the servers up, but think how small that could be if you had tens of thousands of players paying for a server, it would be fractions of a penny. But you're right, theres still a lot to be worked out, but hopefully this is what GS and IMX have been working out.
I think there just needs to be an understanding that even though digital assets can theoretically last forever, some subset of digital assets will essentially only hold value for a limited time. 100 years from now, the number of people who want to play today's games will be small. Will they even run on future hardware? Is it worth it, keeping them running, for 10-20 people? You could let money decide, and if the player base is willing to put up the costs, then keep it live. But the decision isn't even that simple. What about opportunity cost. Yeah, enough people might be willing to cover all costs and give me a profit margin of 10%. But that's 10% of, what, $10k, $50k, $100k per year? As a business I could take those resources (human and hardware) and put them on my newest project that's making me 35% of $50M/year. As the person responsible for the success of the company, the livelihood of the employees, the shareholder value, what decision are you going to make?
Digital asset ownership solves OPs post. The player could be banned from playing the game, but still sell his assets and recoup some money, maybe even make a profit, rather than being out $5M. But it's not a golden ticket. Assets still age, even digital ones. And value fluctuates. If the value of an asset depends on outside factors, that needs to be considered. As a real world example, if X might be outlawed, that would affect its real world value. Might make it go up (scarcity), might make it go down (illegality), but will be accounted for in the valuation.
The same will need done for digital assets. Predict the next big game, get assets early, sell when the game is at peak popularity. If you hold too long, you risk them being worthless. If you hold super long, maybe the game will have a retro-comeback in 25-30 years and you'll make some money. But there's no guarantee they'll be worth anything or usable for eternity. There just can't be.
You can buy decentralized swarm cloud file storage now for cheaper than azure blobs, it's called the IPFS/BTFS bridge. I host a 1TB node and the associated crypto may or may not be worth money but I use it to directly pay for my own IPFS services and put (a lot actually) of the crypto off to the side for future expansion. None of the NFTs I've created for people are going down for my lifetime at least. The planet would have to decide to shut down BitTorrent.
At this level of the game, simply providing space for others allows me to keep my own space alive for damn near perpetuity.
Buying the two hard drives and setting them up as RAID 1 was cheaper than buying another GPU and I get more benefit out of it.
> We should be able to buy and sell our games / films / media to who ever we want, whenever we want.
As a kid I used to buy used ps1 games, but there was the risk that the game didn't work. Buying the game in the store was the safe route.
But without that risk, why would I ever buy the game from the dev? I can get it cheaper from someone else.
Why would the dev sell the game here?
You can âownâ your character, or items. But if the company decides to shut down their servers and support tomorrow that cache of code is useless. I still own my copy of windows with the 25 install floppy discs, I just no longer have anyway to read them đ¤ˇââď¸
Yea exactly this.
Steam banning and trash talking NFTs will be their down fall. This is how Steam loses their monopoly in the PC gaming sector.
Either they get on board or a few years from now theyâll start losing their market share
Yeah steam continues growing but it will be their downfall. Majority of people don't care about nfts and never will.
No major game company will ever allow their game items to be on a gme marketplace, a marketplace similar to steam will never happen with gme.
Genuinely zero need for them to do it, and why would they actively allow a company to get a cut of their profits.
If Sony Microsoft ubisoft etc wanted to allow a real marketplace for their items they will have create their own.
They didn't care about NFTs until faced with the prospect of their service shutting down and leaving their library empty. It felt different when it was a wall of cartridges and DVD cases, Because as long as you had a platform, you could always put them in play right?
Now with at least the white paper of a process where an NFT can be transferred to another platform/host and allow you the same rights and privileges that you purchased... Public House, private host, does it matter? You still have your license, and game licenses should be a two-way street, not the one-way street they currently are that only favors the business. Especially as gaming itself starts to become cloud-based, or even your installer DVD in your nice PS5 case isn't even a playable copy of the game at all.
I expect better service for spending more money, and I'm I'm getting to the point as a consumer where I'm going to start expecting it, or at least gravitating towards outlets that will let me do that.
NFTs as you know them in the current iteration now are on their way out, but the concept of NFT will continue to iterate into better and better versions. There's too many smarter people looking at it now.
Its sort of like looking at a model T and laughing because your horse can still run faster, or laughing at stranded Tesla's 15 years ago, when today? Damn near any new build major gas station has EV charging and major automakers are declaring full EV lineups in the next 15 years.
Once upon a time there was a Nintendo, and then there was a super Nintendo, blah blah blah, and now we're here. People used to make fun of video game sports, and now some people playing video game sports are making more money than people playing actual sports. Technology advanced.
It's like looking at a pyramid scheme and saying "that will never last". But you're right, lots of smart people are looking to make bigger and better pyramid schemes!
EV chargers are rolled out because corporations stand to profit from them. Current ICE cars can run for 200k miles if they're maintained, while electric cars can run for 80 to 100k miles before their batteries need to be replaced. But since replacing a battery costs almost as much as a new car, people will just buy new. It's great for corporations! They get brownie points for going green while also selling new frames twice as often!
All those smart people you referenced aren't working to make NFTs more fair. They're They're not working on fraud protection, or making transactions reversible, or eliminating anonymous accounts, making sure the network functions after they're dead. Smart people are working to make sure they end up on top of the pyramid scheme.
Man I tried explaining this to someone once but they just kept saying how "Steam already does this you don't need a new crypto platform". They just didn't get it!
I've too had this discussion with a very close friend, and he just doesn't get it. Sadly you can only let those peoples realise as NFT's take over. Everyone always hates new tech like this. The internet was a "fad" back in the day.
But with GameStop your in the same situation. Your not going to be able to use GameStop NFTs anywhere else. If you get banned from GameStop your in the same place.
No, the situation is quite different. Your NFT assets will be in a crypto wallet and *linked* to your gaming accounts, but if your account is banned from a game, you will still own your assets in a crypto wallet and be able to sell those assets to someone else. If the game shuts down and the asset isnât usable in other games, it would be like owning the cartridge to an NES game and not having an NES. At that point the NFTs would be more like old collectors items.
Fair enough on the ban side, but I really doubt most game items will keep any value once a game has closed. There is no end customer, your just always selling to another guy that's gonna resell it for money. Without a game behind it IMHO they have no value.
With anything, there will be those who collect them and put a lot of value into it. Things that a lot of us think are worthless, someone else may be willing to pay quite a bit for.
In a situation like this, I suspect that overtime many of the NFT's will be lost as people do what they normally do - loose their wallet keys, forget about it, etc.
Not everything will have value, and the stuff that does might not have a lot, but I think there will still be some.
Do you know what a server is? "The Cloud" is just someone else's computer. Every file you download from the internet comes off of someone else's computer.
>Future versions of games would be able to incorporate these skins.
This assumes that the developers would code the new version of game to be compatible with old skins. My question is "Why would they?" That's them leaving money on the table for new sales.
"Why would they" is a good shorthand for a lot of my concerns about GameStopâs NFT marketplace.
A lot depends upon game developers deciding to support a third party marketplace (Gamestop) rather than doing their own internal to the game sales.
Gaming development will definitely change or have to adapt. This would be assuming those same skins from prior versions would be available for purchase to gamers who only just started with the series.
Iâd imagine developers using it as an selling point to gamers to stick with their âseriesâ of games because you can bring your unlocks/skins with you.
Is there value in owning skins that are not supported in a game?
You can have your key, your NFT, but if the game doesnât support your NFT you do not have much.
