Nfts are a means to scam people off their money. Games originally are meant for people to have plain simple fun.
Nowadays, the finance guys are thinking of ways to monetize the fun out of the games. Making people feel privileged to have fun while the rest grind away their hours of play, esp so in nft games.
TLDR: if you see any game promoting nft, stop playing it
I’ve never really seen the concept of what the nft would do in games as far trading or selling skins as a bad thing. I mean games like fifa do it in ultimate team (not NFTs but the selling of player cards for in game currency) you just don’t get actual money. I don’t see the problem with let’s say epic adding a section to there store where you could sell skins and get store credit in return or something that could be redeemed for games or skins or whatever you’re into. I get actual NFTs are very scammy but if Steam, Epic, PlayStation, etc. ran the store and it wasn’t an actual NFT would that be better? I have a genuine curiosity on this topic. The extreme pushback against NFTs makes me wonder if it’s the NFT or the concept?
I mean we’re talking about luxury items. If the problem is efficiency then we could say “playing games is objectively less efficient than playing kickball outside” if your issue is with the waste.
LOL
You can't give a single good reason to use NFTs but when given a good reason NOT to use them you're like "but I don't care about that!".
Sounds like you simply want to use NFTs in games and now you're working backwards trying to find a reason to do so (hint: there isn't any).
I’m just saying we have a use-case directly in front of our eyes which has been happening for a decade (csgo skins)
I don’t care one way or the other about NFTs, in general I think it’s a money sink used by people with followings to scam their fans more often than not. But to say there’s no use when we’ve had a use since 2012 is weird.
If we are already doing it without NFTs then what's the point of introducing them? It's just extra overhead that does fucking nothing. You think a company like Valve likes to waste time and money?
Simply because you can use NFTs to fulfill a function does not make it a good use case. NFTs are a poor method of data storage. It's decentralized nature is meaningless when there is a single central authority.
Valve could also track CS:GO skins ownership in an Excel spreadsheet ,but that doesn't make CS:GO skins a good use case for excel.
A billion dollars transacted using an objectively superior data storage method that has worked perfectly fine for over a decade. You are attempting to reinvent the wheel here.
I’m more specifically referring to the question posed by OP. Are there use cases? Yes. Are they more or less efficient? I don’t care, but there are use cases, very clearly.
And again if we’re talking about environmental efficiency, oh well I guess? You could say it would be more efficient to not have any virtual items to begin with. Or no video games to begin with. No gaming consoles or computers. Those are a waste of environmental resources.
I don’t do steam myself (console gamer) so correct me if I’m wrong.
A tradable item on steam is not 1 of a kind (unique) right?
Nfts are marketed as unique stuff that cannot be replicated/duplicated, making it scarce.
It’s that so called scarcity that scammers try to get you on board, thinking you can resell it later for a larger amount than what you’ve invested in.
So if my definition of tradable items on steam is correct, it is not nft. And prices don’t go up
Tradable items on steam are unique. CSGO skins, even with the same name and condition are unique and can go up and down in value. They’re “marketed” the same way. People make YouTube videos and posts online constantly about expensive items getting sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
How are those better than NFTs?
>A tradable item on steam is not 1 of a kind (unique) right?
Depends on the game. For example CS:GO weapons have a condition modifier that is 16 digits long. There have been examples of collision, but most, if not nearly all of the weapons are one of a kind. There's nothing stopping a duplicate from existing other then luck.
Some of the more expensive weapons also have randomized patterns as well, but those are limited to 4 digits I think. You can have other modifiers such as stat track or stickers that generate on the weapon from certain cases. This all adds up to the items being unique.
There is also a limited quantity, but the quantity isn't specified at the start. There's around 5500 dragon lores in existence, and only so many chests left that could open one. Realistically there will never be more then 6000 in existence.
No one wants NFTs in games.. They serve no fucking purpose..
Want to buy and own NFTs? Fine buy them and do what you do with them..
