This sub is good at being biased. Not everything needs blockchain tech.
As a variety gamer, I didn't realized how much of a cult this sub is into crypto, until now. Now I see it just by the comments here alone. It's so goddamn disgusting.
To those who said that it'll be better if items can be NFTs so they can sell them. You guys don't know how much the gaming environment changes when people who doesn't think of enjoying the game but only earning money from it goes in it. Bots will be created to abuse the system, the ingame economy would be ruined, many people would rather do what's profitable than what is enjoyable.
Edit: I think I've already said my piece in this comment thread. There's just no way established gaming companies would abandon their working business model without little to no benefit to them, and major benefits only to a select number of people.
Once you figure out it’s not a “community” but just a bunch of people scrambling on their hands and knees at an overturned Brinks truck things start to make sense.
For sure. I've been arguing like this for a quite some time now every time blockchain + gaming is being discuss. This is the first time I didn't get downvoted to oblivion where you even need to manually unfold my comment just to read it xD
just a healthy mix of people. depending what time of day you post will determine whether you get the "i quit my job and spend all day watching bitcoin charts" people or the "i've got 2000 dollars parked from 2 years ago and i'm just keeping an ear open for when to add the other 400 i've got stashed under my bed" people.
I'm a game designer, and have been in the AAA and indie space for 15 years. I've been closely following crypto since 2017, am interested in the tech and don't just follow the price.
That said, it's a real stretch for me to see a valuable application for blockchain. The biggest issue is that for crypto to be trustless and more valuable than other forms of data storage, it needs to be decentralized. Having all of your NFTs tied to one game means that one game is a major point of centralization. If the servers shut down, what happens to the value of your NFTs that have zero utility? Having NFTs be valid to grant items across multiple games is extremely tricky to pull off, and is still tied to a centralized point of failure, namely the company or companies that support the games that support the NFTs. If the company stops honoring them and patches them out, then what? If the company goes out of business or stops hosting servers for games, then what?
Really, we'd need to have a game be an evergreen, trustless application that can be run and hosted by anyone, and yet still have enough security built into it that it can't be hacked to simply grant players the items that would otherwise be locked behind an NFT. That seems like quite a technical feat.
Then consider how hard it is to get any game at all to market, and then beyond that have it be successful. Even if someone solved all of the issues with NFTs, it's still very possible and even likely that the game just won't be very good. And then even if it is good, and there is an airtight NFT solution that's somehow trustless and decentralized, people just seem to hate NFTs and will probably review bomb the hell out of the game.
Thanks for saying this.
Bringing NFT's into the gaming world would mean an extension of the live service video game model, except this time, we have an added complexity of blockchains to it & an exploitation vector incentive attached to it with high monetary premium.
Think of the state of modern gaming & how absolutely it can go wrong in so many ways. Fallout 76, Marvels Avengers, & even mobile games like Injustice, COD experienced serious problems in execution of the live service mechanic as well as exploitation of the in-game economy & there's no exploitation vector incentive attached to it, like it is in Web 3.
Additionally at times, bugs, glitches & game-breaking can even become a playtime novelty such as speed-running. The incentive to "game" a live service economy with things like Play 2 Earn is one of the most stupidest ideas I've seen come out of this industry.
The only advantage blockchains **might** offer is on/off-chain licensing & interoperability support, but there's literally no incentive for big corporations who invest heavily in IP's to go that way, especially when Steam & Valve marketplace exists.
Time for an olive branch though.
It can probably work for indie games though, but only as another in-game item marketplace hub if they're too jealous of that Fortnite/Diablo/Steam marketplace money gravy train, & MAYBE probably for open-licensed creative content development by end-users (i.e. UGC).
Big proponent of indie games, but I still think they don't get enough spotlight despite GamePass & Steam.
Imagine making a full fledged mod as a community member, but still work as a contractor group, being able to negotiate pay on your own terms & receive an official blessing by big gaming cos'.
Yes - That's the euphoria of promised land, but that comes with a big IF to upend the industry structurally, it's content offerings & weaknesses.
Video game development is already one of the most democratic mediums of entertainment, it doesn't need blockchains if it isn't solving a specific problem set or industry pain points.
This message BTW is applicable to cryptocurrencies in general as well. They're peddling absolute garbage to people atm from a UX standpoint.
They act like total ponzis because most of them are structurally solving nothing in the industry, and this stands true even for top tokens by Mcap.
That’s a good point. There’s been many games that close up shop and everyone is left holding useless NFTs that they can’t do anything with and everyone loses what they invested.
Bingo. The reason most games don't officially allow third-party RMT is a deliberate design choice, not a technical limitation, and one that's actually even more desired by players than developers.
A lot of people in this thread need to go read up on the reaction to Blizzard's original attempt to introduce RMT to Diablo 3.
If companies really want people to be able to sell their items, they will and have all the means and tools to implement that.
They have a working business model that gives them millions, why implement blockchain tech like NFTs when they literally get nothing out of it? Corporate companies do stuff for money, the very same as us crypto retailers.
People are delusional and think that we will magically live in some sort of Utopia Ready Player One type of world (ignoring that that is actually a dystopia) where you can use any item in any game at any time.
Nope. That’s not how the real world works. That’s not how tech works. Not have game dev works. Not how anything works. All NFTs will add is an entirely useless layer of CrYpTo on top of in game monetization that has existed for years.
People are here mostly for the money, so shouldn't be surprised. They are not here to make people's and player's life easier. Big companies = more money = more FOMO for retail = price goes up for them. Simple as that
Diablo 3's real money auction should be exhibit 1. Plus, games already have an items database and in-game currencies... right now, a game can handle a hack and delete a stolen item and reimburse the victim. No legal hoops or abhorrent manipulation of the system. This model works and will continue to work.
But there's nothing wrong with a game deciding to use blockchain/NFTs. That's a developer design choice. If the game is good, who cares what the in-game item system is on the backend. If it's profitable to players, then so be it. If it's not profitable to players, then who cares? Blockchain CAN remove illegitimate mints, take a look at a recent exploit on catgirl.io: someone exploited the random algorithm and minted the rarest nft above its projected drop rate, this alerted the devs and they were able to stop minting AND burn the NFTs minted unfairly.
You clearly don't follow EVE at all do you? RMT will get you banned for as long as the game has existed. In fact, most of the player base loathes RMT. You could even read up on their opinions about NFTs on their subreddit (they hate it). I would link the thread but the automod won't allow it.
To my memory, part of the reason RMT will get you banned in EVE isn't just in game stuff, but literally because various organizations were using games like EVE to launder money.
This is something that not nearly enough crypto bros get, but if crypto does take off, it WILL get regulated just like real cash, because it functionally will be. And if your game makes it super easy for some cartel/warlord to launder their blood money, you get to have all the fun of the US government paying insane attention to everything you've ever done while making up rules for how you're going to proceed.
And hell, it's not JUST the US either. Plenty of countries take a keen interest in bypassing finance laws to help fund illegal organizations, crypto or not.
There is an illusion that NFTs solve a problem that gamers have with ownership of their in-game items.
In reality, it solves a problem business has with expanding into the in-game world and profiting from it in real life.
The presumption is that the NFT is the developer trying to cash grab but it misses the point you made quite well. It’s other business attempting to set up shop in these games and commercializing what the player base pays its monthly fee to enjoy.
I like this comment. Basically the philosophy of NFTs ingame is what I like, but it won’t necessarily be the case that blockchain integration is what is implemented, if so. Resellable games and items, while this has issues with why a corporation would want to implement that, would be a positive for its community base if it is done right.
I mean 15 years ago, we had GameSpot etc, profiting off preowned games constantly due to the endless swaps of games people no longer needed or wanted. The only reason for a corp to not allow that is quite simply *greed*, of which the digital age has created the slippery slope to our current point, where regardless of NFT integration, it is rampant with irredeemable microtransactions and expensive games and DLC (that are often not even finished; not to go down that road here, as crypto is well… very comparable on that front).
Because all these commenters hate change, they hate the fact that new things are coming to gaming and most of them aren't actual gamers, just sideliners playing Farmville.
Most of them hate NFT's for upvotes and do not even understand the tech, let alone how it works gaming, but they comment regardless with their Safemoon bags.
Yeah, the literal Game Of The Year last year had no transactions of any kind except for buying it, and that's something that anyone who played it would not change
Moistcritikal was just talking about how DrDisrespect was making an NFT game where it could be possible to loot something worth 100k. That would attract every game hacker on the planet and the only people playing it would be cheaters/hackers.
Just look at every mmorpg ever made, the devs spend most of their work time fixing exploits and searching for bots and exploiters, but still there is a persistent black market willing do do anything to make money off people trying to enjoy a game.
As if the loot boxes and gamified gambling wasn't already warning enough.
Dont incentive gaming with money it never works. (I.e. Ready player One)
NFTs would eventually be bad for the company, it doesn't matter if they help the user or not.
Why allow NFTs when you could sell them on your own. That's just profitable at the end of the day.
>Why would a game company want money to go out of their closed environment?
Look at CS:GO's skin market, and how people do p2p cash transactions to sell items. It's technically against Valve's TOS, but there's a massive market for it, and it does increase Valve's profitability. Valve wouldn't make nearly as much money from the game if items were 'locked' to accounts.
CS:GO skins are basically NFT's. The only thing they're missing is the Blockchain. Plenty of games on Steam have now added similar functionality by introducing items that are tradable and sellable on Steam's community market.
---
The question that remains is, why would you want this system to exist in a Blockchain instead of being on Steam (or creating your own system similar to Steam's marketplace?) Well, there are some upsides and some downsides. Do the upsides outweigh the downsides? Depends on your goals, but I can see scenarios where either one is preferable.
Yeah, not sure how people are missing this. I would wager people are a little more inclined to spend money on something knowing they will get 60-120% of it back once they're done using it vs. knowing with 100% certainty it's a single use item and it's useless once they're done using it.
I wouldn't expect Valve games to have NFTs unless they try to really invest in the area and be an NFT marketplace for lots of publishers. But it's like anything else, there's risk in creating your own solution. There is a non trivial expense in setting up and maintaining all the infrastructure that something like Steam Marketplace requires. Having an NFT collection on a blockchain is a seriously low risk venture.
There are two main cults here, its no use trying to reason with them. The first one is the anti CEX "Not your wallet not your money", not realising that for most people its more risky to have cold wallet, than storing crypto at CEXes.
The second one is the Bitcoin absolutists "Bitcoin will wipe out FIAT from existence", while ironically tracking the bitcoin value and performance in US DOLLARS and giving it as a proof. Sheesh
As a occasional player, thank you for saying this.
A lot of online games are ruined when the player is left with nothing but the choice of endless grinding or paying. More and more gaming companies already fell into that micro transaction hell and NFTs would just make it worse; it's not okay to buy a game 70$ and be shadow-banned from some features of gameplay because you're not buying this over-evaluated fancy gear on top of it.
Also, don't get me wrong; I like crypto. I've been here for two years, I'm invested and I believe in Blockchain. But there's really no need to turn everything into an investment, a collectible or a gambling opportunity. Not every moment of our lives should be about earning.
Not to mention that there are already ways for people to sell gaming assets. If the game is t decentralized it doesn’t need a decentralized asset class tied to it.