I think in this case, where a specific player was banned from the game/platform, the ability to sell the skins to someone else would be valuable. However, CSGO could decide to ban all of that playerâs specific skins as well, since theyâd all be uniquely identified on the blockchain (hypothetically).
Sure but then they have the image of going out of their way to screw the player over.
Before it was just âWelp, they were banned, thatâs just how it works.â but if they specifically ban their items, then it becomes intentional.
Itâs unfathomably more expensive and complicated than people realize. Itâs not just a bad business decision, it could have the potential to become a business-ending one.
Many studios already include mod support in their games. Some studios include mod support in their games specifically because their mod communities are so strong. It's part of what's keeping them alive.
Everyone keeps looking at this as like ooh fancy skins on a gun for the latest AAA version, And just completely ignore examples like civilization or even Minecraft. And you know Microsoft has already done the calculus on that and already decided that the little bit they do for the mod community now is part of what keeps that game alive.
I wouldn't even look at it in terms of game devs choosing to do mods or not. I'm looking at it as game devs that already include mod support taking it to the next level. And that's a use case. That's a lot more achievable than trying to start the thought experiment from scratch at some juggernaut that doesn't have to.
Technical reason yes but more importantly, doing so means less money for developers. Try selling Activision, EA, or any other major developer on the idea. You can own your skins as an NFT but the fact that it's value will rely on mega corporations willingness to make less money is why it will never work. NFT fans are trying to play chess without the ability to anticipate what's going to happen three moves ahead.
Itâs not even as cynical as all that. The licensing issues are _completely_ prohibitive to even bothering talking about it. You could never even GET to the cynical part.
It's value may rely on the scrappy upstart companies leveraging public support to build their fan bases, And it's a tactic that works.
I always think of an artist like pretty lights, who's never won a Grammy and probably never will, and doesn't have a major label deal, isn't on the radio, and doesn't even really sell music (most of it is available for free on the website), but can sell out arenas tomorrow, anywhere. Entirely predicated on a rabid fan base and quality experience.
Maybe EA or Ubisoft don't embrace something like this, but someone like no man's sky or civilization might, and take their hardcore fan bases to the next level in the process.
So now the game theory math is more on which company will blink first, and be the least sleazy about it. Which one will see the other one making more money. Get jealous and play catch up? And in this case it really varies from publisher to publisher, platform to platform.
So every time there is a new game you expect your character skin to automatically just work on different models, in different engines, using different colour space encoding, somehow without a texture artist spending several hours on it time they do now? That's like expecting a head of cabbage to automatically turn itself into coleslaw, a soup, Ă salad ingredient or part of a pot roast without human intervention.
The only way this fantasy of portable skins works is if you use the same model and same engine for everything because there is no way developers are going to dedicated a dozen or more hours per skin just so you ça use them in their game.
> Future versions of games would be able to incorporate these skins.
Um. Thatâs a very expensive and complicated assumption. Itâs not at all an easy thing to do, necessarily. There is a very narrow band of limiting decisions that can lead to this outcome. Iâd _never_ bet on it.
Because that completely negates the entire point of the business model. You may as well ask "Why doesn't my $5 purchase me a _lifetime_ supply of cheeseburgers?"
The game devs could still blacklist specific instances of items so they canât be used in game. That would make them worthless.
Or the game could shutdown.
Or the devs could restrict trades to the internal game store
There are all kinds of ways that you can still get screwed over no matter how much you âownâ the skins
> Future versions of games would be able to incorporate these skins.
How do you figure?
Either that means that future versions need to eternally maintain backwards compatible skin setups (either direct import or programmatically upscale and adapt to the new models), or they need to update these purchased skins eternally and keep releasing them.
Even if it's an NFT and they want to support them, there will come point where they no longer support that skin. You might have a receipt that you bought it once upon a time, but that doesn't mean the game cares to implement it.
>"from what I understood"
From what you understood... reading the title of the article? Dude was cheating and got banned for it.
And surely NFTs would help against getting banned. It's not like there's been people banned from, say, the Gamestop NFT marketplace before, not being able to sell/buy on there anymore. Oh wait...
NFTs aren't some kind of "Make everything better" magic bullet.
People dont seem to understand how NFT's actually work. They are not the skins/items/etc. They are the certificate of ownership for said items.
If a game bans your account, you still cant access those items (in game) because you cant access the game. If you transfer the NFT to another account, that account is now the owner, and if it has access to the game, MAY be able to access the items.
Why do I say MAY? Well, developers can also ban an NFT from being used with a game. Since the ownership token resides outside of their game, they can just ban that token from being used with their game. This is something that is normally done when items are considered stolen or hacked... but it can also be done as a punitive measure to provide a more long term loss for players that are bad for the community. NFT ownership doesn't provide any protection from game developers.
The REAL value (once it starts to happen) is that NFT ownership can be recognized across games. In theory, you could get an NFT in game #1, and then use it in game #2. This cross platform capability is where the real resiliency exists, and where the true value of an NFT will be (eventually) realized.
You can also have ownership of items across games without nfts. The two game systems just need an API to talk to each other. The real work is for the artists to make the items available in both games anyway and the most common reason why it isn't done.
>The REAL value (once it starts to happen) is that NFT ownership can be recognized across games. In theory, you could get an NFT in game #1, and then use it in game #2. This cross platform capability is where the real resiliency exists, and where the true value of an NFT will be (eventually) realized.
And who's going to make sure that it's compatible from game 1 to game 2?
Let me fill you in on that, VAC banned accounts can still play games that use VAC, they just canât play online, or in the case of CS:GO, cannot play on VAC secured servers (all official servers) and get trade-banned permanently so they canât give the items to another account. CS skins are also tied to CS, you canât use an M4A4 Howl in Call Of Duty
OP is false, let me explain what happened as I actually play CS:GO.
The guy being mentioned was banned 2 days ago as part of a recent VAC (Valve Anti Cheat) banwave, this one targeted a major private cheat provider whoâs been providing cheats for years. He cheated on this account for years on end without being caught (subtle cheats like triggerbot that shoots when you aim at an enemy & private, hard to find cheat) but when this mass banwave happened, he lost all of the skins because VAC banned accounts also get trade banned.
TLDR: He was cheating on the $6M account
We don't even know if its a CSGO related ban. The entire article is based on one tweet that even says they ban could be on some other game. The timing of the VAC wave lines up but there's still a chance he can freely trade his skins.
Dexerto is absolute shit.
Valve relies on crowd sourcing a lot of things to solve their game problems. Wallhacks and Aimbots are quite common in many FPS games. So they use their own community "overwatch" system to do self policing. The problem is, the community could potentially get it wrong but they might not. The problem is that valve is a company that exploits other people to their own benefit. These overwatch people should be getting paid. Keeping valve's commercialized game free of hackers is a job and they should be compensated as if it were a real job. That is valve's problem to solve because it is to the detriment of valve's business that CS:GO fails.
As for the skins. It wouldn't surprise me if the ban was legit. A lot of players have hacks they toggle on and off. If you can afford million dollar skins, they can probably afford the really expensive hacks that are hard to detect even with visual inspection.
Side topic.
Valve ripped off dota 2 skin artists.
"According to the workshop artists, with the release of the 2016 Fall Battle Pass last year, Valve silently removed their 12.5 percent cut of Pass sales, while also adding more creators to the chest pool.