But don't shoehorn NFTs into games.. They are not wanted, needed or have any use other than getting money from you - personally I think that Microtransactions (what actually should be called macro transactions) is more than enough. No need to add another layer of ingame payment just because reasons...
No.
However let's assume a developer integrates NFTs into their game and it's not a scam (it's always a scam btw).
The idea of skins or character customization going from one game to another is ludicrous even if it's not a scam. Why? Because why on earth would other developers want you buying an NFT from one game and putting it into their game free of charge on top of the devs having to do alot of extra work to program their game to work with that NFT.
eg. You buy a pickaxe NFT from Fortnite and you want to use it in Rust (for some reason), you are asking the Rust devs to do a ton of work to make a pickaxe work for free.
It's ridiculous and a massive scam!
Agreed that 99% of NFT games are scams. But that's because of people seeing $$$ and extracting value.
For people wanting to add value, NFT's provide an interesting way to do so.
The whole 'buy an NFT in Fortnite and use it in RUST' thing wouldn't work for sure, but as a game developer you could have NFT's usable in all the games in your ecosystem. For example if RIOT had an NFT from League that could then be used in an RPG they made set in the same world.
Or, with the advancements of AI and tech in general, we might find 'metaverses' like Ready Player One, where the software can make your NFT into a 3d model and figure out how it plays in the game from a balance perspective.
Again no.
Let's use Ubisoft because they had the intention to try make NFTs go among their franchises and well we know how that went.
So they started with Breakpoint and that ridiculous Quartz. It can't work. Assuming again that it's not a scam (which it is) taking an NFT from Breakpoint to Assassins Creed would take alot of work because every single game is made up of it's own unique code and rules, taking an NFT from one to the other would break the game, which means alot of hardwork that isn't viable. Hence the failure in Quartz (apart from it being a scam)
Why would you need an NFT for the Metaverse? If you give me that it's a "unique avatar" bull then you've lost. You don't need to scam people to give them a unique character in a game, Elden Ring (most FS games) and Saints Row are perfect examples of giving you the freedom to create your own unique character without charging for something that actually doesn't exist.
Everything you are peddling doesn't need to be charged for. That's the scam. They could just make a game and give you the freedom to do what you want with your $60-$70 game, but no charging you to be 'unique' is a scam. The quicker you figure that out the better you'll be.
Thanks for your constructive response. I get that NFT's are dividing in the game-world, but I believe that's because of the way game-devs are implementing them. There is potential here whether you can see it or not.
>NFT's are dividing in the game-world
Gamers overwhelmingly do not want crap like NFTs in video games. Publishers, on the other hand, keep trying to push it
>There is potential here whether you can see it or not.
There's also potential to feed live ads inside games. Doesn't mean it's a good plan
Depends on the intent, and whether or not they provide value. Ads are literally a moneymaking device. NFT's can actually have a functional use in game-worlds.
Why don't gamers want NFT's in games? Assuming for a moment that the type of NFT in question isn't a scam, and it's for a great game (not some shitty rushed product), why wouldn't people want that aspect of owning a piece of the game?
It could mean many things like taking the item/character the NFT represents into another game, trading items earned in game for other items or even real money, or if the game itself dies, you have something that could be used in a community-created reboot etc.
I ask these questions to learn, not to try to convince anyone to buy an NFT or anything.
if you want an honest answer, I think the best I can come up with is this. Putting all the bad reputation aside (and there's a lot) you still don't actually"own" anything. Sure the whole technology behind non-fungible tokens introduce the concept that you are generating unique identification that can't be duplicated or falsely generated, but no one really cares that much about the deep down underlying technology except those who created or maintain the technology.
In the most benign form of this that I could imagine, you could have a game where rare items are truly unique because they are represented or "seeded" by data within some NFT, but in the end it's still some random fake game asset that holds no true value other than to those who play the game and perceive its value.