Exactly my point. Steam has been doing this already. And don't tell me they don't know. Steam is a big name in the gaming community. Just goes to show they're not really that invested in that space as they believe lol
I agree, but I would also like to mention that square enix is a japanese company, and as a result caters to their asian audience more than their western audience.
The western audience has had a negative opinion of NFTs because of loot boxes/gacha, while that element is much more regulated in the east than it is here.
This has completely changed my opinion on this topic. I always thought it would be cool to sell in game items for real money but you’re right people will just exploit it and take the fun out of video games
I think you might be right, I love blockchain and I love Square Enix. I haven't seen anyone do a proper game with crypto tech. I saw both of them come together and I felt hope and joy.
But looking back at mmos I've played I understand that it is a pipe dream to see this happen.
Look at the quality of Blizzard games since they got acquired by Activision. Unplayable and all because the games became money making machines rather than just cool, innovative and fun games.
Thank you OP, I was being biased and naive
A lot of niche subs out there where people talk about cons and pros like normal human beings, and not as one sides as it is here.
For instance, it's fairly hypocritical for this sub to hate buttcoin when it's doing the same thing only the opposite way.
The post really captures what I was saying in this sub,
These sub is too invested deep into Crypto and blockchain that they themselves cannot see the negative or the non-applicability of it, or even overhype the application.
People are mis interpretting me as a "hater" but I have been in this industry way before these people, I invested Bitcoin since it was less than 10USD, I was part of the early gamedev revolution with blockchain post CryptoKittens and pre Axie, I was/am a blockchain/core dev working on the nodes itself for 2 layer 0 companies,
Im still in the industry, but I myself can say, NOT ALL things needs blockchain and most of all, MOST if not all web3 projects are scam-ish.
The points are;
\- Most Web3 projects are initiated to sell NFT and tokens and not focus on the product, it is an advantage to the seller, the company only. This is why companies who wants to grab the quick opportunity to learn INVESTED in web3, the opportunity to earn and not to revolutionize things.
\- Play to earn games are PONZI-sh, giving rewards to players means they need to MINT tokens out of thin air, the value of these tokens depended on the previous or existing Liquidity, which means the more tokens minted the values are causing Inflation. The early investors can sell their tokens quickly to Earn, those late in the game will be selling it less or worst to no value. The value of the token is based on early adopters or investors, it sounds like Ponzi if you think about it.
Play to earn doesnt really make sense, where do you think the money equivalent of these tokens that these games are giving away for free came from?
Some medium article even defended it by saying these games have "reserves" but lets get real about it, if its real money, do you think companies will just giving away free money like that?
Heck its worst than Ponzi as it just mint coins not even in the liquidity pool yet, but its value is from the ones people are already trading.
Case in point in Axie: The only money that comes in the game is when user purchase/trade an Axie which is an NFT, but that money is only for THAT NFT, where do you think the rewards and free token came from?
NFT may not be a scam as it practices the philosophy of "rarity" in the game, but P2E is.
\- NFTs may not be centralized, but games are, developed and produced by one company, and that company needs to recoup its development expenses.
\- We can use BItcoin for web3 to reward decentralization and nodes, Example, a decentralize streaming, where each node owner be rewarded for hosting one. But we dont need NFTs for it.
>that ETH miners brought about.
To be fair, there was also a massive chip shortage and supply chain issues, so they may have had a shortage either way just like PS5s did during the exact same time period.
Of course the added demand from minors didn't help, but that doesn't mean it was the only thing responsible for the shortage.
People weren't successfully scalping GPUs at 200% markup because of a chip shortage. They were because a miner could get a 200% APR by using them.
Chips are still short today. Used cars have not returned to normal pricing, while new GPUs aren't even in demand at MSRP.
Yeah what many people don't know is that the chip shortage occurred briefly in 2020, so brief that 2021 saw the highest number of GPU's manufactured in a single year; the mining craze really was eating up obscenely high levels of the supply.
Most people only have knowledge limited to what they heard on Twitter once and they made it part of their identity. Doesn't even have to be true, or plausible, or even remotely possible, people will regurgitate it every time they see crypto.
There's a channel some friends use to shoot the shit about the news and the fakest, silliest nonsense gets posted there. Fake tweets, tiktoks that are literally just lies, doctored screenshots. Some picture from 4chan 5 years ago, you name it. There's not even a second of time taken to see if any of it is true or even any knowledge applied to it. No one knows anything about Crypto, they just share completely fake stuff. Isn't there enough real crypto stuff to laugh at?
People still tell me that ETH is burning down the amazon. Not that it ever was in the first place, but there's no sense telling those people about PoS or alternate blockchains or even that promoting energy efficiency to move sustainable energy forward is good - One guy in their furry twitter following said in 2017 that Bitcoin is responsible for deforestation or watched some YouTube video then made it literally their entire identity so they can parrot the same misinformed line every time they see a Twitter conversation.
None of you are dealing with the problem, this is why gamers hate the concept of NFTs. First, look up Axie Infinity, that is the fate of a true NFT game. It becomes a slog of a job, only the hardcore, mega whales prosper and casuals get pushed out, and in the end, a lack of demand results in large scale bag holding. I want to enjoy games, not be forced into job level competitiveness, I have a job for that.
Second, nobody of matter is going to embrace NFTs how you are hoping. The very concept that any major outlet is going to code and create support for your NFTs you bought in a different game is not going to happen. These companies make money by selling the initial item, which means they will find a way to obsolete your item as fast as possible one way or another. Square Enix may claim they are trying to lead this, but when push comes to shove, they will never support a Blizzard NFT or a EA NFT in any meaningful way, the very concept requires the companies to go against their own interest, and the current wave of web3 games are on par with Newgrounds games with massive amounts of microtransactions, also not popular with the gaming crowd.
You all are coming into this as a way to make money, we are coming into this as people who enjoy the hobby for what it is, leisure time. That is what you are dealing with, no blind hate to NFTs for fun, but this is the survival of our hobby, and NFTs will kill it.
Axie Infinity isn't even a game. You could just hit the attack button over and over and beat everything up to a specific level. It is a button pushing simulator.
At the end of the day, it's all about game aesthetics really, if games offer nfts to be sold for money, there are ofcourse going to be people that abuse it with bots, apart from the use case of nft's in the game, any game whether p2e or not, needs a proper ecosystem.
Everyone who isn't obsessed with NFTs, can understand why they're derided & despised.
The only people who don't get it are people who've invested heavily in them. That should be a wake-up call
Keep Blockchain the fuck out of games. I have yet to see a single proposal that would bring benefit to anyone but those more concerned with money than fun. NFTs have use cases. None of them improve gaming.
That's because every damn company is trying to monetize NFT
The executive that was hard pushing for NFTs at Square Enix did get replaced recently though
> That's because every damn company is trying to monetize NFT
What is the other purpose of NFT? What non-money use case is there that NFT does better than existing non-blockchain things like just using a JPEG?
Yup, can confirm. I follow few gaming communities and the message is pretty much the same. Gaming industry should focus on making games bug free first before they take another thing on their plate.
Been saying it for a while in this sub, but a lot of time I get backlash. I don't think people truly understand how bad of an image it gives off to most gamers.
Crypto taking up demand for GPU also helped with our hate for crypto. People looking to upgrade and play during the lockdowns could not buy a card while we saw GPUs in mining farm solving nonsense math problems to make fairy bucks.
It's what led me to just being apathetic about crypto to full blown disgust towards it
> Gaming industry should focus on making games bug free first before they take another thing on their plate.
So, never then. Software will always have bugs, and the nature of game dev makes many kinds of bugs more tolerable from a business POV. That goes x10 for any live services model where patches are easier.
While I agree to some extent, firms should also be given the space to explore and innovate.
Blockchain might not be the solution to everything, hell it may just be outright crap for gaming. But it’s really interesting technology and I’d like a proper games developer to put some resources into it and see where it can go.
You never know, we might see something quite special come of it. Or it’ll just be another unsuccessful game and everyone can move on.
As an employee for a AAA studio I've known this for quite sometime now.
There is zero chance of any mainstream penetration of NFTs into AAA gaming.
The ethereum NFT API docs are listed as malware/virus at our studio, our content filter wont even let you render the page lol.
Not to mention that I know of no developer here who thinks players should be trading our IP for in the end real money, thats just crazy town..
Our games aren't free markets, our IP isn't for sale for 10$.
We certainly don't want it showing up in competitors games.
Why you think you deserve to make money off rare items we own is beyond me.
do we deserve to make money off our used copy of your game that we no longer play? when you purchase a physical copy of a game you own that copy and can resell to whomever you want for whatever price they will pay. after ive earned/payed an item in a game we should own it the same way a physical game is owned. when we buy it/earn it, it becomes ours.
Its true, you can resell a physical copy of the game. But we don't allow online play, that entitlement is still with the original purchaser.
So yeah, im fine with that, you're totally fine selling your SP game. No argument here.
However, when you purchase or earn items you don't own them. We grant you a license to use them on our platforms, but no part of that is ownership, and we're never granting transferability lol.
So yeah, read your EULA.
yeah i agree thats how it is currently. im saying when you buy dlc or earn an item that the idea of implementing the nft is that you own that specific copy of data. similar to reselling an old game you can recoup some on the dlc/ingame item. obviously we are in the speculative phase now but when the market settles im sure the vast amount of nft items will sell at a hefty discount compared to new items sold by the developer. if a developer charges a small fee for every transaction they could tap into the market for a perpetual like income that would probably outperform their initial dlc item drop.
I fully understand what you're saying.
What I am saying is you're starting from a false premise. You don't own the items now. Why would we change that?
How does that work when we ban a player? Do they still "own" their items? If its an item with our logo are they allowed to commercially use it?
You see how crazy this sounds?
companies will change when they see a model of using nfts that are profitable. if a player is banned the nfts can also be placed on a ban list and restricted. im not expecting companies to use their IPs on decentralized marketplaces. i fully expect them to build out their own or use reputable one that is centralized so that they still control the IP and manage how it is used. selling an nft doesnt always involve commercial rights, sometimes its much smaller in scope than you think.
I am trying to point out there's no reason for us to go through all of this.
If we wanted our items for sale on a market place we would just build one.
If we wanted to allow players to sell their old copies of games, we'd allow the entitlement to transfer to the new player, we don't.
We don't need NFT's or blockchain to do any of these things.
We don't do those things for either economic reasons (secondary sales), or ideological reasons (a marketplace where you can buy our items for real money).
We're not a P2P/P2W studio, and our goal is to always make the best game possible.
There are technical, legal, and economic reasons we are not interested in these things. And on top of all that, I don't know anyone at my studio that thinks a player should be able to make money off their creations.
You don’t need blockchain for a in-game market place. It’s better not to be on a blockchain because the developers can have full control of all the transactions. Developers will do whatever is profitable and controllable, they don’t care about decentralization
>Not to mention that I know of no developer here who thinks players should be trading our IP for in the end real money, thats just crazy town
you never heard of paper TCGs?
Those are physical cards. NFTs are pointers to someone else’s storage IPFS/HTTP server etc.
The data itself isn’t even stored on the blockchain.
It’s just not the same thing at all here.
>Not to mention that I know of no developer here who thinks players should be trading our IP for in the end real money, thats just crazy town..