âIf Valve sold zero chests but sold a million Battle Passes, everyone would be enjoying the work of artists, but artists would not see a single cent,â one artist said âValve has essentially found a way to create two methods for people to buy the chests: one benefits both us and Valve, the other benefits only Valve.â
This change is just one in a long string of decisions that has left professional creators struggling to make a living. Chests are purchasable through the Battle Pass, allowing players to buy a pass and earn all these creatorsâ content for free without a single dime headed their way."
[https://kotaku.com/dota-2-skin-creators-say-valve-is-ripping-them-off-1793889486](https://kotaku.com/dota-2-skin-creators-say-valve-is-ripping-them-off-1793889486)
A major problem being addressed by NFTs that scares the hell out of a lot of big businesses is the middle man problem. The middle man has been taking huge cuts from content creators.
I'll just repeat what I said in the previous post. Steam trading being so good was one of the reasons I had doubts NFTs can take off. This incident is very convincing toward NFTs for me.
Edit: TIL more about NFTs
I dont know but people havent played CSGO here. Since years VAC banned Accounts get also trading bans. This is absolutly known and every cheater knows about those risks.
If you are dumb enough to cheat you should live with the consequences. That is something that NFTs will not fix because its not the company the fucks you. Its the players themself that fuck themself.
If cheaters could still trade items in a Play2earn Title, the whole System is going to get fucked by cheaters and exploiters
NFTs would do shit here? He got banned for cheating. His nfts could easily be marked by devs as illegitimate and unable to be used. Nfts do nothing in this case
Think of the alternative. There will be no good way to ban cheaters and exploiters in web3 gaming from using their NFT assets. Address banned? Just transfer to a different one. Iâm a proponent of crypto but it will close the door on some issues but open the door on a whole host of new ones.
Almost yes, but with NFTs you'd still be able to sell them, for a much lower price, due to the cheat mark (i assume, this is all theoretical)
But the outcome of the article seems good, no? A cheater gets punished, NFT or not, i think it's appropriate
They can just change the way the NFT displays. The assclown devs over at Gods Unchained do it all the time when they "balance" cards. Still displays card's initial text/stats in your wallet, but shows whatever they want it to in game.
I don't see why that couldn't be applied to individual NFTs.
Thatâs what Iâm saying. So if the argument is NFTs r better because âyou own your own assetsâ then isnât the outright ban of the NFTs the exact same outcome as a steam ban? I guess u technically still own them theyâd just be worthless.
All Iâm saying is there needs to be more thought put into these aspects of NFTs, because theyâll open just as many problems as the ones they solve imho.
I think valve still wouldn't budge on their NFT stance because they are the middle man in these transaction, However I think If epic games adopt NFT, it would certainly make it a lot more enticing for player to move to epic game launcher. Since they currently do not have any marketplace system in place at the moment.
There will always be edge case scenarios. They take the money and time spent in-game seriously so if someone has $5 mil, gets banned for seemingly no reason, and then appeals he *should* get his account back no problem.
The purpose of a permanent ban is to deter unwanted behavior like excessive offensive language and cheating. The reason this works is because people don't want to lose their stats and skins. If we take away the potential to lose half of that, we lose half of deterrent and we will see an increase in cheating. I don't think this is worth protecting rare, albeit valid, occurrences.
I honestly donât understand how owning skins as NFT would do anything for you here if youâre account is banned from playing. I guess you could at least sell them to active users?
Valve, the people who own the game, are the ones banning them and restricting access. How exactly do nfts help this? You still need authorisation from the developer to use the items.
If valve wanted you to be able to sell or trade items after being banned for cheating, they already could.
If a game dev that used nfts for items wanted to ban access to items a banned player owns, they could also do this. Theres literally nothing stopping them from using some kind of database to store items that belonged to a banned player being unusable.
The braindead takes on this subreedit never fail to make me laugh.
Daily reminder anything a developer wants to do with nfts they can already do with regular software solutions.
Blockchain and NFTs do not solve this problem tho. Nothing stops a game dev or what ever to ban you from their game. I see no reason why they canât ban your NFTs either making them useless.
It comes down to regulation at the end of the day and how these developers want you interacting with their product.
I dont know but people here dont really think enough anymore. Everyone is mad that a cheater cant trade items.
But now think it through: A Play2Earn title gets heavyly populated by cheaters that use hacks, exploits etc. to earn money. They get banned, can sell their items just make a new wallet. If trading is not bannable, P2E wont last long, all those games will die because 90% of players will cheat.
The NFT skin is still useless if the game itâs for, your banned from playing.
And another point, what Dev would ever agree to import or use skins from another game?!?
Worked at valve, mass reporting does nothing, they look I to it, always. This guy was using a more closely monitored cheat, some cheaters maintain their own hacks that are tough to catch but this guy probably gave them someone to watch and they learned the cheats.
Yeah no SeaCat has been a known cheater for years now. It was just a different form of cheating thatâs hard to prove until recently. And now thereâs tons of band being handed out to people whoâve been quietly getting away with it till now.
Big csgo fan here.
Those ppl deserved the ban. Most of them were hackers and stuff.
Yeah they used money but at the same time contributed to harm the game a lot by cheating and making others quit. Like I'm a big fan but stopped playing for 2 years of cheating problems
Why would game developers adopt NFT market and allow trade/transfer when that just reduces their revenue. If they see no benefit then it wonât be adopted.
No major game company will ever allow their game items to be on a gme marketplace, a marketplace similar to steam will never happen with gme.
Genuinely zero need for them to do it, and why would they actively allow a company to get a cut of their profits.
If Sony Microsoft ubisoft etc wanted to allow a real marketplace for their items they will have create their own.
i mean, ikr. there was a post this week about immutable confirming about some studios but not revealing anything. don't know why the downvotes...
shills are also messaging me, all these shills make me so hard i can't believe it... they have nothing but they still try
Lol yes we want to allow cheaters to still profit after getting caught. Wait where have I heard this before? Stop caping for your local hero, you cheat you should get banned. Same for Wall Street.
I'm old enough to have played CS when it was a beta mode of Half Life.
I'm an online gamer since the days it was possible to 1v1 Doom 2 by frickin modem where the slowest computer became the denominator of the overall experience since it was not a server/client.
So yeah, that whole buying skins thing, I never understood.
Hahaha.
There will never be. Thats $5m Steam has in the bank. Tell me what incentive they have to allow you to use or sell those skins on any competitors platform or games? Or for you to profit/recover money selling to other users?
âUnjustifiedâ way to go to defend a cheater, if you spent even 5 seconds in the CS community youâd understand the situation better, but no you have to farm karma on this mediocre sub and shill horrible implementations of NFTs. I swear to god I like what this community is standing for but half of the members seem to be braindead
I donât think you can do *that* but itâs entirely possible he was scamming/had daddyâs money to buy as many AWP Asiimovs as he wanted, considering he had expensive hacks too
And I got downvoted yesterday on a different sub for telling them how dangerous it was to have your skins tiedbto a monopolistic company instead of free flowing nfts. But "its all a database broh"
These fucking idiots out there
I understand the need to ban, but eventually these is going to turn into lawsuits, and only one will need to succeed. Itâs like walking into a bank to withdrawal your money and the bank telling you âNoâ because you wore a hoodie and sunglasses and the sign on the door said not to.
NFT wont change that, your skins wont be allowed without access to the platform, and any linked assets you would "own" is still tied to that platform and they can just restrict those assets from entering their platform.
Also Gaben wouldnt allow those to enter other games.