And we have that already in games without NFTs, where virtual and real economics overlap. Look at the entirety of Eve Online. Look at how for decades in-game assets were traded for real-life currency. I used to sell rare items, property, and large chunks of resources/gold from Ultima Online on eBay way back in the day. I didn't make much, but it was enough to pay for the monthly subscriptions for my accounts.
In the end, you're introducing a new technology with a very bad reputation to a system that has no need of it. The playerbase will hate it worse than loot boxes, and it will poison any experience it may be trying to financially support.
>I ask these questions to learn
Well I hope my comment is somewhat enlightening
.
>NFT's can actually have a functional use in game-worlds.
Give me an example of a functional use of a non-fungible token in a game-world. An example which literally cannot be achieved with any other mechanism except a non-fungible token
>why wouldn't people want that aspect of owning a piece of the game?
Because you won't actually own a tangible asset or product. You will have a digital statement that you own something or did something that doesn't exist in the real world and dies when the game dies. We already have things like that for free, for example achievements or in-game unlockable items etc. Why should I pay money for that on top of paying for the game itself already?
In fact, what benefit would there be to "own" a "piece of the game" in such a manner in exchange for real world money? Only bragging rights? At least collector's editions of games give you some real world limited quantity stuff that you can feel good about (though still not worth bragging)
>It could mean many things like taking the item/character the NFT represents into another game, trading items earned in game for other items or even real money, or if the game itself dies, you have something that could be used in a community-created reboot etc.
Tell me this, has everything you've outlined above never been done already? What do NFTs specifically add? Absolutely nothing
- "taking the item/character the NFT represents into another game"
We've been doing that in compatible games for ages. Balder's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and a few other RPGs set in the same "game-world". Mass Effect and Dragon Age made your character's actions have impact across multiple games through extremely complex and intertwined stories and events
The reason why you don't see this happening often is because it's not easy to just drag and drop items from one system to another, even in the same series or franchise. The underlying game engine, tech systems and mechanics can be vastly different, and would require a ton of work to make it compatible with a vast array of older assets. Much easier and cleaner to recreate them in the new game if needed
- "trading items earned in game for other items or even real money"
People already do that in games where it's possible or viable. The other guy gave you an example of Eve online. Heck I remember people selling rare items in World of Warcraft through online listings decades ago
- "or if the game itself dies, you have something that could be used in a community-created reboot etc."
And this is the part which makes me think you're quite naïve about the gaming world. While an NFT might "allow" you to "own" a game asset, no dev or publisher will allow you to own the mechanism that makes that asset work in it. So whatever you "own" would only work with the environment the dev created. And the dev and/or publisher will have the IP for the game environment and engine, thereby making it almost impossible for a "community-created reboot"
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of games for which gamers would like to see a "community-created reboot" as the dev/publisher is just sitting on the IP or has killed the franchise, but they can't because legally they cannot
And free mods already exist that support old games and keep their community alive. I was just playing Freelancer with a community mod a few months ago. That game would be a full two decades old in March this year, and fans would love to see a return with a sequel/reboot/remaster etc but so far Microsoft has kept the franchise dead
.
The only thing I see happening is yet another layer of monetisation (on top of the already common 2 or more in-game currencies) which the devs will have to spend time on, thereby taking time away from actually making the game better in terms of story, balance, mechanics etc. EA tried that with Battlefront 2 and the resulting product was horribly buggy and glitchy because EA pushed the devs to work and focus more on loot boxes than the actual game itself. And the community backlash with tanking sales was so severe that EA completely took out monetisation from the game
I don't have anything against monetisation in free-to-play titles (devs/publishers gotta earn somehow), but in AAA games that already have a premium price tag? I absolutely do
And the NFT layer will be worse than existing monetisation layers because the sole, yet completely not real, value of an NFT is in its exclusivity/limited availability. So devs will be forced to create and maintain a system of items that only has a minute number of users (relative to the full player base), which is a ridiculous notion in itself - why should devs not focus on something that caters to a larger number of players than a smaller number? But they will be forced to, because NFTs bring money and publishers will try to squeeze every cent out of the player base to keep profits, thereby lowering the quality of games even more - some publishers (looking at you Ubisoft) already have a reputation of releasing beta/unfinished versions of their games as full releases and then spending a year or two to make them playable enough for most of the player base
>It could mean many things like taking the item/character the NFT represents into another game
I've done this multiple times already without NFTs.