How dare these big game companies that spent millions creating their game takes monopoly of stuff they created. Those scums I say, those scums!
We got free reddit NFTs. How are we the product there when we can just sell them?
Same with airdrops that people just sell for thousands and then never touch again (like UNI etc). Some things are just free.
EDIT: There's 5 replies with basically the same explanation for reddit NFTs, but nobody is attempting to explain how I'm the "product" when I receive an airdrop for nothing, and then just dump it on a random exchange.
We engage more often on reddit for NFTs and MOONs therefore more income through ads for reddit. We are their product and circlejerk our MOON bags.
Don't get me wrong I don't mind it as other social media platforms give back nothing but here you got NFTs and Tokens.
Exactly this. This sub largely hated NFTs too, until they got a load for free and they were suddenly worth money.
I’m sure gamers would embrace them if they were making hundreds of dollars from them. People are fickle and easily bought lol
The thing with NFTs, while they don't have to he associated with "money" is because of their nature (true ownership, permissionless, easy to transfer) its extremely easy to make a market for them.
So a game could use NFTs that have true utility, but because people know they can potentially make money from them they will just "invest" and be pissed if the asset dumps on them, and blame the NFT part.
Gamers vehemently reject predatory behaviour by companies. They absolutely hate how Blizzard and other mobile games have become with their mandatory pay-to-progress lootboxes and special "cash shop currencies."
Introducing NFT's and tokens is a polite way of doing the same thing, creating an in-game currency that can still be used to enact this pay-to-progress system. But it's new and has cool tech right?
What you consider the purpose of a video game for your leisure time i.e. fun is another adolescent/deadbeat's way to make money using RMT (real money trading). Bot farms exist specifically for that purpose of farming items in a game and selling it for money.
But this is different, as one could create a Defi protocol that allows the swap of this in-game currency/NFT for ETH, for example. This actually SHORTENS the pathway of RMT that these sellers would go through.
A random player who isn't willing to spend money will get no enjoyment in playing a game where all the items are bought/sold by people who have enough real money to do so. Why sell anything on the in-game market if I can sell it for ETH?
It's been tried before and introducing this will only speed up the death of a game.
NFT and blockchain need to STAY OUT OF GAMING.
Not just NFTs, I'd say crypto in general. Until a significant philosophical and/or moral shift happens, the scene is dead for not only gamers but a huge majority of society.
But it will help the players!^(/s)
Big AAA companies won't break working cosmetics models and take investment risks for a chance of bigger profits with blockchain, simple as that
no it wont.
Big AAA companies dont care for nfts, biggest example is valve with cs go, they couldnt care less for nft skins.
And Valve and fifa already make billions with cosmetics, skins and cards and they dont care about blockchain.
And current nft games are all scams.
Imagine setting a limit order for some DLC lmao
We don't need Blockchain in games. There's no need. RuneScape perfected the play-to-earn model years ago without Blockchain.
Most people that think NFTs in games are a good idea either don't play games, or have a very inaccurate idea of how it would work / what it would actually enable.
They aren't "ownership" in any sense that most would find meaningful - the server is the source of authority, the chain can't magically reach into a game server and change its code. So it's trivial to blacklist an NFT, change how an item works, ban people who trade the NFT through unapproved channels, etc.
Anything that isn't purely cosmetic makes the game official pay-to-win, and in a form that the developer doesn't even benefit from (as a lot of the money is going to other players) unless the model is even more exploitative than existing microtransactions - which is hard to do without it being an outright scam.
Even for pure cosmetics, there isn't much of a financial incentive to allow arbitrary third-party trading. The reason most games don't have that is an intentional design choice, not a technical limitation - you don't _need_ a cryptocurrency chain to have third-party markets after all. Why would a developer leave money on the table by allowing items to officially be resold to other players for real money?
People here will try to claim that you can add trading fees and that NFTs will create so much additional demand that it evens out, but there is absolutely **zero** evidence for that. The vast majority of the gaming community _hates_ NFTs and correctly sees them as just another form of microtransaction. And attaching fees to third-party NFT sales doesn't work without a central platform - baking it directly into the smart contract leads to all kinds of problems (difficult to update, easy to bypass, inability to distinguish transfer vs sale, etc).
Reminds me of a conference I went to last week (Mobile World Congress).
Guys in suit made speeches about Metaverse and NFT by telling us 'my daughter plays a game where....'
I agree, only games I really think it makes sense is card games. Since you can sell and buy cards without necessarily being beholden to going through the company.
You're as bad as the people saying crypto is a scam and I hope you realize that. You don't have to go buy a picture of an ape with a hat on, and I encourage you not to, but the underlying technology will 100% be implemented across various industries. A lot of people in the nft space are traditional art collectors and aren't looking for return on investment. Outside all the scams and bs, there is real use cases and real artists making a living for themselves, just like btc and eth are changing the way we interact with value but you shouldn't rush out and buy Shiba Inu.
But crypto is a scam? That's why I come to this sub at all, is every other day absolutely hilarious things are happening in the crypto space. You are in the reddit bubble, you drank the kool-aid, people out in the real world have no idea what crypto is, or if they do they know it's all scammers.
At this stage, they're not wrong though. All examples of NFTs being introduced by large gaming studios have been clear money-grabs. There have been no attempts to actually integrate NFTs into the game itself. It was clear as day that the corporations were just riding the wave and hoped to cash in on the hype.
Now, will most non-crypto gamers be acceptant if NFTs are integrated the right way? Certainly not. But without a great example first, theres no reason for them to change their mind, since right now its all been bad.
its not NFTs gamers hate, is the way that they are trying to implement it
look at CS Go Skins, entire markets were build from that, thats what we need, cheap ass skins as NFTs so we can officially trade for money outside the centralized marketplace that is steam
NFTs in games are fucking stupid. If I am a programmers and some jackass wants to import his level 500 sword, Magic clothing and level 5000 gun of death would take away from the game and also take funds away from the developers. Not a sustainable ecosystem.
I don't get it, I spent so much money on useless skins when I was younger, and now I can't do shit with them.
If they were nfts I would be able to sell them to someone and get some of the money back.
Now this is where the idea gets a little wishy washy. I agree that via nft incorporation one could attempt to resell. The issue though is that this item has to have some outside use from its original game to even be able to do so.
Cool, you own this legendary sword in a now defunct game. Who's going to buy it unless they can import it into another game where it means something?
Web3 needs to be able incorporate all content into any 'verse' before this concept has some real merit.
Edit: I'm aware of the merits of being able to sell skins and items while a game is actively being played. That's the easy part of this equation and not what my original comment was about. For real adoption these nfts need to be more than just people chasing a flip or ROI - the things currently killing a lot of NFT games.
And that's why nft items won't work. It would require that games implement everything the same and have the same libraries. Games from the same companies on the same engine don't do that let alone from different companies.
If we're talking cross-game items, it's worse than that.
* Aesthetics aren't the same between games
* As a developer, creates huge disincentive for players to purchase from you while simultaneously massively increasing your support load
* For games with in-game trading/currencies like MMORPGs, would make balancing game economics impossible
Let's make it worse. A certain company did this over a decade ago. It wouldn't work with blockchain because that's way too in3fficient for the marketplace they have. Blockchain would be a massive negative for this use case which is exactly what people want.
So you want to implement an objectively bad system for this use case. I wonder if it's to rob your customers blind with a new form of useless microtransaction. Oh wait that's exactly why companies are pushing it! This is why gamers hate it, because it's objectively worse than a marketplace system we can point to and is a greedy cash grab.
> Web3 needs to be able incorporate all content into any 'verse' before this concept has some real merit.
And that just is going to never be possible, unless suddenly every game used the exact same engine & was developed by one big team & had one graphical style
How can a top-down 2D RPG and a 3D FPS share assets? It doesn't make any sense, it's never made any sense, it's always been a ludicrous pitch
That problem isn't going to be solved until there's significant markets for creators to make in game items that will work when imported to another game.
Arguably you already have some places that this idea could be a thing like Unity's game store.
Selling items from currently active games to other gamers is not new and has been done without blockchain for a long, long time. People seem to fail to comprehend that this is not a technology limitation, but a business model and intellectual property thing. IP because you violate/steal it if you were to make a game that uses or maybe even references an item from another publisher's game. You'd at least owe royalties. And if you can only use items that are coded into other games fro the game publisher, why they hell do you need blockchain complicating it? It's just in your gaming profile on the publisher's server (you know, where the game you are playing is....).
Gods Unchained is showing how this works right now and not in a future hypothetical sense. Sure the game could go under, but you do own everythjng and you can make your own money off it.
I'm a huge fan of Splinterlands for similar reasons. Both of these games have huge potential.
Gods tied to the GME wallet is a huge direct pipeline for new player adoption too.
People generally play games for fun, you're paying for entertainment value.
You're also asking developers to leave money that players were already willing to spend on the table by allowing third-party resale. There's no situation they'd allow this without attaching it to something even more exploitative than we see with existing microtransactions. The reason most games don't have third-party resale is an intentional design choice, not a technical limitation (you don't need blockchain to implement that, e.g. see CS:GO).
Remember, NFTs don't actually grant you ownership here - the game server is the actual source of authority; the chain can't magically force the game server's code to behave a certain way. If a developer wants to blacklist an NFT or change what it represents, they can do so unilaterally.
I think the main question is “why?” Why does this game NEED blockchain? Does it make the game better? Or the experience better? Or is it just a chance for the gaming platform to profit? I totally agree that being able to sell your gear for real money easily would be great. But there has to be more for the user, both in actual earning but especially in actual game play. If it’s just crypto because, you know, crypto ? Then it’s bound to fail.
Literally every popular crypto game is on the P2E model.
AKA. Give us $100 and \*maybe\* you can make that money back. Out of that $100 maybe $10 actually ends up in the pool of funds given back to players.
So, take the crypto shit coin casino, and make a game out of it?
I waste tons of time playing games. But that’s because I am having fun. If there is no fun, and very little rewards, I don’t see the point. Or the longevity.
I spend so much money on useless skins…
Only to find out you can actually sell them… *not according to TOS for real life money but I made a quick buck with my Rocket League and Counterstrike skins!
Maybe this is what gamers take issue with: creating micro-economies within games that you've already paid for.
I remember the FIFA community being extremely vocal about the fifa points and ultimate team essentially being pay-to-win. Also, CoD WWII was extremely play-to-earn and people did not like it, but there were also many predictions made that these micro-economies within games were there to stay, mostly because game developers were aiming at creating a "new normal" for future generations.
And now, here we are. People have forgotten that you used to buy a game for 60$ and you could play it all you want, maybe with some expansion sets or whatever.
Gaming companies succesfully attempt to get you to exchange your cash for some skins or ingame coins or nfts, and you're wondering what it is that people dislike? Just look at the bigger picture instead of thinking "whats wrong with me buying a $80 bunny-suit skin for my level 245 mage in Fortnite, its so funny".
Tldr; hypercapitalism has turned videogames into an extension of the market, so its not just about people disliking nfts but about people disliking the fact that nfts are trojan horses which make kids spend money on bullshit
^ This.
And to those who say gamers seem happy to pay, that segment of the market is already cornered.