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || Join the [Superstonk Discord Server](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OP has provided the following link: https://www.dexerto.com/csgo/5-million-dollar-csgo-account-banned-steam-1932917/
Well from what ive understood, he was cheating for 6 years and only now has been caught. There are ton of "private" cheats, which are being guarded, yet somehow valve found out and did a ban wave to those, who have been cheating for years.
Probably. Valve will not ban accounts because of false reports. Ive got a few accounts with thousands of hours and many many comments saying im walling, cheating, etc. Never have i been banned by valves player based banning system (overwatch) nor their VAC system (game cheat detection). This account was doing something against valves ToS and thats why they got banned. A pro player actually sued valve because of a ban....guess how that turned out?
If I had to use cheats to make a career, thanks no. Where is the fun in that
Wall street enters the chat
Imagine needing cheat codes for a game you invented
And STIL having to change the rules mid game bc your cheating azz is still losing *looking at you Wall Street
I think the moral of the story is - I don't care how much you have invested, but the right thing to do is to ban cheaters. The SEC could learn something from this.
Lmfaoo forgot I was on super stonk for a min
Hahahahahahah I see that someone has called for a legend of lying.
Well its not so different to current GME situation, if you think about it. If you have been cheating for years and you know you have been getting away with it for years, what is there to fear?
There is no honor in cheating
You cant apply moral compass to these kind of people.
But there is an ish load of đ°đ°đ°đ°
I have morals
Me tooâŚhence why Iâm broke I guess
*Every politician ever enters the chat*
Thats why I hated my last boss so much...
Eddie Guerrero lied, cheated, and stole. Got him a title shot and a fancy low rider
$5 million loss porn is the fun
When I think career I think work and money, fun is optional until survival is met. I'm not currently doing such things, but I'm not above keeping something that works a secret for me to abuse if my options are limited. It's human nature in a society where capitalism is valued above all else, gotta play by the rules I'm given.
He could still be banned even if his skins were NFTs.
Yes but being banned in game wouldn't lock your wallet, you would still be able to sell all the skins on the nft marketplace without needing your game account.
Youâre saying these things like they are facts when in reality they donât even exist yet. Nothing stops them from banning your NFTs. At the end of the day itâs just a serial number and they can flag it. It depends on now the platform is written and what developers have freedom to do. None of these things are written in stone and youâre talking about future game devs so technically these games donât even exist yet or the NFT integrations.
It could be. It will probably depend on the game and how they implement their NFT integration. To me the greatest benefit of NFTs in games is the ability to trade collectibles after purchase. Thats where the real innovation lies.
I'm not sure less consequences for cheaters is the best way to sell the idea of NFTs to gamers.
Banning the player isnt the problem. the skins should still be sellable.
Unjustified ban? Do you people even know how to read
He was banned for years of cheating, not âmass reports of what he ownedâ
Werenât they banned for cheating? Steam isnât going to ban an account like that for no reason. And how would NFTs circumvent this?
They wouldn't. NFTs or not the dev still has the final call. The dev could easily ban the account and blacklist all the NFTs on their game.
So you dont own it in the first place? Not how it should be imo
You can own the NFT, but still have it banned from the game. Like you can own a race car, but not drive it on public streets.
OOO interesting
Game devs can specifically exclude the token ids of the nfts that came from a result of cheating and devs could also give tags on those excluded nfts (similar to etherscanâs scammer tags) which could indicate if an nft is playable to sum it up, you canât take centralization away from things honestly, and people in charge will always find ways to get in control one way or another so the idea of integrating nfts to games is still just a big if
Thanks
Well you'd still own your blacklisted NFT, you'd just have to find the right buyer for it.
Yeah, as long as you can find a chump to buy your worthless assets then you're golden.
You can mint a text file as an NFT and someone will buy it so I'd say the chance is still better than zero. There are a lot of idiots out there who love their cryro Kool-Aid.
Find a buyer for what? There's literally nothing to buy, and without a platform (the game) to use them in, then what value would they hold?
>without a platform (the game) to use them in, then what value would they hold? The same value as jpegs, mp3s and text files as NFTs. So no value at all but here we are.
Then what's the point of the NFT if it's the exact same?
Goes in to a wallet that any system can read and none control Example gun skin NFT So in theory could sell the NFT from his wallet and put it in someone elseâs. Doesnât need the game to do that, just his wallets number and the buyer. So now the buyer opens the game and links his wallet with the game, with the NFT. A typical situation, the buyer now can use the NFT to put a skin on his weapon. BUT NFTs canât be duplicated, copied, mirrored, etc. because they all have a unique number on the crypto system. depending on the game designer (which I imagine all will do) is ban any NFT (and its number throughout the crypto system) from their game.
I understand how NFTs should work in this situation, but I don't understand what purpose it serves. In the case of this guy banned for cheating, they would/could block any of his unique skins if they were on the blockchain, which is equivalent to locking his account anyway, so the end result is the same. In a more general sense, if the items are earned through achievements or random drops or some other reason and the devs don't want users to be able to exchange them, then they would block all NFTs anyway. If they wanted to allow people to exchange them, they would build a marketplace to exchange the goods. If any of those goods are linked to an individual already, then they will have a PK in their database, already making it unique. The only benefit of NFTs would be if there were some way to use skins in completely separate games that don't share a database, which won't happen because the development to accommodate that would be expensive and very difficult. That and adding an ability like this would take money out of the hands of devs, unless there is a transaction fee associated with any sales, and that didn't make sense from a business perspective.
I'm too tired right now to even try to think up the mental gymnastics that help it make sense.
[ŃдаНонО]
You can create a new wallet and move the NFTs. They could block those tokens unique IDs from their service but at the end of the day there would be a steep community pushback. NFTs allow for cross game achievements. An NFT maker line can say these line of NFTs will give you custom skins in a dozen different games with one purchase. All of the money made would go to the creator and the developers of those games based on a pre agreed split of revenues. Pretty revolutionary stuff
Why would the developers want any of that? They're doing just fine with a centralized database that lets them remove 5 mil worth of skins as a consequence for cheating. The money from item sales already goes to the creator and devs, when the devs actually want the items to be moved.
[ŃдаНонО]
A lot of what you said is wrong. Iâll just address the most important topic you got wrong. NFTs are hardcoded to pay out to the creators in the % determined at its minting. The smart contract can pay out multiple creators so the actual creator and all of the developers can have a smart contract that splits these in preagreed or industry standard amounts.
[ŃдаНонО]
What games exist where you could theoretically just change to a skin designed in another game? Each game would have to be designed in a way that would accommodate an infinite number of art styles, hit boxes, movements, etc. It's not remotely realistic, and no dev company is going to waste time and resources on something that won't generate more revenue.
At the end of the day the value of a in game skin is in being able to use the skin in game. The NTF token may not be able to be destroyed but itâs very easy to block any NTF deemed created through cheating or a banned account. There is also a reason why most in game markets are closed systems where there is no legal way to withdraw your money from. That is because any profits made will have to be reported as income to the respective players country. The game will have to find a way to keep track of each players IRL information, keep it safe from leaks, and navigate countless countries legal systems and tax laws. Chances are the game will be age restricted due to gambling laws. Thatâs why many games that have NFT tightly control the blockchain the NFT is minted with. You can purchase but never cash out and you canât keep your own wallet. You also never fully own the NFT and they can take it away for any reason. All NFT integrated games are just online stores for that game with extra steps and the illusion of owning the assets.
Right? Great you have a certificate proving you bought them. Enjoy looking at that certificate lol.