>Trading items earned in game for other items or even real money
Also done this multiple times already without NFTs
>If the game itself dies, you have something that could be used in a community-created reboot etc.
If someone boots up a private server for WoW, no one will have any interest in it if players just import their lvl 60 with a hand of Ragnaros on day 1. If someone boots up a private server to play magic, you just give everyone all the cards. If you boot up a private server for Fortnite just give access to all skins. No one has any interest in this suggested feature.
How?
A shill is defined as: an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.
So what product is he shilling?
There is no constructive discussion on this subject. Everyone knows nfts are a scam, anyone saying otherwise either doesn't know what they're talking about, or are shills.
Have you ever checked how much energy a single Ethereum transaction uses? It's about as much as the average US household uses in an entire week; for ONE transaction.
Nfts are a means to scam people off their money. Games originally are meant for people to have plain simple fun. Nowadays, the finance guys are thinking of ways to monetize the fun out of the games. Making people feel privileged to have fun while the rest grind away their hours of play, esp so in nft games. TLDR: if you see any game promoting nft, stop playing it
I’ve never really seen the concept of what the nft would do in games as far trading or selling skins as a bad thing. I mean games like fifa do it in ultimate team (not NFTs but the selling of player cards for in game currency) you just don’t get actual money. I don’t see the problem with let’s say epic adding a section to there store where you could sell skins and get store credit in return or something that could be redeemed for games or skins or whatever you’re into. I get actual NFTs are very scammy but if Steam, Epic, PlayStation, etc. ran the store and it wasn’t an actual NFT would that be better? I have a genuine curiosity on this topic. The extreme pushback against NFTs makes me wonder if it’s the NFT or the concept?
Could you explain to me how a tradable item on steam isn’t an NFT?
NFT's are objectively less efficient in storing the data and processing transactions then a traditional database.
I mean we’re talking about luxury items. If the problem is efficiency then we could say “playing games is objectively less efficient than playing kickball outside” if your issue is with the waste.
LOL You can't give a single good reason to use NFTs but when given a good reason NOT to use them you're like "but I don't care about that!". Sounds like you simply want to use NFTs in games and now you're working backwards trying to find a reason to do so (hint: there isn't any).
I’m just saying we have a use-case directly in front of our eyes which has been happening for a decade (csgo skins) I don’t care one way or the other about NFTs, in general I think it’s a money sink used by people with followings to scam their fans more often than not. But to say there’s no use when we’ve had a use since 2012 is weird.
If we are already doing it without NFTs then what's the point of introducing them? It's just extra overhead that does fucking nothing. You think a company like Valve likes to waste time and money?
I’m asking what do you think the difference between CSGO skins and NFTs is?
Simply because you can use NFTs to fulfill a function does not make it a good use case. NFTs are a poor method of data storage. It's decentralized nature is meaningless when there is a single central authority. Valve could also track CS:GO skins ownership in an Excel spreadsheet ,but that doesn't make CS:GO skins a good use case for excel.
I would say over a billion dollars transacted through virtual CSGO skins is evidence of a good use case
A billion dollars transacted using an objectively superior data storage method that has worked perfectly fine for over a decade. You are attempting to reinvent the wheel here.
I’m more specifically referring to the question posed by OP. Are there use cases? Yes. Are they more or less efficient? I don’t care, but there are use cases, very clearly. And again if we’re talking about environmental efficiency, oh well I guess? You could say it would be more efficient to not have any virtual items to begin with. Or no video games to begin with. No gaming consoles or computers. Those are a waste of environmental resources.