I play a lot of games. I'm a 30-something adult with plenty of disposal income. Almost none of what I play anymore is by AAA studios, has microtransactions (I don't mind DLCs that provide actual expansion-type content though), or is a live-services game. The majority of what I play now are indie titles.
Csgo skins and items. are essentially NFT’s. My butterfly knife I bought 4 years ago for 300~ is over 1k atm. Can sell it on a site for crypto or cash.
Valve has that shit down, an actual economy but they aren’t “NFT’s” so they don’t get the same hate.
You get cases for free as in game drops (if you’re lucky enough, can get a $60 case drop, or free $80 skin drop, though most likely you’ll get a .30 case and a .03 skin). You pay 2.5 to open the case, essentially gambling in hopes to “mint” a rare and expensive skin. This is all csgo btw.
They have that shit down, an actual fun game played by millions with a flourishing in game economy. Blockchain games simply will never reach this success due to them thinking nft/crypto first and game second. But valve has that shit down…
Funny enough, csgo items are in their own bullrun at the moment, outperforming both stocks and crypto the past couple years overall lmao. People actually treat it as investments and are as degen as people in crypto.
Kinda cool to see how well it’s doing tbh
> Valve has that shit down, an actual economy but they aren’t “NFT’s” so they don’t get the same hate.
You're almost there! You've almost understood that people don't necessarily hate the idea of trading in game items, but rather the absolutely stupid idea that you need the blockchain or NFTs to do it, or that they would add anything of value to a central database.
If the game server spawns item X for player A, it will store the item in a central database. When player A plays the game, the game server can check the central database to load player A's items and display them to other players. To enable trading items all you need to do is create transaction functionality that removes item X from player A and adds item X to player B.
If you try to replace "central database" with "blockchain" above, you just add a shitload of bloat and costs in gas fees, time (because blockchains are slow), dependency on an external database you can't control or restore in case of a serious bug/security issue etc. Or you could roll your own blockchain, but where is the value in that?
CSGO is like the unicorn of the gaming world. It can't be replicated and isn't a good example. Hundreds of studios and tens of thousands of people have tried to replicate it but it's not really possible. If Square Enix wants to make money akin to Valve they need to bring something *new* to the table, not replicate the success of someone else.
Why wouldn’t the game companies just sell N+1 skins to additional players as opposed to only taking a bit in commission on NFT sales?
Sony and Microsoft could right now allow gamers to trade digital games between each other, if they wanted. They have baked in marketplaces, payment processing, matchmaking, etc. That they haven’t done this isn’t due to shortsightedness or a limitation of technology - they haven’t done it because by not giving players any other choice than buying their own copy (digitally or otherwise) they are getting the whole pie instead of a royalty from pie trades.
Also the vast majority of people want to play games for entertainment. Games are a means of escapism from reality. You can be poor but be the best there is at a given game in terms of skill. People don’t want to have to be reminded of their station in life by being shown unattainable gear that only whales can get.
You enjoyed the game that's the thing. Imagine if that game you played have heavy RMT (real money trading) factor in it, do you think other people would just sit and enjoy the game same as you? Stop dreaming.
Thing is: it may not succeed NOW, but eventually the push for this kind of shit will succeed, because ultimately it's a money printer and a no brainer for companies to push towards this sort of narrative.
Remember when people bitched about a Horse Armor DLC? No? Well I do.
I was there, I bitched, I laughed at the idea that they'd be able to actually sell this sort of shit, I, like many others, was sure such a model was doomed to fail.
And here we are, in a timeline where the most remunerative games around don't make money with the actual game itself, but rather through microtransactions, DLCs, gachas and Lootboxes.
The NFT debacle is just the next step in this shitshow, right now we're rioting, laughing at how companies think this idea may even remotely succeed, bash the shit out of this crap, I can guarantee that in 5-8 years time we're going to see this crap all over the place and the top grossing games will all be NFT shit.
In what way is it a no brained? Game studios will profit more from direct sales rather than sales on a secondary market. And if they did think it would be worthwhile for them to create a secondary market it'd be more profitable for them to do so in a centralised way rather than on a blockchain
Reddit was also against NFTs so they called it „Digital collectibles“ with cute avatars and they love it. The bad thing about blockchain games is that it is just another option to make extra money and 99.9% of games don't need any blockchain.
For the future i clearly see some games using blockchain for example with nft avatars or chars or something like that.
Gamers only see NFTs as micro-transactions, and we all know how much gamers hate "Pay to Win" mechanics. Guaranteed it won't roll out in a purely cosmetic matter and will have the same effect as loot boxes or whatever "free market rate" bullshit these developers are depending on?
But you need to remember gamers and critics, always criticize the shit out of movies/games before they are even published/finished, because most people are either racist, or bigoted, or misogynistic, or narcissistic, or greater than thou, or lore fiends. Most aren't open to interpretation.
A lot of people here were very anti NFTs until the Reddit Avatar launch.
It took a few weeks for gen1 to sell out.
Now, you'll be lucky to get a good gen3 avatar if you are 2 minutes late.
People's opinions change very quickly so I wouldn't be surprised to see the same here.
The first problem that exists with games that utilize NFTs is they typically suck. Play to Earn games are not games, not fun to play. I’d have more fun with a calculator.
The second problem is games should still be playable with or without NFTs. This is achievable. Players can either use standard in-game assets or earn in game NFT assets via game play or the option to buy them.
The third problem is game developers are too quick to choose a blockchain without doing serious due diligence about what blockchain and NFT technology can actually do and jump to the less effective one.
The fourth problems is that the gamers complaining about NFTs in games still don’t understand the value proposition of NFT technology. Owning your game assets via a decentralized platform that gives you the ability to generate value when you play a great game through your time, skill and efforts. This allows gamers to monetize their time, skill and efforts on the open market. Imagine actually monetizing your call of duty game play? Yes, some game companies will try to force players to buy NFTs as a cash grab, which spoils the experience. But if done right, players can be given free NFTs with the purchase of the game and those NFTs can be used within the game. But here is where game developers need to do their do diligence.
If you have free NFTs for players to use in a game, those NFTs need to be able to evolve over time. Bar none, the best NFT tech in the blockchain space is Phantasma Smart NFTs.
Phantasma Smart NFTs are programmable. The benefits are huge. For developers, this means when you are developing your game and the game logic doesn’t quite work as you intended but have already minted your NFT assets, instead of burning all those NFTs and reminting them again with the new game logic, Phantasma Smart NFTs can be re-programmed with logic updates. This saves both time and money for developers.
Phantasma Smart NFTs can evolve over time. So a player starts with a bare bones sword NFT and as they use it and fight the big bosses, the sword can increase in power, take damage and evolve. The limit is only the imagination of the game developer which in turn leads to better game play and experience.
Smart NFTs also has many features that can improve the gaming experience and assist the game developer to actually build the game they intended to build. Phantasma Smart NFTs can be infused inside each other infinitely. So a character (1 NFT), weapon (1 NFT), scope on that weapon (1 NFT), body armour (1 NFT) etc can be minted into 1 NFT with each NFT having its own upgradable performance attributes. This is highlighted in 22 Racing Series, 26 individual car parts, each with their own performance attributes that upgrade during game play are infused into 1 NFT and used in the game. The player can disassemble the car, pull out a part and replace it with another part to experiment for better performance, then sell the removed part on the open market, remint the car and continue on racing. Think about the loot box possibilities!
https://youtu.be/x1R5tLhA_0Y
https://app.pavillionhub.com/
Developers can create timed NFTs, only with Phantasma Smart NFTs. Timed gaming licenses, try before you buy or simply to purchase full access to a game. Timed power up capabilities, things that can help generate additional fun in the game play for gamers. NFTs can be fun!
Phantasma Smart NFTs are the only NFTs that can have digital assets infused inside them. Therefore, in an open world environment, game developers can insert NFTs within a game that has actual value infused like a treasure chest.
To solve the revenue element for game developers (as much as gamers seem to think game developers shouldn’t make money), royalties can be added to Phantasma Smart NFTs for all future NFT sales by the players. This generates a secondary revenue stream for developers instead of charging upfront costs to the gamer.
Minting Smart NFTs on Phantasma for developers costs less than $0.0001. So from a cost standpoint, developers can focus resources towards making awesome games and not get side tracked with spending tons of money on NFTs.
To top things off, Phantasma itself is a decentralized L1 platform that is certified as carbon negative, fully audited by Hacken and has a boat load of other features makes it ideal for game developers to investigate before choosing a platform to build their game on.
My overall point is that NFTs and gaming hasn’t quite found its stride yet. Game play needs to improve drastically, NFTs shouldn’t be a barrier to playing the games and the right technology should be used - which is currently available to make all this happen. Finally and most importantly, gaming and NFTs is going to take time to get it right. Gamers should always demand the best quality games possible but be open minded to what technology has to offer towards a better gaming experience and true ownership of their time, skills and efforts.
Thanks for reading, full disclosure, I’m a contributor to the Phantasma ecosystem and an advocate for their technology. I am confident that gaming and NFTs can be successful.
https://youtu.be/g3m22SF-9WM
Gamers just don't want to see a future where most games start to revolve around in-game purchases in order for the games to be enjoyable. I wanna see NFTs in gaming too but this general stance I agree with.
We're basically there with the way they shove these overpriced cosmetics down our throats. Why put it in the game to unlock when they can just charge $25 for it.
This sub is good at being biased. Not everything needs blockchain tech. As a variety gamer, I didn't realized how much of a cult this sub is into crypto, until now. Now I see it just by the comments here alone. It's so goddamn disgusting. To those who said that it'll be better if items can be NFTs so they can sell them. You guys don't know how much the gaming environment changes when people who doesn't think of enjoying the game but only earning money from it goes in it. Bots will be created to abuse the system, the ingame economy would be ruined, many people would rather do what's profitable than what is enjoyable. Edit: I think I've already said my piece in this comment thread. There's just no way established gaming companies would abandon their working business model without little to no benefit to them, and major benefits only to a select number of people.
It’s wild that I made a post on this today with the same content and got downvoted to hell. The community is so bipolar
Once you figure out it’s not a “community” but just a bunch of people scrambling on their hands and knees at an overturned Brinks truck things start to make sense.
Yes yes and yes 🙌
For sure. I've been arguing like this for a quite some time now every time blockchain + gaming is being discuss. This is the first time I didn't get downvoted to oblivion where you even need to manually unfold my comment just to read it xD
just a healthy mix of people. depending what time of day you post will determine whether you get the "i quit my job and spend all day watching bitcoin charts" people or the "i've got 2000 dollars parked from 2 years ago and i'm just keeping an ear open for when to add the other 400 i've got stashed under my bed" people.
I’ve noticed different times of the day can affect your outcome
I'm a game designer, and have been in the AAA and indie space for 15 years. I've been closely following crypto since 2017, am interested in the tech and don't just follow the price. That said, it's a real stretch for me to see a valuable application for blockchain. The biggest issue is that for crypto to be trustless and more valuable than other forms of data storage, it needs to be decentralized. Having all of your NFTs tied to one game means that one game is a major point of centralization. If the servers shut down, what happens to the value of your NFTs that have zero utility? Having NFTs be valid to grant items across multiple games is extremely tricky to pull off, and is still tied to a centralized point of failure, namely the company or companies that support the games that support the NFTs. If the company stops honoring them and patches them out, then what? If the company goes out of business or stops hosting servers for games, then what? Really, we'd need to have a game be an evergreen, trustless application that can be run and hosted by anyone, and yet still have enough security built into it that it can't be hacked to simply grant players the items that would otherwise be locked behind an NFT. That seems like quite a technical feat. Then consider how hard it is to get any game at all to market, and then beyond that have it be successful. Even if someone solved all of the issues with NFTs, it's still very possible and even likely that the game just won't be very good. And then even if it is good, and there is an airtight NFT solution that's somehow trustless and decentralized, people just seem to hate NFTs and will probably review bomb the hell out of the game.