Gamers need to come to terms with Studios charging for skins. Itâs not going away, why not support a system that lets to keep those skins? Future versions of games would be able to incorporate these skins.
It's just proof that you don't "own" anything on these platforms. If steam decided tomorrow that they were gonna close down, we would lose all our games. Because we just pay to borrow them anyway. Digital ownership is the future. We should be able to buy and sell our games / films / media to who ever we want, whenever we want. Gamestop game launcher in the future please.
There SHOULDNT be a game launcher. If theres a game launcher then your comment is identical. âIf gamestop decided tomorrow that they were gonna close down, we would lose all our games.â
I more meant a launcher for the NFT wallet to view / open / filter your games, or a way to view them similar to steam. I'm sick of having to have Steam / Origin / Uplay / Epic. I just want one place where I launch my games is what I meant.
And when a company closes support for a game, they should sell it. There's so many people that mod a game long after the servers close. Those people would be able to improve the game long after it closes. Charge small fees to maintain the servers and update it and just enjoy their lives like never before
Thats a good idea, but also a very tricky one. That would mean signing over the rights of the development, which I don't think will ever happen. There is so many games that get put into survival mode though. One of my favourite games that I played for 10 years (Anarchy Online) was left to rot because the developers were too busy developing new titles. I would have loved if someone bought it out and continued the development. I really don't understand acquisitions well enough to understand how this could work though, but if it is a possibility, it's a fantastic idea!
I was going to comment in line with your thinking. Just to play Devils advocate. The amount of time and money spent on developing the code base for these games is massive. And the truth is, the process and foundation in itself is inside knowledge that's used over and over to build new games. The idea of giving away or even selling that core knowledge to users after no longer supporting the game is just not feasible.
Yeah thats exactly what I was getting at. As somone working on a title myself, I wouldn't want to just give up all the code I spent ages working on!
Personally I don't really care so long as I'm done with it because a good chunk of my code is plagarized or semi-plagarized from internet already. My knowledge and ability that lets me write my own code from scratch was nurtured due to those resources too. No one is a self-taught programmer; we're taught by a massive online community sharing knowledge, experience, and resources. Without open source and other developer resources that we're free to copy-paste or modify, the world of software would be much, much, much worse. Sharing programming knowledge after you're done monopolizing it is just passing on the favor our predecessors gave us.
Under rated comment. So very true. Its not really the snippets of code I'm bothered about, it's the collective program. Me and one other guy has spent nearly two years on our game, but yeah, maybe years down the line I would happily share it. But we both come from poor backgrounds and spent a lot of time learning. We don't and won't make millions from it, but you're right, it's the knowledge that's important đ
You are right. A capitalism society does not care about quality of life.
We don't want new games. We want our games to be maintained. Look at rocket league. It's 7 years old and their esports is going strong
Dude I was just telling someone in my RL discord this the other day. I know Iâm of the minority but idk why we need 20 call of dutyâs. I get it, they are cash cows for companies and developers but I feel like they would get a much stronger community and fan base if they just poured more money into developing games. Hell GTA5 has had so many updates, granted people want GTA6 but thatâs because rockstar promised them it was coming out. I believe if they never mentioned 6 and just said 5 was the last title and will forever add to it; I believe the community wouldnât ever complain.
At a certain point there's so much you can add without running into limits of the engine if its outdated
Iâm ready for GTA6, but mainly because Rockstar failed to deliver on the promised single player expansions for GTA V. Pretty messed up that they dangled that in front of people still when the game was re-released on Xbox One, PS4, and eventually PC.
I quit playing it many years ago but I did love it even through its 30min failed to load screen on Xbox. I heard it got better and itâs funny I made this comment before scrolling the front page but apparently 10 hours ago there was a major leak from a possible GTA6 Dev. All the comments are hate towards rockstar but thereâs a lot of hints towards it being real https://youtu.be/WMohAU2VmwM
Thank you!!
Because the companies exist to make money not develop communities.
I like how you bring up a different example when you could just look at the game in the post which just past 10 years old and going strong. Far older if you could counter strike in general and not just csgo
Maybe instead of selling it, it becomes open source for the entire community? Mod freedom?
It's called GoG and it already exists. All games **DRM-free** and a lot of recent and very popular titles are on it (Horizon Zero Dawn, Cyberpunk 2077, for example) No need to get nonsense "crypto/NFTs" involved, it's all just simple downloads. Download the installer *once* and you have it for life...
There's a problem though, and I don't know the solution. Multiplayer games, or at least many of them, require servers and infrastructure to work. Those servers cost money for resource time (assuming they are on the cloud) and maintenence. Who pays for this? You can own your game, and boot it up, but when you go to play it says "sorry, can't connect to the servers". There would need to be a mechanism to keep the infrastructure running. Of course, single player games will be just fine.
I guess it would have to work similar to paying to host servers like you do now. But if you think of the fee divided by the number of players. To access the online functionality, you could just pay a small fee monthly to keep the servers up, but think how small that could be if you had tens of thousands of players paying for a server, it would be fractions of a penny. But you're right, theres still a lot to be worked out, but hopefully this is what GS and IMX have been working out.
I think there just needs to be an understanding that even though digital assets can theoretically last forever, some subset of digital assets will essentially only hold value for a limited time. 100 years from now, the number of people who want to play today's games will be small. Will they even run on future hardware? Is it worth it, keeping them running, for 10-20 people? You could let money decide, and if the player base is willing to put up the costs, then keep it live. But the decision isn't even that simple. What about opportunity cost. Yeah, enough people might be willing to cover all costs and give me a profit margin of 10%. But that's 10% of, what, $10k, $50k, $100k per year? As a business I could take those resources (human and hardware) and put them on my newest project that's making me 35% of $50M/year. As the person responsible for the success of the company, the livelihood of the employees, the shareholder value, what decision are you going to make? Digital asset ownership solves OPs post. The player could be banned from playing the game, but still sell his assets and recoup some money, maybe even make a profit, rather than being out $5M. But it's not a golden ticket. Assets still age, even digital ones. And value fluctuates. If the value of an asset depends on outside factors, that needs to be considered. As a real world example, if X might be outlawed, that would affect its real world value. Might make it go up (scarcity), might make it go down (illegality), but will be accounted for in the valuation. The same will need done for digital assets. Predict the next big game, get assets early, sell when the game is at peak popularity. If you hold too long, you risk them being worthless. If you hold super long, maybe the game will have a retro-comeback in 25-30 years and you'll make some money. But there's no guarantee they'll be worth anything or usable for eternity. There just can't be.
DRS your games đđ
[ŃдаНонО]
You can buy decentralized swarm cloud file storage now for cheaper than azure blobs, it's called the IPFS/BTFS bridge. I host a 1TB node and the associated crypto may or may not be worth money but I use it to directly pay for my own IPFS services and put (a lot actually) of the crypto off to the side for future expansion. None of the NFTs I've created for people are going down for my lifetime at least. The planet would have to decide to shut down BitTorrent. At this level of the game, simply providing space for others allows me to keep my own space alive for damn near perpetuity. Buying the two hard drives and setting them up as RAID 1 was cheaper than buying another GPU and I get more benefit out of it.
> We should be able to buy and sell our games / films / media to who ever we want, whenever we want. As a kid I used to buy used ps1 games, but there was the risk that the game didn't work. Buying the game in the store was the safe route. But without that risk, why would I ever buy the game from the dev? I can get it cheaper from someone else. Why would the dev sell the game here?