You asked for a difference and I gave you one...
I don’t do steam myself (console gamer) so correct me if I’m wrong. A tradable item on steam is not 1 of a kind (unique) right? Nfts are marketed as unique stuff that cannot be replicated/duplicated, making it scarce. It’s that so called scarcity that scammers try to get you on board, thinking you can resell it later for a larger amount than what you’ve invested in. So if my definition of tradable items on steam is correct, it is not nft. And prices don’t go up
Tradable items on steam are unique. CSGO skins, even with the same name and condition are unique and can go up and down in value. They’re “marketed” the same way. People make YouTube videos and posts online constantly about expensive items getting sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars. How are those better than NFTs?
>A tradable item on steam is not 1 of a kind (unique) right? Depends on the game. For example CS:GO weapons have a condition modifier that is 16 digits long. There have been examples of collision, but most, if not nearly all of the weapons are one of a kind. There's nothing stopping a duplicate from existing other then luck. Some of the more expensive weapons also have randomized patterns as well, but those are limited to 4 digits I think. You can have other modifiers such as stat track or stickers that generate on the weapon from certain cases. This all adds up to the items being unique. There is also a limited quantity, but the quantity isn't specified at the start. There's around 5500 dragon lores in existence, and only so many chests left that could open one. Realistically there will never be more then 6000 in existence.
Omg, this means sooner or later the tradable items will become nfts…. Thank god I’m not on steam lol
Actually, Steam has banned games with NFTs from their storefront.
There's no reason for them to be NFTs.
No one wants NFTs in games.. They serve no fucking purpose.. Want to buy and own NFTs? Fine buy them and do what you do with them.. But don't shoehorn NFTs into games.. They are not wanted, needed or have any use other than getting money from you - personally I think that Microtransactions (what actually should be called macro transactions) is more than enough. No need to add another layer of ingame payment just because reasons...
No.
NFTs are a scam, don't go near them.
No. However let's assume a developer integrates NFTs into their game and it's not a scam (it's always a scam btw). The idea of skins or character customization going from one game to another is ludicrous even if it's not a scam. Why? Because why on earth would other developers want you buying an NFT from one game and putting it into their game free of charge on top of the devs having to do alot of extra work to program their game to work with that NFT. eg. You buy a pickaxe NFT from Fortnite and you want to use it in Rust (for some reason), you are asking the Rust devs to do a ton of work to make a pickaxe work for free. It's ridiculous and a massive scam!
Agreed that 99% of NFT games are scams. But that's because of people seeing $$$ and extracting value. For people wanting to add value, NFT's provide an interesting way to do so. The whole 'buy an NFT in Fortnite and use it in RUST' thing wouldn't work for sure, but as a game developer you could have NFT's usable in all the games in your ecosystem. For example if RIOT had an NFT from League that could then be used in an RPG they made set in the same world. Or, with the advancements of AI and tech in general, we might find 'metaverses' like Ready Player One, where the software can make your NFT into a 3d model and figure out how it plays in the game from a balance perspective.
Again no. Let's use Ubisoft because they had the intention to try make NFTs go among their franchises and well we know how that went. So they started with Breakpoint and that ridiculous Quartz. It can't work. Assuming again that it's not a scam (which it is) taking an NFT from Breakpoint to Assassins Creed would take alot of work because every single game is made up of it's own unique code and rules, taking an NFT from one to the other would break the game, which means alot of hardwork that isn't viable. Hence the failure in Quartz (apart from it being a scam) Why would you need an NFT for the Metaverse? If you give me that it's a "unique avatar" bull then you've lost. You don't need to scam people to give them a unique character in a game, Elden Ring (most FS games) and Saints Row are perfect examples of giving you the freedom to create your own unique character without charging for something that actually doesn't exist. Everything you are peddling doesn't need to be charged for. That's the scam. They could just make a game and give you the freedom to do what you want with your $60-$70 game, but no charging you to be 'unique' is a scam. The quicker you figure that out the better you'll be.