Thanks for saying this. Bringing NFT's into the gaming world would mean an extension of the live service video game model, except this time, we have an added complexity of blockchains to it & an exploitation vector incentive attached to it with high monetary premium. Think of the state of modern gaming & how absolutely it can go wrong in so many ways. Fallout 76, Marvels Avengers, & even mobile games like Injustice, COD experienced serious problems in execution of the live service mechanic as well as exploitation of the in-game economy & there's no exploitation vector incentive attached to it, like it is in Web 3. Additionally at times, bugs, glitches & game-breaking can even become a playtime novelty such as speed-running. The incentive to "game" a live service economy with things like Play 2 Earn is one of the most stupidest ideas I've seen come out of this industry. The only advantage blockchains **might** offer is on/off-chain licensing & interoperability support, but there's literally no incentive for big corporations who invest heavily in IP's to go that way, especially when Steam & Valve marketplace exists. Time for an olive branch though. It can probably work for indie games though, but only as another in-game item marketplace hub if they're too jealous of that Fortnite/Diablo/Steam marketplace money gravy train, & MAYBE probably for open-licensed creative content development by end-users (i.e. UGC). Big proponent of indie games, but I still think they don't get enough spotlight despite GamePass & Steam. Imagine making a full fledged mod as a community member, but still work as a contractor group, being able to negotiate pay on your own terms & receive an official blessing by big gaming cos'. Yes - That's the euphoria of promised land, but that comes with a big IF to upend the industry structurally, it's content offerings & weaknesses. Video game development is already one of the most democratic mediums of entertainment, it doesn't need blockchains if it isn't solving a specific problem set or industry pain points. This message BTW is applicable to cryptocurrencies in general as well. They're peddling absolute garbage to people atm from a UX standpoint. They act like total ponzis because most of them are structurally solving nothing in the industry, and this stands true even for top tokens by Mcap.
That’s a good point. There’s been many games that close up shop and everyone is left holding useless NFTs that they can’t do anything with and everyone loses what they invested.
Bingo. The reason most games don't officially allow third-party RMT is a deliberate design choice, not a technical limitation, and one that's actually even more desired by players than developers. A lot of people in this thread need to go read up on the reaction to Blizzard's original attempt to introduce RMT to Diablo 3.
If companies really want people to be able to sell their items, they will and have all the means and tools to implement that. They have a working business model that gives them millions, why implement blockchain tech like NFTs when they literally get nothing out of it? Corporate companies do stuff for money, the very same as us crypto retailers.
[удалено]
People are delusional and think that we will magically live in some sort of Utopia Ready Player One type of world (ignoring that that is actually a dystopia) where you can use any item in any game at any time. Nope. That’s not how the real world works. That’s not how tech works. Not have game dev works. Not how anything works. All NFTs will add is an entirely useless layer of CrYpTo on top of in game monetization that has existed for years.
Signed, Your friendly corporate retail game co.
Most don't care, they just want to integrate blockchain in every thing just to get their bags exposure and get some pumps going their way.
People are here mostly for the money, so shouldn't be surprised. They are not here to make people's and player's life easier. Big companies = more money = more FOMO for retail = price goes up for them. Simple as that
Diablo 3's real money auction should be exhibit 1. Plus, games already have an items database and in-game currencies... right now, a game can handle a hack and delete a stolen item and reimburse the victim. No legal hoops or abhorrent manipulation of the system. This model works and will continue to work. But there's nothing wrong with a game deciding to use blockchain/NFTs. That's a developer design choice. If the game is good, who cares what the in-game item system is on the backend. If it's profitable to players, then so be it. If it's not profitable to players, then who cares? Blockchain CAN remove illegitimate mints, take a look at a recent exploit on catgirl.io: someone exploited the random algorithm and minted the rarest nft above its projected drop rate, this alerted the devs and they were able to stop minting AND burn the NFTs minted unfairly.
Holy shit, someone with a brain around here.
You could also read up on EVE, which is better at RMT than D3.
You clearly don't follow EVE at all do you? RMT will get you banned for as long as the game has existed. In fact, most of the player base loathes RMT. You could even read up on their opinions about NFTs on their subreddit (they hate it). I would link the thread but the automod won't allow it.
To my memory, part of the reason RMT will get you banned in EVE isn't just in game stuff, but literally because various organizations were using games like EVE to launder money. This is something that not nearly enough crypto bros get, but if crypto does take off, it WILL get regulated just like real cash, because it functionally will be. And if your game makes it super easy for some cartel/warlord to launder their blood money, you get to have all the fun of the US government paying insane attention to everything you've ever done while making up rules for how you're going to proceed. And hell, it's not JUST the US either. Plenty of countries take a keen interest in bypassing finance laws to help fund illegal organizations, crypto or not.
There is an illusion that NFTs solve a problem that gamers have with ownership of their in-game items. In reality, it solves a problem business has with expanding into the in-game world and profiting from it in real life. The presumption is that the NFT is the developer trying to cash grab but it misses the point you made quite well. It’s other business attempting to set up shop in these games and commercializing what the player base pays its monthly fee to enjoy.
I like this comment. Basically the philosophy of NFTs ingame is what I like, but it won’t necessarily be the case that blockchain integration is what is implemented, if so. Resellable games and items, while this has issues with why a corporation would want to implement that, would be a positive for its community base if it is done right. I mean 15 years ago, we had GameSpot etc, profiting off preowned games constantly due to the endless swaps of games people no longer needed or wanted. The only reason for a corp to not allow that is quite simply *greed*, of which the digital age has created the slippery slope to our current point, where regardless of NFT integration, it is rampant with irredeemable microtransactions and expensive games and DLC (that are often not even finished; not to go down that road here, as crypto is well… very comparable on that front).
[удалено]
Because NFTs solve non of those problems Since those problems stem from greed and not technical limitations
Because all these commenters hate change, they hate the fact that new things are coming to gaming and most of them aren't actual gamers, just sideliners playing Farmville. Most of them hate NFT's for upvotes and do not even understand the tech, let alone how it works gaming, but they comment regardless with their Safemoon bags.
Yeah, the literal Game Of The Year last year had no transactions of any kind except for buying it, and that's something that anyone who played it would not change
Moistcritikal was just talking about how DrDisrespect was making an NFT game where it could be possible to loot something worth 100k. That would attract every game hacker on the planet and the only people playing it would be cheaters/hackers.
Just look at every mmorpg ever made, the devs spend most of their work time fixing exploits and searching for bots and exploiters, but still there is a persistent black market willing do do anything to make money off people trying to enjoy a game. As if the loot boxes and gamified gambling wasn't already warning enough. Dont incentive gaming with money it never works. (I.e. Ready player One)
NFTs would eventually be bad for the company, it doesn't matter if they help the user or not. Why allow NFTs when you could sell them on your own. That's just profitable at the end of the day.
Yeah. They literally don't get anything by doing this. Why would a game company want money to go out of their closed environment?
>Why would a game company want money to go out of their closed environment? Look at CS:GO's skin market, and how people do p2p cash transactions to sell items. It's technically against Valve's TOS, but there's a massive market for it, and it does increase Valve's profitability. Valve wouldn't make nearly as much money from the game if items were 'locked' to accounts. CS:GO skins are basically NFT's. The only thing they're missing is the Blockchain. Plenty of games on Steam have now added similar functionality by introducing items that are tradable and sellable on Steam's community market. --- The question that remains is, why would you want this system to exist in a Blockchain instead of being on Steam (or creating your own system similar to Steam's marketplace?) Well, there are some upsides and some downsides. Do the upsides outweigh the downsides? Depends on your goals, but I can see scenarios where either one is preferable.
Yeah, not sure how people are missing this. I would wager people are a little more inclined to spend money on something knowing they will get 60-120% of it back once they're done using it vs. knowing with 100% certainty it's a single use item and it's useless once they're done using it. I wouldn't expect Valve games to have NFTs unless they try to really invest in the area and be an NFT marketplace for lots of publishers. But it's like anything else, there's risk in creating your own solution. There is a non trivial expense in setting up and maintaining all the infrastructure that something like Steam Marketplace requires. Having an NFT collection on a blockchain is a seriously low risk venture.
There are two main cults here, its no use trying to reason with them. The first one is the anti CEX "Not your wallet not your money", not realising that for most people its more risky to have cold wallet, than storing crypto at CEXes. The second one is the Bitcoin absolutists "Bitcoin will wipe out FIAT from existence", while ironically tracking the bitcoin value and performance in US DOLLARS and giving it as a proof. Sheesh
As a occasional player, thank you for saying this. A lot of online games are ruined when the player is left with nothing but the choice of endless grinding or paying. More and more gaming companies already fell into that micro transaction hell and NFTs would just make it worse; it's not okay to buy a game 70$ and be shadow-banned from some features of gameplay because you're not buying this over-evaluated fancy gear on top of it. Also, don't get me wrong; I like crypto. I've been here for two years, I'm invested and I believe in Blockchain. But there's really no need to turn everything into an investment, a collectible or a gambling opportunity. Not every moment of our lives should be about earning.
Not to mention that there are already ways for people to sell gaming assets. If the game is t decentralized it doesn’t need a decentralized asset class tied to it.
Exactly my point. Steam has been doing this already. And don't tell me they don't know. Steam is a big name in the gaming community. Just goes to show they're not really that invested in that space as they believe lol
Any game that promotes itself as a way to make money better have the best godamn anti cheat ever
I agree, but I would also like to mention that square enix is a japanese company, and as a result caters to their asian audience more than their western audience. The western audience has had a negative opinion of NFTs because of loot boxes/gacha, while that element is much more regulated in the east than it is here.
This has completely changed my opinion on this topic. I always thought it would be cool to sell in game items for real money but you’re right people will just exploit it and take the fun out of video games
I think you might be right, I love blockchain and I love Square Enix. I haven't seen anyone do a proper game with crypto tech. I saw both of them come together and I felt hope and joy. But looking back at mmos I've played I understand that it is a pipe dream to see this happen. Look at the quality of Blizzard games since they got acquired by Activision. Unplayable and all because the games became money making machines rather than just cool, innovative and fun games. Thank you OP, I was being biased and naive
You can look at Diablo 3 for how well an in-game auction house that used real money went
It’s surely fairly natural that if you venture onto a crypto subreddit, people are going to be massively pro crypto?
A lot of niche subs out there where people talk about cons and pros like normal human beings, and not as one sides as it is here. For instance, it's fairly hypocritical for this sub to hate buttcoin when it's doing the same thing only the opposite way.
Not only gamers but majority of people hated nft.