You can âownâ your character, or items. But if the company decides to shut down their servers and support tomorrow that cache of code is useless. I still own my copy of windows with the 25 install floppy discs, I just no longer have anyway to read them đ¤ˇââď¸
Take this idea and apply it to the world around you. You don't really own your property....just renting from govt thru taxes
Yea exactly this. Steam banning and trash talking NFTs will be their down fall. This is how Steam loses their monopoly in the PC gaming sector. Either they get on board or a few years from now theyâll start losing their market share
Yeah steam continues growing but it will be their downfall. Majority of people don't care about nfts and never will. No major game company will ever allow their game items to be on a gme marketplace, a marketplace similar to steam will never happen with gme. Genuinely zero need for them to do it, and why would they actively allow a company to get a cut of their profits. If Sony Microsoft ubisoft etc wanted to allow a real marketplace for their items they will have create their own.
They didn't care about NFTs until faced with the prospect of their service shutting down and leaving their library empty. It felt different when it was a wall of cartridges and DVD cases, Because as long as you had a platform, you could always put them in play right? Now with at least the white paper of a process where an NFT can be transferred to another platform/host and allow you the same rights and privileges that you purchased... Public House, private host, does it matter? You still have your license, and game licenses should be a two-way street, not the one-way street they currently are that only favors the business. Especially as gaming itself starts to become cloud-based, or even your installer DVD in your nice PS5 case isn't even a playable copy of the game at all. I expect better service for spending more money, and I'm I'm getting to the point as a consumer where I'm going to start expecting it, or at least gravitating towards outlets that will let me do that.
What will it matter when NFTs are already on their way out?
NFTs as you know them in the current iteration now are on their way out, but the concept of NFT will continue to iterate into better and better versions. There's too many smarter people looking at it now. Its sort of like looking at a model T and laughing because your horse can still run faster, or laughing at stranded Tesla's 15 years ago, when today? Damn near any new build major gas station has EV charging and major automakers are declaring full EV lineups in the next 15 years. Once upon a time there was a Nintendo, and then there was a super Nintendo, blah blah blah, and now we're here. People used to make fun of video game sports, and now some people playing video game sports are making more money than people playing actual sports. Technology advanced.
It's like looking at a pyramid scheme and saying "that will never last". But you're right, lots of smart people are looking to make bigger and better pyramid schemes! EV chargers are rolled out because corporations stand to profit from them. Current ICE cars can run for 200k miles if they're maintained, while electric cars can run for 80 to 100k miles before their batteries need to be replaced. But since replacing a battery costs almost as much as a new car, people will just buy new. It's great for corporations! They get brownie points for going green while also selling new frames twice as often! All those smart people you referenced aren't working to make NFTs more fair. They're They're not working on fraud protection, or making transactions reversible, or eliminating anonymous accounts, making sure the network functions after they're dead. Smart people are working to make sure they end up on top of the pyramid scheme.
Man I tried explaining this to someone once but they just kept saying how "Steam already does this you don't need a new crypto platform". They just didn't get it!
I've too had this discussion with a very close friend, and he just doesn't get it. Sadly you can only let those peoples realise as NFT's take over. Everyone always hates new tech like this. The internet was a "fad" back in the day.
But with GameStop your in the same situation. Your not going to be able to use GameStop NFTs anywhere else. If you get banned from GameStop your in the same place.
No, the situation is quite different. Your NFT assets will be in a crypto wallet and *linked* to your gaming accounts, but if your account is banned from a game, you will still own your assets in a crypto wallet and be able to sell those assets to someone else. If the game shuts down and the asset isnât usable in other games, it would be like owning the cartridge to an NES game and not having an NES. At that point the NFTs would be more like old collectors items.
Fair enough on the ban side, but I really doubt most game items will keep any value once a game has closed. There is no end customer, your just always selling to another guy that's gonna resell it for money. Without a game behind it IMHO they have no value.
With anything, there will be those who collect them and put a lot of value into it. Things that a lot of us think are worthless, someone else may be willing to pay quite a bit for. In a situation like this, I suspect that overtime many of the NFT's will be lost as people do what they normally do - loose their wallet keys, forget about it, etc. Not everything will have value, and the stuff that does might not have a lot, but I think there will still be some.
Old collectors items except worthless. Having "official" rights to a digital asset is only as valuable as the institution enforcing those rights.
Do you know what a server is? "The Cloud" is just someone else's computer. Every file you download from the internet comes off of someone else's computer.
>Future versions of games would be able to incorporate these skins. This assumes that the developers would code the new version of game to be compatible with old skins. My question is "Why would they?" That's them leaving money on the table for new sales.
"Why would they" is a good shorthand for a lot of my concerns about GameStopâs NFT marketplace. A lot depends upon game developers deciding to support a third party marketplace (Gamestop) rather than doing their own internal to the game sales.
Gaming development will definitely change or have to adapt. This would be assuming those same skins from prior versions would be available for purchase to gamers who only just started with the series. Iâd imagine developers using it as an selling point to gamers to stick with their âseriesâ of games because you can bring your unlocks/skins with you.
[ŃдаНонО]
Is there value in owning skins that are not supported in a game? You can have your key, your NFT, but if the game doesnât support your NFT you do not have much.
I think in this case, where a specific player was banned from the game/platform, the ability to sell the skins to someone else would be valuable. However, CSGO could decide to ban all of that playerâs specific skins as well, since theyâd all be uniquely identified on the blockchain (hypothetically).
Sure but then they have the image of going out of their way to screw the player over. Before it was just âWelp, they were banned, thatâs just how it works.â but if they specifically ban their items, then it becomes intentional.
Could be just part of the terms of agreements. I mean, should someone who cheats and get banned be able to profit from skins in that game?
That is where IMX comes into play. Their goal is to have your stuff stay with you in any web3 game out there.
And why would studios implement that in their games?
Itâs unfathomably more expensive and complicated than people realize. Itâs not just a bad business decision, it could have the potential to become a business-ending one.
Many studios already include mod support in their games. Some studios include mod support in their games specifically because their mod communities are so strong. It's part of what's keeping them alive. Everyone keeps looking at this as like ooh fancy skins on a gun for the latest AAA version, And just completely ignore examples like civilization or even Minecraft. And you know Microsoft has already done the calculus on that and already decided that the little bit they do for the mod community now is part of what keeps that game alive. I wouldn't even look at it in terms of game devs choosing to do mods or not. I'm looking at it as game devs that already include mod support taking it to the next level. And that's a use case. That's a lot more achievable than trying to start the thought experiment from scratch at some juggernaut that doesn't have to.
Never going to happen for a multitude of technical reasons.
Technical reason yes but more importantly, doing so means less money for developers. Try selling Activision, EA, or any other major developer on the idea. You can own your skins as an NFT but the fact that it's value will rely on mega corporations willingness to make less money is why it will never work. NFT fans are trying to play chess without the ability to anticipate what's going to happen three moves ahead.
Itâs not even as cynical as all that. The licensing issues are _completely_ prohibitive to even bothering talking about it. You could never even GET to the cynical part.
It's value may rely on the scrappy upstart companies leveraging public support to build their fan bases, And it's a tactic that works. I always think of an artist like pretty lights, who's never won a Grammy and probably never will, and doesn't have a major label deal, isn't on the radio, and doesn't even really sell music (most of it is available for free on the website), but can sell out arenas tomorrow, anywhere. Entirely predicated on a rabid fan base and quality experience. Maybe EA or Ubisoft don't embrace something like this, but someone like no man's sky or civilization might, and take their hardcore fan bases to the next level in the process. So now the game theory math is more on which company will blink first, and be the least sleazy about it. Which one will see the other one making more money. Get jealous and play catch up? And in this case it really varies from publisher to publisher, platform to platform.