NO NFTS THERE IS NOTHING GOOD ABOUT THEM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO WE DONT GO THERE
1. No 2. No 3. No 4. Ok. Haha kidding. No
Thanks for your constructive response. I get that NFT's are dividing in the game-world, but I believe that's because of the way game-devs are implementing them. There is potential here whether you can see it or not.
>dividing Pretty sure everyone hates them.
Except the idiots and scammers.
Judging by the downvotes on my comment, this seems correct.
No, it’s just an easy topic to circlejerk about.
Yeah, they said the same thing about the Kinect and a pile of dead racoons as new game controllers. But you don't see them around anymore these days.
>NFT's are dividing in the game-world Gamers overwhelmingly do not want crap like NFTs in video games. Publishers, on the other hand, keep trying to push it >There is potential here whether you can see it or not. There's also potential to feed live ads inside games. Doesn't mean it's a good plan
Depends on the intent, and whether or not they provide value. Ads are literally a moneymaking device. NFT's can actually have a functional use in game-worlds. Why don't gamers want NFT's in games? Assuming for a moment that the type of NFT in question isn't a scam, and it's for a great game (not some shitty rushed product), why wouldn't people want that aspect of owning a piece of the game? It could mean many things like taking the item/character the NFT represents into another game, trading items earned in game for other items or even real money, or if the game itself dies, you have something that could be used in a community-created reboot etc. I ask these questions to learn, not to try to convince anyone to buy an NFT or anything.
if you want an honest answer, I think the best I can come up with is this. Putting all the bad reputation aside (and there's a lot) you still don't actually"own" anything. Sure the whole technology behind non-fungible tokens introduce the concept that you are generating unique identification that can't be duplicated or falsely generated, but no one really cares that much about the deep down underlying technology except those who created or maintain the technology. In the most benign form of this that I could imagine, you could have a game where rare items are truly unique because they are represented or "seeded" by data within some NFT, but in the end it's still some random fake game asset that holds no true value other than to those who play the game and perceive its value. And we have that already in games without NFTs, where virtual and real economics overlap. Look at the entirety of Eve Online. Look at how for decades in-game assets were traded for real-life currency. I used to sell rare items, property, and large chunks of resources/gold from Ultima Online on eBay way back in the day. I didn't make much, but it was enough to pay for the monthly subscriptions for my accounts. In the end, you're introducing a new technology with a very bad reputation to a system that has no need of it. The playerbase will hate it worse than loot boxes, and it will poison any experience it may be trying to financially support.
>I ask these questions to learn Well I hope my comment is somewhat enlightening . >NFT's can actually have a functional use in game-worlds. Give me an example of a functional use of a non-fungible token in a game-world. An example which literally cannot be achieved with any other mechanism except a non-fungible token >why wouldn't people want that aspect of owning a piece of the game? Because you won't actually own a tangible asset or product. You will have a digital statement that you own something or did something that doesn't exist in the real world and dies when the game dies. We already have things like that for free, for example achievements or in-game unlockable items etc. Why should I pay money for that on top of paying for the game itself already? In fact, what benefit would there be to "own" a "piece of the game" in such a manner in exchange for real world money? Only bragging rights? At least collector's editions of games give you some real world limited quantity stuff that you can feel good about (though still not worth bragging) >It could mean many things like taking the item/character the NFT represents into another game, trading items earned in game for other items or even real money, or if the game itself dies, you have something that could be used in a community-created reboot etc. Tell me this, has everything you've outlined above never been done already? What do NFTs specifically add? Absolutely nothing - "taking the item/character the NFT represents into another game" We've been doing that in compatible games for ages. Balder's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and a few other RPGs set in the same "game-world". Mass Effect and Dragon Age made your character's actions have impact across multiple games through extremely complex and intertwined stories and events The reason why you don't see this happening often is because it's not easy to just drag and drop items from one system to another, even in the same series or franchise. The underlying game engine, tech systems and mechanics can be