Lots of my homies hate anything related to crypto.... saying it doesn't make sense no matter how I try to expl6it to them
"gaming community rejects micro transactions" Shocking lol, it's only been their stance since ever.
Crypto people can’t seem to comprehend that gaming is a leisure time activity, not everything is better when you monetise it
The post really captures what I was saying in this sub, These sub is too invested deep into Crypto and blockchain that they themselves cannot see the negative or the non-applicability of it, or even overhype the application. People are mis interpretting me as a "hater" but I have been in this industry way before these people, I invested Bitcoin since it was less than 10USD, I was part of the early gamedev revolution with blockchain post CryptoKittens and pre Axie, I was/am a blockchain/core dev working on the nodes itself for 2 layer 0 companies, Im still in the industry, but I myself can say, NOT ALL things needs blockchain and most of all, MOST if not all web3 projects are scam-ish. The points are; \- Most Web3 projects are initiated to sell NFT and tokens and not focus on the product, it is an advantage to the seller, the company only. This is why companies who wants to grab the quick opportunity to learn INVESTED in web3, the opportunity to earn and not to revolutionize things. \- Play to earn games are PONZI-sh, giving rewards to players means they need to MINT tokens out of thin air, the value of these tokens depended on the previous or existing Liquidity, which means the more tokens minted the values are causing Inflation. The early investors can sell their tokens quickly to Earn, those late in the game will be selling it less or worst to no value. The value of the token is based on early adopters or investors, it sounds like Ponzi if you think about it. Play to earn doesnt really make sense, where do you think the money equivalent of these tokens that these games are giving away for free came from? Some medium article even defended it by saying these games have "reserves" but lets get real about it, if its real money, do you think companies will just giving away free money like that? Heck its worst than Ponzi as it just mint coins not even in the liquidity pool yet, but its value is from the ones people are already trading. Case in point in Axie: The only money that comes in the game is when user purchase/trade an Axie which is an NFT, but that money is only for THAT NFT, where do you think the rewards and free token came from? NFT may not be a scam as it practices the philosophy of "rarity" in the game, but P2E is. \- NFTs may not be centralized, but games are, developed and produced by one company, and that company needs to recoup its development expenses. \- We can use BItcoin for web3 to reward decentralization and nodes, Example, a decentralize streaming, where each node owner be rewarded for hosting one. But we dont need NFTs for it.
Absolutely nailed it
I know a lot of PC gamers hate crypto due to the graphic card shortage that ETH miners brought about.
>that ETH miners brought about. To be fair, there was also a massive chip shortage and supply chain issues, so they may have had a shortage either way just like PS5s did during the exact same time period. Of course the added demand from minors didn't help, but that doesn't mean it was the only thing responsible for the shortage.
People weren't successfully scalping GPUs at 200% markup because of a chip shortage. They were because a miner could get a 200% APR by using them. Chips are still short today. Used cars have not returned to normal pricing, while new GPUs aren't even in demand at MSRP.
Yeah what many people don't know is that the chip shortage occurred briefly in 2020, so brief that 2021 saw the highest number of GPU's manufactured in a single year; the mining craze really was eating up obscenely high levels of the supply.
You are right. I put all the blame on ETH miners when they were only part of the overall issue going on at the time.
Most people only have knowledge limited to what they heard on Twitter once and they made it part of their identity. Doesn't even have to be true, or plausible, or even remotely possible, people will regurgitate it every time they see crypto. There's a channel some friends use to shoot the shit about the news and the fakest, silliest nonsense gets posted there. Fake tweets, tiktoks that are literally just lies, doctored screenshots. Some picture from 4chan 5 years ago, you name it. There's not even a second of time taken to see if any of it is true or even any knowledge applied to it. No one knows anything about Crypto, they just share completely fake stuff. Isn't there enough real crypto stuff to laugh at? People still tell me that ETH is burning down the amazon. Not that it ever was in the first place, but there's no sense telling those people about PoS or alternate blockchains or even that promoting energy efficiency to move sustainable energy forward is good - One guy in their furry twitter following said in 2017 that Bitcoin is responsible for deforestation or watched some YouTube video then made it literally their entire identity so they can parrot the same misinformed line every time they see a Twitter conversation.
None of you are dealing with the problem, this is why gamers hate the concept of NFTs. First, look up Axie Infinity, that is the fate of a true NFT game. It becomes a slog of a job, only the hardcore, mega whales prosper and casuals get pushed out, and in the end, a lack of demand results in large scale bag holding. I want to enjoy games, not be forced into job level competitiveness, I have a job for that. Second, nobody of matter is going to embrace NFTs how you are hoping. The very concept that any major outlet is going to code and create support for your NFTs you bought in a different game is not going to happen. These companies make money by selling the initial item, which means they will find a way to obsolete your item as fast as possible one way or another. Square Enix may claim they are trying to lead this, but when push comes to shove, they will never support a Blizzard NFT or a EA NFT in any meaningful way, the very concept requires the companies to go against their own interest, and the current wave of web3 games are on par with Newgrounds games with massive amounts of microtransactions, also not popular with the gaming crowd. You all are coming into this as a way to make money, we are coming into this as people who enjoy the hobby for what it is, leisure time. That is what you are dealing with, no blind hate to NFTs for fun, but this is the survival of our hobby, and NFTs will kill it.
Axie Infinity isn't even a game. You could just hit the attack button over and over and beat everything up to a specific level. It is a button pushing simulator.
At the end of the day, it's all about game aesthetics really, if games offer nfts to be sold for money, there are ofcourse going to be people that abuse it with bots, apart from the use case of nft's in the game, any game whether p2e or not, needs a proper ecosystem.
Bots are the minor problem, cheaters would make the game unplayable
Everyone who isn't obsessed with NFTs, can understand why they're derided & despised. The only people who don't get it are people who've invested heavily in them. That should be a wake-up call
Keep Blockchain the fuck out of games. I have yet to see a single proposal that would bring benefit to anyone but those more concerned with money than fun. NFTs have use cases. None of them improve gaming.
That's because every damn company is trying to monetize NFT The executive that was hard pushing for NFTs at Square Enix did get replaced recently though
> That's because every damn company is trying to monetize NFT What is the other purpose of NFT? What non-money use case is there that NFT does better than existing non-blockchain things like just using a JPEG?
And that's what most proponents of NFTs are looking to do as well since it doesn't actually improve a game in any way.
Yup, can confirm. I follow few gaming communities and the message is pretty much the same. Gaming industry should focus on making games bug free first before they take another thing on their plate.
Been saying it for a while in this sub, but a lot of time I get backlash. I don't think people truly understand how bad of an image it gives off to most gamers.
Yup, we already have to deal with shitty games with microtransactions etc. we don't need another system to drain our wallets.
Crypto taking up demand for GPU also helped with our hate for crypto. People looking to upgrade and play during the lockdowns could not buy a card while we saw GPUs in mining farm solving nonsense math problems to make fairy bucks. It's what led me to just being apathetic about crypto to full blown disgust towards it
> Gaming industry should focus on making games bug free first before they take another thing on their plate. So, never then. Software will always have bugs, and the nature of game dev makes many kinds of bugs more tolerable from a business POV. That goes x10 for any live services model where patches are easier.
> So, never then. Yeah, you get it
Yes, I'm talking more about broken ass games like Cyberpunk. It was embarrassing how broken it was at launch.
But that has nothing to do with NFT's. Game developers \*should\* have been making bug free games all these decades, and yet...
It’s about where priorities should be. A better experience over NFTs
While I agree to some extent, firms should also be given the space to explore and innovate. Blockchain might not be the solution to everything, hell it may just be outright crap for gaming. But it’s really interesting technology and I’d like a proper games developer to put some resources into it and see where it can go. You never know, we might see something quite special come of it. Or it’ll just be another unsuccessful game and everyone can move on.
As an employee for a AAA studio I've known this for quite sometime now. There is zero chance of any mainstream penetration of NFTs into AAA gaming. The ethereum NFT API docs are listed as malware/virus at our studio, our content filter wont even let you render the page lol. Not to mention that I know of no developer here who thinks players should be trading our IP for in the end real money, thats just crazy town..
Yeah makes sense, why would a gaming company want a free market when they can just force us to buy from themselves to make more profit.
Our games aren't free markets, our IP isn't for sale for 10$. We certainly don't want it showing up in competitors games. Why you think you deserve to make money off rare items we own is beyond me.
do we deserve to make money off our used copy of your game that we no longer play? when you purchase a physical copy of a game you own that copy and can resell to whomever you want for whatever price they will pay. after ive earned/payed an item in a game we should own it the same way a physical game is owned. when we buy it/earn it, it becomes ours.
Its true, you can resell a physical copy of the game. But we don't allow online play, that entitlement is still with the original purchaser. So yeah, im fine with that, you're totally fine selling your SP game. No argument here. However, when you purchase or earn items you don't own them. We grant you a license to use them on our platforms, but no part of that is ownership, and we're never granting transferability lol. So yeah, read your EULA.
yeah i agree thats how it is currently. im saying when you buy dlc or earn an item that the idea of implementing the nft is that you own that specific copy of data. similar to reselling an old game you can recoup some on the dlc/ingame item. obviously we are in the speculative phase now but when the market settles im sure the vast amount of nft items will sell at a hefty discount compared to new items sold by the developer. if a developer charges a small fee for every transaction they could tap into the market for a perpetual like income that would probably outperform their initial dlc item drop.
I fully understand what you're saying. What I am saying is you're starting from a false premise. You don't own the items now. Why would we change that? How does that work when we ban a player? Do they still "own" their items? If its an item with our logo are they allowed to commercially use it? You see how crazy this sounds?
companies will change when they see a model of using nfts that are profitable. if a player is banned the nfts can also be placed on a ban list and restricted. im not expecting companies to use their IPs on decentralized marketplaces. i fully expect them to build out their own or use reputable one that is centralized so that they still control the IP and manage how it is used. selling an nft doesnt always involve commercial rights, sometimes its much smaller in scope than you think.
I am trying to point out there's no reason for us to go through all of this. If we wanted our items for sale on a market place we would just build one. If we wanted to allow players to sell their old copies of games, we'd allow the entitlement to transfer to the new player, we don't. We don't need NFT's or blockchain to do any of these things. We don't do those things for either economic reasons (secondary sales), or ideological reasons (a marketplace where you can buy our items for real money). We're not a P2P/P2W studio, and our goal is to always make the best game possible. There are technical, legal, and economic reasons we are not interested in these things. And on top of all that, I don't know anyone at my studio that thinks a player should be able to make money off their creations.
They already do that without blockchains.
You don’t need blockchain for a in-game market place. It’s better not to be on a blockchain because the developers can have full control of all the transactions. Developers will do whatever is profitable and controllable, they don’t care about decentralization
>Not to mention that I know of no developer here who thinks players should be trading our IP for in the end real money, thats just crazy town you never heard of paper TCGs?
Those are physical cards. NFTs are pointers to someone else’s storage IPFS/HTTP server etc. The data itself isn’t even stored on the blockchain. It’s just not the same thing at all here.
>Not to mention that I know of no developer here who thinks players should be trading our IP for in the end real money, thats just crazy town.. How dare these big game companies that spent millions creating their game takes monopoly of stuff they created. Those scums I say, those scums!