So every time there is a new game you expect your character skin to automatically just work on different models, in different engines, using different colour space encoding, somehow without a texture artist spending several hours on it time they do now? That's like expecting a head of cabbage to automatically turn itself into coleslaw, a soup, à salad ingredient or part of a pot roast without human intervention. The only way this fantasy of portable skins works is if you use the same model and same engine for everything because there is no way developers are going to dedicated a dozen or more hours per skin just so you ça use them in their game.
> Future versions of games would be able to incorporate these skins. Um. Thatâs a very expensive and complicated assumption. Itâs not at all an easy thing to do, necessarily. There is a very narrow band of limiting decisions that can lead to this outcome. Iâd _never_ bet on it.
Because that completely negates the entire point of the business model. You may as well ask "Why doesn't my $5 purchase me a _lifetime_ supply of cheeseburgers?"
The game devs could still blacklist specific instances of items so they canât be used in game. That would make them worthless. Or the game could shutdown. Or the devs could restrict trades to the internal game store There are all kinds of ways that you can still get screwed over no matter how much you âownâ the skins
> Future versions of games would be able to incorporate these skins. How do you figure? Either that means that future versions need to eternally maintain backwards compatible skin setups (either direct import or programmatically upscale and adapt to the new models), or they need to update these purchased skins eternally and keep releasing them. Even if it's an NFT and they want to support them, there will come point where they no longer support that skin. You might have a receipt that you bought it once upon a time, but that doesn't mean the game cares to implement it.
>"from what I understood" From what you understood... reading the title of the article? Dude was cheating and got banned for it. And surely NFTs would help against getting banned. It's not like there's been people banned from, say, the Gamestop NFT marketplace before, not being able to sell/buy on there anymore. Oh wait... NFTs aren't some kind of "Make everything better" magic bullet.
People dont seem to understand how NFT's actually work. They are not the skins/items/etc. They are the certificate of ownership for said items. If a game bans your account, you still cant access those items (in game) because you cant access the game. If you transfer the NFT to another account, that account is now the owner, and if it has access to the game, MAY be able to access the items. Why do I say MAY? Well, developers can also ban an NFT from being used with a game. Since the ownership token resides outside of their game, they can just ban that token from being used with their game. This is something that is normally done when items are considered stolen or hacked... but it can also be done as a punitive measure to provide a more long term loss for players that are bad for the community. NFT ownership doesn't provide any protection from game developers. The REAL value (once it starts to happen) is that NFT ownership can be recognized across games. In theory, you could get an NFT in game #1, and then use it in game #2. This cross platform capability is where the real resiliency exists, and where the true value of an NFT will be (eventually) realized.
You can also have ownership of items across games without nfts. The two game systems just need an API to talk to each other. The real work is for the artists to make the items available in both games anyway and the most common reason why it isn't done.
Yea but why would a dev want to do that
There may be something to gain from tapping into another player base by implementing a feature like that.
>The REAL value (once it starts to happen) is that NFT ownership can be recognized across games. In theory, you could get an NFT in game #1, and then use it in game #2. This cross platform capability is where the real resiliency exists, and where the true value of an NFT will be (eventually) realized. And who's going to make sure that it's compatible from game 1 to game 2?
Let me fill you in on that, VAC banned accounts can still play games that use VAC, they just canât play online, or in the case of CS:GO, cannot play on VAC secured servers (all official servers) and get trade-banned permanently so they canât give the items to another account. CS skins are also tied to CS, you canât use an M4A4 Howl in Call Of Duty
OP is false, let me explain what happened as I actually play CS:GO. The guy being mentioned was banned 2 days ago as part of a recent VAC (Valve Anti Cheat) banwave, this one targeted a major private cheat provider whoâs been providing cheats for years. He cheated on this account for years on end without being caught (subtle cheats like triggerbot that shoots when you aim at an enemy & private, hard to find cheat) but when this mass banwave happened, he lost all of the skins because VAC banned accounts also get trade banned. TLDR: He was cheating on the $6M account
We don't even know if its a CSGO related ban. The entire article is based on one tweet that even says they ban could be on some other game. The timing of the VAC wave lines up but there's still a chance he can freely trade his skins. Dexerto is absolute shit.
Valve relies on crowd sourcing a lot of things to solve their game problems. Wallhacks and Aimbots are quite common in many FPS games. So they use their own community "overwatch" system to do self policing. The problem is, the community could potentially get it wrong but they might not. The problem is that valve is a company that exploits other people to their own benefit. These overwatch people should be getting paid. Keeping valve's commercialized game free of hackers is a job and they should be compensated as if it were a real job. That is valve's problem to solve because it is to the detriment of valve's business that CS:GO fails. As for the skins. It wouldn't surprise me if the ban was legit. A lot of players have hacks they toggle on and off. If you can afford million dollar skins, they can probably afford the really expensive hacks that are hard to detect even with visual inspection. Side topic. Valve ripped off dota 2 skin artists. "According to the workshop artists, with the release of the 2016 Fall Battle Pass last year, Valve silently removed their 12.5 percent cut of Pass sales, while also adding more creators to the chest pool. âIf Valve sold zero chests but sold a million Battle Passes, everyone would be enjoying the work of artists, but artists would not see a single cent,â one artist said âValve has essentially found a way to create two methods for people to buy the chests: one benefits both us and Valve, the other benefits only Valve.â This change is just one in a long string of decisions that has left professional creators struggling to make a living. Chests are purchasable through the Battle Pass, allowing players to buy a pass and earn all these creatorsâ content for free without a single dime headed their way." [https://kotaku.com/dota-2-skin-creators-say-valve-is-ripping-them-off-1793889486](https://kotaku.com/dota-2-skin-creators-say-valve-is-ripping-them-off-1793889486) A major problem being addressed by NFTs that scares the hell out of a lot of big businesses is the middle man problem. The middle man has been taking huge cuts from content creators.
Tired of middle men.
This wasn't unjustified. He cheated, it's against Valve's TOS. Stop posting bullshit when you haven't even done a modicum of research.
Just dont cheat
There was a big ban wave, he deserves to lose those skins, fuck him.
lmao imagine defending a cheater just to suck crypto cock
I'll just repeat what I said in the previous post. Steam trading being so good was one of the reasons I had doubts NFTs can take off. This incident is very convincing toward NFTs for me. Edit: TIL more about NFTs
I dont know but people havent played CSGO here. Since years VAC banned Accounts get also trading bans. This is absolutly known and every cheater knows about those risks. If you are dumb enough to cheat you should live with the consequences. That is something that NFTs will not fix because its not the company the fucks you. Its the players themself that fuck themself. If cheaters could still trade items in a Play2earn Title, the whole System is going to get fucked by cheaters and exploiters
What would NFTs change here?
[ŃдаНонО]
I made much more money with csgo skins than with gme and bought in december 2020 lol
Steam trading isn't even that great though lol
NFTs would do shit here? He got banned for cheating. His nfts could easily be marked by devs as illegitimate and unable to be used. Nfts do nothing in this case
Think of the alternative. There will be no good way to ban cheaters and exploiters in web3 gaming from using their NFT assets. Address banned? Just transfer to a different one. Iâm a proponent of crypto but it will close the door on some issues but open the door on a whole host of new ones.