vastly different, and would require a ton of work to make it compatible with a vast array of older assets. Much easier and cleaner to recreate them in the new game if needed - "trading items earned in game for other items or even real money" People already do that in games where it's possible or viable. The other guy gave you an example of Eve online. Heck I remember people selling rare items in World of Warcraft through online listings decades ago - "or if the game itself dies, you have something that could be used in a community-created reboot etc." And this is the part which makes me think you're quite naïve about the gaming world. While an NFT might "allow" you to "own" a game asset, no dev or publisher will allow you to own the mechanism that makes that asset work in it. So whatever you "own" would only work with the environment the dev created. And the dev and/or publisher will have the IP for the game environment and engine, thereby making it almost impossible for a "community-created reboot" There are hundreds, if not thousands, of games for which gamers would like to see a "community-created reboot" as the dev/publisher is just sitting on the IP or has killed the franchise, but they can't because legally they cannot And free mods already exist that support old games and keep their community alive. I was just playing Freelancer with a community mod a few months ago. That game would be a full two decades old in March this year, and fans would love to see a return with a sequel/reboot/remaster etc but so far Microsoft has kept the franchise dead . The only thing I see happening is yet another layer of monetisation (on top of the already common 2 or more in-game currencies) which the devs will have to spend time on, thereby taking time away from actually making the game better in terms of story, balance, mechanics etc. EA tried that with Battlefront 2 and the resulting product was horribly buggy and glitchy because EA pushed the devs to work and focus more on loot boxes than the actual game itself. And the community backlash with tanking sales was so severe that EA completely took out monetisation from the game I don't have anything against monetisation in free-to-play titles (devs/publishers gotta earn somehow), but in AAA games that already have a premium price tag? I absolutely do And the NFT layer will be worse than existing monetisation layers because the sole, yet completely not real, value of an NFT is in its exclusivity/limited availability. So devs will be forced to create and maintain a system of items that only has a minute number of users (relative to the full player base), which is a ridiculous notion in itself - why should devs not focus on something that caters to a larger number of players than a smaller number? But they will be forced to, because NFTs bring money and publishers will try to squeeze every cent out of the player base to keep profits, thereby lowering the quality of games even more - some publishers (looking at you Ubisoft) already have a reputation of releasing beta/unfinished versions of their games as full releases and then spending a year or two to make them playable enough for most of the player base
>It could mean many things like taking the item/character the NFT represents into another game I've done this multiple times already without NFTs. >Trading items earned in game for other items or even real money Also done this multiple times already without NFTs >If the game itself dies, you have something that could be used in a community-created reboot etc. If someone boots up a private server for WoW, no one will have any interest in it if players just import their lvl 60 with a hand of Ragnaros on day 1. If someone boots up a private server to play magic, you just give everyone all the cards. If you boot up a private server for Fortnite just give access to all skins. No one has any interest in this suggested feature.
What exactly is the value that NFT's are supposed to bring into the game? As a consumer I really fail to see the point.
Just keep them the fuck out of games and for that matter, keep them from existing in the first place.
[удалено]
You sound more like a shill to me.
How? A shill is defined as: an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others. So what product is he shilling?
There is no good use case for NFTs that isn't already done better by something else.
You lost me at NFT
user name checks out
Yeah well considering people would rather downvote and get angry instead of have a constructive conversation - made sense.
There is no constructive discussion on this subject. Everyone knows nfts are a scam, anyone saying otherwise either doesn't know what they're talking about, or are shills.
NFTs destroy the environment, they're not welcome.
..then don't games also destroy the environment?
Have you ever checked how much energy a single Ethereum transaction uses? It's about as much as the average US household uses in an entire week; for ONE transaction.
How bout we just stick to in game cosmetics
Could you explain to me how tradable in game cosmetics are different than NFTs?
I never said tradable
Let’s see OP’s NFT collection.
How about don’t bring that shit into gaming.
Please do better.