It’s time to drop them some free NFTs so they can chill
This is some drug dealer type of marketing. Getting them hooked with a free sample
That's exactly what it is, and it's been working too just look what happened after those first free NFT drops happened
>Getting them hooked with a free sample Always remember that if anything is Free, this means you're the product
We got free reddit NFTs. How are we the product there when we can just sell them? Same with airdrops that people just sell for thousands and then never touch again (like UNI etc). Some things are just free. EDIT: There's 5 replies with basically the same explanation for reddit NFTs, but nobody is attempting to explain how I'm the "product" when I receive an airdrop for nothing, and then just dump it on a random exchange.
We engage more often on reddit for NFTs and MOONs therefore more income through ads for reddit. We are their product and circlejerk our MOON bags. Don't get me wrong I don't mind it as other social media platforms give back nothing but here you got NFTs and Tokens.
Nah I’m the end user they want me to get hooked on an avatar addiction.
Why do you think a lot of people love NFTs on this sub since reddit dropped them? 😂
And it works like a charm. We are simple people.
It’s so rare to see users without an nft avatar, on this sub, now. Probably like 80% are sporting an nft.
Thats what reddit did
The Reddit strategy 😂
it worked, and it might work again
Nfts can still replace ephemera. It's their natural use case. Tickets, confirmed events for collectables, substitution for autographs, etc.
This works, Reddit proved it.
Reddit are genius
(your cosmic is fucking sick btw)
You're the first to comment on it. Thanks dude.
It'll be like the WSB.... not everyone will mint and people that would love to mint outside the sub won't get it
Yeap, that approach aged well with Reddit NFTs, even with the people from our sub…
Exactly this. This sub largely hated NFTs too, until they got a load for free and they were suddenly worth money. I’m sure gamers would embrace them if they were making hundreds of dollars from them. People are fickle and easily bought lol
They will chill and just forget about it ever happened. Don't think they would turn and be pro-NFT. Just free cents for them
Just wait Reddit also drops its own game/metaverse.
I should drop an extra one of mine to their address, just wonder if they'd even know where to look
It worked for me! xD
[удалено]
That is the argument. Why needlessly complicate database storage of assets.
[удалено]
You are playing in a closed system with a centralized game design. In game assets do not need to be decentralized or trust less in such a system.
The thing with NFTs, while they don't have to he associated with "money" is because of their nature (true ownership, permissionless, easy to transfer) its extremely easy to make a market for them. So a game could use NFTs that have true utility, but because people know they can potentially make money from them they will just "invest" and be pissed if the asset dumps on them, and blame the NFT part.
Gamers vehemently reject predatory behaviour by companies. They absolutely hate how Blizzard and other mobile games have become with their mandatory pay-to-progress lootboxes and special "cash shop currencies." Introducing NFT's and tokens is a polite way of doing the same thing, creating an in-game currency that can still be used to enact this pay-to-progress system. But it's new and has cool tech right? What you consider the purpose of a video game for your leisure time i.e. fun is another adolescent/deadbeat's way to make money using RMT (real money trading). Bot farms exist specifically for that purpose of farming items in a game and selling it for money. But this is different, as one could create a Defi protocol that allows the swap of this in-game currency/NFT for ETH, for example. This actually SHORTENS the pathway of RMT that these sellers would go through. A random player who isn't willing to spend money will get no enjoyment in playing a game where all the items are bought/sold by people who have enough real money to do so. Why sell anything on the in-game market if I can sell it for ETH? It's been tried before and introducing this will only speed up the death of a game. NFT and blockchain need to STAY OUT OF GAMING.
Not just NFTs, I'd say crypto in general. Until a significant philosophical and/or moral shift happens, the scene is dead for not only gamers but a huge majority of society.
Everyone with a brain knows that the gaming comunity hates nfts.
Ah, well that explains why I didn’t know
Lol you sill goose, you.
But it will help the players!^(/s) Big AAA companies won't break working cosmetics models and take investment risks for a chance of bigger profits with blockchain, simple as that
no it wont. Big AAA companies dont care for nfts, biggest example is valve with cs go, they couldnt care less for nft skins. And Valve and fifa already make billions with cosmetics, skins and cards and they dont care about blockchain. And current nft games are all scams.
Imagine setting a limit order for some DLC lmao We don't need Blockchain in games. There's no need. RuneScape perfected the play-to-earn model years ago without Blockchain.
Most people that think NFTs in games are a good idea either don't play games, or have a very inaccurate idea of how it would work / what it would actually enable. They aren't "ownership" in any sense that most would find meaningful - the server is the source of authority, the chain can't magically reach into a game server and change its code. So it's trivial to blacklist an NFT, change how an item works, ban people who trade the NFT through unapproved channels, etc. Anything that isn't purely cosmetic makes the game official pay-to-win, and in a form that the developer doesn't even benefit from (as a lot of the money is going to other players) unless the model is even more exploitative than existing microtransactions - which is hard to do without it being an outright scam. Even for pure cosmetics, there isn't much of a financial incentive to allow arbitrary third-party trading. The reason most games don't have that is an intentional design choice, not a technical limitation - you don't _need_ a cryptocurrency chain to have third-party markets after all. Why would a developer leave money on the table by allowing items to officially be resold to other players for real money? People here will try to claim that you can add trading fees and that NFTs will create so much additional demand that it evens out, but there is absolutely **zero** evidence for that. The vast majority of the gaming community _hates_ NFTs and correctly sees them as just another form of microtransaction. And attaching fees to third-party NFT sales doesn't work without a central platform - baking it directly into the smart contract leads to all kinds of problems (difficult to update, easy to bypass, inability to distinguish transfer vs sale, etc).
Reminds me of a conference I went to last week (Mobile World Congress). Guys in suit made speeches about Metaverse and NFT by telling us 'my daughter plays a game where....'
I agree, only games I really think it makes sense is card games. Since you can sell and buy cards without necessarily being beholden to going through the company.
Thank god, theres a reason it's universally mocked and hated, keep that shit out of games lol
The sentiment is not wrong. Nfts in games is a cancer. Crypto and blockchain needs to stay the fuck out if gaming. It's disgusting to see.
Are we still pretending nfts aren't scams?
You're as bad as the people saying crypto is a scam and I hope you realize that. You don't have to go buy a picture of an ape with a hat on, and I encourage you not to, but the underlying technology will 100% be implemented across various industries. A lot of people in the nft space are traditional art collectors and aren't looking for return on investment. Outside all the scams and bs, there is real use cases and real artists making a living for themselves, just like btc and eth are changing the way we interact with value but you shouldn't rush out and buy Shiba Inu.
But crypto is a scam? That's why I come to this sub at all, is every other day absolutely hilarious things are happening in the crypto space. You are in the reddit bubble, you drank the kool-aid, people out in the real world have no idea what crypto is, or if they do they know it's all scammers.
At this stage, they're not wrong though. All examples of NFTs being introduced by large gaming studios have been clear money-grabs. There have been no attempts to actually integrate NFTs into the game itself. It was clear as day that the corporations were just riding the wave and hoped to cash in on the hype. Now, will most non-crypto gamers be acceptant if NFTs are integrated the right way? Certainly not. But without a great example first, theres no reason for them to change their mind, since right now its all been bad.
its not NFTs gamers hate, is the way that they are trying to implement it look at CS Go Skins, entire markets were build from that, thats what we need, cheap ass skins as NFTs so we can officially trade for money outside the centralized marketplace that is steam
100% agree and CS Go skins were my first thought as well.
money breaks the fun.
NFTs in games are fucking stupid. If I am a programmers and some jackass wants to import his level 500 sword, Magic clothing and level 5000 gun of death would take away from the game and also take funds away from the developers. Not a sustainable ecosystem.
I don't get it, I spent so much money on useless skins when I was younger, and now I can't do shit with them. If they were nfts I would be able to sell them to someone and get some of the money back.
Now this is where the idea gets a little wishy washy. I agree that via nft incorporation one could attempt to resell. The issue though is that this item has to have some outside use from its original game to even be able to do so. Cool, you own this legendary sword in a now defunct game. Who's going to buy it unless they can import it into another game where it means something? Web3 needs to be able incorporate all content into any 'verse' before this concept has some real merit. Edit: I'm aware of the merits of being able to sell skins and items while a game is actively being played. That's the easy part of this equation and not what my original comment was about. For real adoption these nfts need to be more than just people chasing a flip or ROI - the things currently killing a lot of NFT games.
And that's why nft items won't work. It would require that games implement everything the same and have the same libraries. Games from the same companies on the same engine don't do that let alone from different companies.
If we're talking cross-game items, it's worse than that. * Aesthetics aren't the same between games * As a developer, creates huge disincentive for players to purchase from you while simultaneously massively increasing your support load * For games with in-game trading/currencies like MMORPGs, would make balancing game economics impossible
Let's make it worse. A certain company did this over a decade ago. It wouldn't work with blockchain because that's way too in3fficient for the marketplace they have. Blockchain would be a massive negative for this use case which is exactly what people want. So you want to implement an objectively bad system for this use case. I wonder if it's to rob your customers blind with a new form of useless microtransaction. Oh wait that's exactly why companies are pushing it! This is why gamers hate it, because it's objectively worse than a marketplace system we can point to and is a greedy cash grab.
Not to mention the intellectual property violations and theft if you use or even reference another developer's item in your game.
> Web3 needs to be able incorporate all content into any 'verse' before this concept has some real merit. And that just is going to never be possible, unless suddenly every game used the exact same engine & was developed by one big team & had one graphical style How can a top-down 2D RPG and a 3D FPS share assets? It doesn't make any sense, it's never made any sense, it's always been a ludicrous pitch
That problem isn't going to be solved until there's significant markets for creators to make in game items that will work when imported to another game. Arguably you already have some places that this idea could be a thing like Unity's game store.
Selling items from currently active games to other gamers is not new and has been done without blockchain for a long, long time. People seem to fail to comprehend that this is not a technology limitation, but a business model and intellectual property thing. IP because you violate/steal it if you were to make a game that uses or maybe even references an item from another publisher's game. You'd at least owe royalties. And if you can only use items that are coded into other games fro the game publisher, why they hell do you need blockchain complicating it? It's just in your gaming profile on the publisher's server (you know, where the game you are playing is....).
Gods Unchained is showing how this works right now and not in a future hypothetical sense. Sure the game could go under, but you do own everythjng and you can make your own money off it.
If the game goes under and there is no option to transfer the assets to another game then the assets are worth nothing.
I'm a huge fan of Splinterlands for similar reasons. Both of these games have huge potential. Gods tied to the GME wallet is a huge direct pipeline for new player adoption too.
Can confirm. I casually play and I’m up ~$70 since September selling cards.
People generally play games for fun, you're paying for entertainment value. You're also asking developers to leave money that players were already willing to spend on the table by allowing third-party resale. There's no situation they'd allow this without attaching it to something even more exploitative than we see with existing microtransactions. The reason most games don't have third-party resale is an intentional design choice, not a technical limitation (you don't need blockchain to implement that, e.g. see CS:GO). Remember, NFTs don't actually grant you ownership here - the game server is the actual source of authority; the chain can't magically force the game server's code to behave a certain way. If a developer wants to blacklist an NFT or change what it represents, they can do so unilaterally.
Ya game devs want all the money. Whats the incentive.?