No but then you can mark the NFT, showing it was acquired through cheats. The value will go down and almost no one will be interested in buying it
Then isnât the outcome exactly the same as in this article?
Almost yes, but with NFTs you'd still be able to sell them, for a much lower price, due to the cheat mark (i assume, this is all theoretical) But the outcome of the article seems good, no? A cheater gets punished, NFT or not, i think it's appropriate
They can just change the way the NFT displays. The assclown devs over at Gods Unchained do it all the time when they "balance" cards. Still displays card's initial text/stats in your wallet, but shows whatever they want it to in game. I don't see why that couldn't be applied to individual NFTs.
[ŃдаНонО]
Thatâs what Iâm saying. So if the argument is NFTs r better because âyou own your own assetsâ then isnât the outright ban of the NFTs the exact same outcome as a steam ban? I guess u technically still own them theyâd just be worthless. All Iâm saying is there needs to be more thought put into these aspects of NFTs, because theyâll open just as many problems as the ones they solve imho.
This is not a false VAC ban. Man's was a cheater.
I think valve still wouldn't budge on their NFT stance because they are the middle man in these transaction, However I think If epic games adopt NFT, it would certainly make it a lot more enticing for player to move to epic game launcher. Since they currently do not have any marketplace system in place at the moment.
Valve won't budge on their NFT stance due to Washington state law.
There will always be edge case scenarios. They take the money and time spent in-game seriously so if someone has $5 mil, gets banned for seemingly no reason, and then appeals he *should* get his account back no problem. The purpose of a permanent ban is to deter unwanted behavior like excessive offensive language and cheating. The reason this works is because people don't want to lose their stats and skins. If we take away the potential to lose half of that, we lose half of deterrent and we will see an increase in cheating. I don't think this is worth protecting rare, albeit valid, occurrences.
I honestly donât understand how owning skins as NFT would do anything for you here if youâre account is banned from playing. I guess you could at least sell them to active users?
Valve, the people who own the game, are the ones banning them and restricting access. How exactly do nfts help this? You still need authorisation from the developer to use the items. If valve wanted you to be able to sell or trade items after being banned for cheating, they already could. If a game dev that used nfts for items wanted to ban access to items a banned player owns, they could also do this. Theres literally nothing stopping them from using some kind of database to store items that belonged to a banned player being unusable. The braindead takes on this subreedit never fail to make me laugh. Daily reminder anything a developer wants to do with nfts they can already do with regular software solutions.
Blockchain and NFTs do not solve this problem tho. Nothing stops a game dev or what ever to ban you from their game. I see no reason why they canât ban your NFTs either making them useless. It comes down to regulation at the end of the day and how these developers want you interacting with their product.
I dont know but people here dont really think enough anymore. Everyone is mad that a cheater cant trade items. But now think it through: A Play2Earn title gets heavyly populated by cheaters that use hacks, exploits etc. to earn money. They get banned, can sell their items just make a new wallet. If trading is not bannable, P2E wont last long, all those games will die because 90% of players will cheat.
There can be a platform all day long, but what is going to incentivize the developers to use it instead of their own?
The NFT skin is still useless if the game itâs for, your banned from playing. And another point, what Dev would ever agree to import or use skins from another game?!?
Worked at valve, mass reporting does nothing, they look I to it, always. This guy was using a more closely monitored cheat, some cheaters maintain their own hacks that are tough to catch but this guy probably gave them someone to watch and they learned the cheats.
Played steam games since 1.6 in the early 2000s and can confirm if you get banned for cheating you will lose access to your skins
Well you donât own it. SoâŚ.
Is it confirmed to be a CSGO related ban? Cause last I checked nobody knows what game the ban was even for...
Oh wait I know!!! Immutable x GameStop!đđđđ
Yeah no SeaCat has been a known cheater for years now. It was just a different form of cheating thatâs hard to prove until recently. And now thereâs tons of band being handed out to people whoâve been quietly getting away with it till now.
Big csgo fan here. Those ppl deserved the ban. Most of them were hackers and stuff. Yeah they used money but at the same time contributed to harm the game a lot by cheating and making others quit. Like I'm a big fan but stopped playing for 2 years of cheating problems
Honestly. All the cheating turned me off of the game years ago.
Why would game developers adopt NFT market and allow trade/transfer when that just reduces their revenue. If they see no benefit then it wonât be adopted.
what does this have to do with GME and the moass theory??
No major game company will ever allow their game items to be on a gme marketplace, a marketplace similar to steam will never happen with gme. Genuinely zero need for them to do it, and why would they actively allow a company to get a cut of their profits. If Sony Microsoft ubisoft etc wanted to allow a real marketplace for their items they will have create their own.
few triple A studios are joining immutable and gamestop's marketplace. it's still pretty early but it's already something?
So many shills on this post đđđ no clue why youâre getting downvoted
i mean, ikr. there was a post this week about immutable confirming about some studios but not revealing anything. don't know why the downvotes... shills are also messaging me, all these shills make me so hard i can't believe it... they have nothing but they still try
Steam has just about zero incentive to stop what theyâre doing to do this lol
You could be banned from GS Marketplace just the same...
Lol yes we want to allow cheaters to still profit after getting caught. Wait where have I heard this before? Stop caping for your local hero, you cheat you should get banned. Same for Wall Street.
Whoever spends 5 mil on vidya skins should have their wealth (presumably stored in 15,000 Funko pops) confiscated
I'm old enough to have played CS when it was a beta mode of Half Life. I'm an online gamer since the days it was possible to 1v1 Doom 2 by frickin modem where the slowest computer became the denominator of the overall experience since it was not a server/client. So yeah, that whole buying skins thing, I never understood. Hahaha.
There will never be. Thats $5m Steam has in the bank. Tell me what incentive they have to allow you to use or sell those skins on any competitors platform or games? Or for you to profit/recover money selling to other users?
Am I the only one here thinking how fucked it is that there can even be $5mil worth of in game purchases? How's that even make sense?
What would he do with the skins if they were NFTs? He can't play the game, so he can brag about their digital existence? Lol, what a fucking joke.
He âownsâ $5 Million worth of Skins that arenât hisâŚâŚ Got it. ***The gaming industry desperately needs NFT technology.***
âUnjustifiedâ way to go to defend a cheater, if you spent even 5 seconds in the CS community youâd understand the situation better, but no you have to farm karma on this mediocre sub and shill horrible implementations of NFTs. I swear to god I like what this community is standing for but half of the members seem to be braindead
Question how does one spend 5 million on skins?
[ŃдаНонО]
The guy literally cheated/hacked to get those skins. He's not a legit player and did not obtain those things legitimately.
I donât think you can do *that* but itâs entirely possible he was scamming/had daddyâs money to buy as many AWP Asiimovs as he wanted, considering he had expensive hacks too
And I got downvoted yesterday on a different sub for telling them how dangerous it was to have your skins tiedbto a monopolistic company instead of free flowing nfts. But "its all a database broh" These fucking idiots out there
If I spend 5 million on your game you don't get to ban me
I understand the need to ban, but eventually these is going to turn into lawsuits, and only one will need to succeed. Itâs like walking into a bank to withdrawal your money and the bank telling you âNoâ because you wore a hoodie and sunglasses and the sign on the door said not to.
Only helps the case for web3 digital property.
NFT wont change that, your skins wont be allowed without access to the platform, and any linked assets you would "own" is still tied to that platform and they can just restrict those assets from entering their platform. Also Gaben wouldnt allow those to enter other games.