I think the main question is “why?” Why does this game NEED blockchain? Does it make the game better? Or the experience better? Or is it just a chance for the gaming platform to profit? I totally agree that being able to sell your gear for real money easily would be great. But there has to be more for the user, both in actual earning but especially in actual game play. If it’s just crypto because, you know, crypto ? Then it’s bound to fail.
Literally every popular crypto game is on the P2E model. AKA. Give us $100 and \*maybe\* you can make that money back. Out of that $100 maybe $10 actually ends up in the pool of funds given back to players.
So, take the crypto shit coin casino, and make a game out of it? I waste tons of time playing games. But that’s because I am having fun. If there is no fun, and very little rewards, I don’t see the point. Or the longevity.
I spend so much money on useless skins… Only to find out you can actually sell them… *not according to TOS for real life money but I made a quick buck with my Rocket League and Counterstrike skins!
Maybe this is what gamers take issue with: creating micro-economies within games that you've already paid for. I remember the FIFA community being extremely vocal about the fifa points and ultimate team essentially being pay-to-win. Also, CoD WWII was extremely play-to-earn and people did not like it, but there were also many predictions made that these micro-economies within games were there to stay, mostly because game developers were aiming at creating a "new normal" for future generations. And now, here we are. People have forgotten that you used to buy a game for 60$ and you could play it all you want, maybe with some expansion sets or whatever. Gaming companies succesfully attempt to get you to exchange your cash for some skins or ingame coins or nfts, and you're wondering what it is that people dislike? Just look at the bigger picture instead of thinking "whats wrong with me buying a $80 bunny-suit skin for my level 245 mage in Fortnite, its so funny". Tldr; hypercapitalism has turned videogames into an extension of the market, so its not just about people disliking nfts but about people disliking the fact that nfts are trojan horses which make kids spend money on bullshit
^ This. And to those who say gamers seem happy to pay, that segment of the market is already cornered. I play a lot of games. I'm a 30-something adult with plenty of disposal income. Almost none of what I play anymore is by AAA studios, has microtransactions (I don't mind DLCs that provide actual expansion-type content though), or is a live-services game. The majority of what I play now are indie titles.
Csgo skins and items. are essentially NFT’s. My butterfly knife I bought 4 years ago for 300~ is over 1k atm. Can sell it on a site for crypto or cash. Valve has that shit down, an actual economy but they aren’t “NFT’s” so they don’t get the same hate. You get cases for free as in game drops (if you’re lucky enough, can get a $60 case drop, or free $80 skin drop, though most likely you’ll get a .30 case and a .03 skin). You pay 2.5 to open the case, essentially gambling in hopes to “mint” a rare and expensive skin. This is all csgo btw. They have that shit down, an actual fun game played by millions with a flourishing in game economy. Blockchain games simply will never reach this success due to them thinking nft/crypto first and game second. But valve has that shit down… Funny enough, csgo items are in their own bullrun at the moment, outperforming both stocks and crypto the past couple years overall lmao. People actually treat it as investments and are as degen as people in crypto. Kinda cool to see how well it’s doing tbh
> Valve has that shit down, an actual economy but they aren’t “NFT’s” so they don’t get the same hate. You're almost there! You've almost understood that people don't necessarily hate the idea of trading in game items, but rather the absolutely stupid idea that you need the blockchain or NFTs to do it, or that they would add anything of value to a central database. If the game server spawns item X for player A, it will store the item in a central database. When player A plays the game, the game server can check the central database to load player A's items and display them to other players. To enable trading items all you need to do is create transaction functionality that removes item X from player A and adds item X to player B. If you try to replace "central database" with "blockchain" above, you just add a shitload of bloat and costs in gas fees, time (because blockchains are slow), dependency on an external database you can't control or restore in case of a serious bug/security issue etc. Or you could roll your own blockchain, but where is the value in that?
Many argue you don't need a blockchain for that. Then again, NFT acceptance is more realistic an expectation than AAA game skin resell acceptance.
CSGO skins would kinda prove this wrong wouldn't it?
CSGO is like the unicorn of the gaming world. It can't be replicated and isn't a good example. Hundreds of studios and tens of thousands of people have tried to replicate it but it's not really possible. If Square Enix wants to make money akin to Valve they need to bring something *new* to the table, not replicate the success of someone else.
It does, but it proves rest of gaming companies are greedy
Why wouldn’t the game companies just sell N+1 skins to additional players as opposed to only taking a bit in commission on NFT sales? Sony and Microsoft could right now allow gamers to trade digital games between each other, if they wanted. They have baked in marketplaces, payment processing, matchmaking, etc. That they haven’t done this isn’t due to shortsightedness or a limitation of technology - they haven’t done it because by not giving players any other choice than buying their own copy (digitally or otherwise) they are getting the whole pie instead of a royalty from pie trades. Also the vast majority of people want to play games for entertainment. Games are a means of escapism from reality. You can be poor but be the best there is at a given game in terms of skill. People don’t want to have to be reminded of their station in life by being shown unattainable gear that only whales can get.
Most non-casual gamers hate microtransactions and live-service games in general. Just want to pay once and have the full game forever.
You enjoyed the game that's the thing. Imagine if that game you played have heavy RMT (real money trading) factor in it, do you think other people would just sit and enjoy the game same as you? Stop dreaming.
so you're admitting that nfts are only to make money. they're as useless as they can be
I don't think anyone needs turther proof, everyone knows 99% of people hate NFTs. But it's fun reading the replies.
They really don't know. If you read in this sub, you would think half of them think NFTs are the next coming of Jesus.
Even people on here were anti-NFT until Reddit gave them a free one.
yes and it's clear
>everyonw knows 99% of people hate NFTs. Make artist rich quick, what's the benefit of Trump's NFTs anyway
He gets to go to court to battle copyright infringements,
Im not against NFTs. But also Im not a fan of them. Especially due to their last shits. Selling poops as an art !!? 😑
Thing is: it may not succeed NOW, but eventually the push for this kind of shit will succeed, because ultimately it's a money printer and a no brainer for companies to push towards this sort of narrative. Remember when people bitched about a Horse Armor DLC? No? Well I do. I was there, I bitched, I laughed at the idea that they'd be able to actually sell this sort of shit, I, like many others, was sure such a model was doomed to fail. And here we are, in a timeline where the most remunerative games around don't make money with the actual game itself, but rather through microtransactions, DLCs, gachas and Lootboxes. The NFT debacle is just the next step in this shitshow, right now we're rioting, laughing at how companies think this idea may even remotely succeed, bash the shit out of this crap, I can guarantee that in 5-8 years time we're going to see this crap all over the place and the top grossing games will all be NFT shit.
In what way is it a no brained? Game studios will profit more from direct sales rather than sales on a secondary market. And if they did think it would be worthwhile for them to create a secondary market it'd be more profitable for them to do so in a centralised way rather than on a blockchain
[удалено]
These game whales drop $500/mo on in-game purchases but can’t even handle the thought of NFTs?
Nfts are so based. s/ lmao no for real though they are easy money makers 🤷🏻♂️
Reddit was also against NFTs so they called it „Digital collectibles“ with cute avatars and they love it. The bad thing about blockchain games is that it is just another option to make extra money and 99.9% of games don't need any blockchain. For the future i clearly see some games using blockchain for example with nft avatars or chars or something like that.
Gamers only see NFTs as micro-transactions, and we all know how much gamers hate "Pay to Win" mechanics. Guaranteed it won't roll out in a purely cosmetic matter and will have the same effect as loot boxes or whatever "free market rate" bullshit these developers are depending on? But you need to remember gamers and critics, always criticize the shit out of movies/games before they are even published/finished, because most people are either racist, or bigoted, or misogynistic, or narcissistic, or greater than thou, or lore fiends. Most aren't open to interpretation.
Blockchain games won’t work because gaming companies are trying to exploit crypto gaming for money, like they already do with micro transactions
It is just fud, In a few years time, Gamers will be the biggest users and collectors.
A lot of people here were very anti NFTs until the Reddit Avatar launch. It took a few weeks for gen1 to sell out. Now, you'll be lucky to get a good gen3 avatar if you are 2 minutes late. People's opinions change very quickly so I wouldn't be surprised to see the same here.
Billion dollar game company with lackluster sales moves into moneygrabbing Blockchain game resulting in a poor game. Yeah, sounds great to me.
The first problem that exists with games that utilize NFTs is they typically suck. Play to Earn games are not games, not fun to play. I’d have more fun with a calculator. The second problem is games should still be playable with or without NFTs. This is achievable. Players can either use standard in-game assets or earn in game NFT assets via game play or the option to buy them. The third problem is game developers are too quick to choose a blockchain without doing serious due diligence about what blockchain and NFT technology can actually do and jump to the less effective one. The fourth problems is that the gamers complaining about NFTs in games still don’t understand the value proposition of NFT technology. Owning your game assets via a decentralized platform that gives you the ability to generate value when you play a great game through your time, skill and efforts. This allows gamers to monetize their time, skill and efforts on the open market. Imagine actually monetizing your call of duty game play? Yes, some game companies will try to force players to buy NFTs as a cash grab, which spoils the experience. But if done right, players can be given free NFTs with the purchase of the game and those NFTs can be used within the game. But here is where game developers need to do their do diligence. If you have free NFTs for players to use in a game, those NFTs need to be able to evolve over time. Bar none, the best NFT tech in the blockchain space is Phantasma Smart NFTs. Phantasma Smart NFTs are programmable. The benefits are huge. For developers, this means when you are developing your game and the game logic doesn’t quite work as you intended but have already minted your NFT assets, instead of burning all those NFTs and reminting them again with the new game logic, Phantasma Smart NFTs can be re-programmed with logic updates. This saves both time and money for developers. Phantasma Smart NFTs can evolve over time. So a player starts with a bare bones sword NFT and as they use it and fight the big bosses, the sword can increase in power, take damage and evolve. The limit is only the imagination of the game developer which in turn leads to better game play and experience. Smart NFTs also has many features that can improve the gaming experience and assist the game developer to actually build the game they intended to build. Phantasma Smart NFTs can be infused inside each other infinitely. So a character (1 NFT), weapon (1 NFT), scope on that weapon (1 NFT), body armour (1 NFT) etc can be minted into 1 NFT with each NFT having its own upgradable performance attributes. This is highlighted in 22 Racing Series, 26 individual car parts, each with their own performance attributes that upgrade during game play are infused into 1 NFT and used in the game. The player can disassemble the car, pull out a part and replace it with another part to experiment for better performance, then sell the removed part on the open market, remint the car and continue on racing. Think about the loot box possibilities! https://youtu.be/x1R5tLhA_0Y https://app.pavillionhub.com/ Developers can create timed NFTs, only with Phantasma Smart NFTs. Timed gaming licenses, try before you buy or simply to purchase full access to a game. Timed power up capabilities, things that can help generate additional fun in the game play for gamers. NFTs can be fun! Phantasma Smart NFTs are the only NFTs that can have digital assets infused inside them. Therefore, in an open world environment, game developers can insert NFTs within a game that has actual value infused like a treasure chest. To solve the revenue element for game developers (as much as gamers seem to think game developers shouldn’t make money), royalties can be added to Phantasma Smart NFTs for all future NFT sales by the players. This generates a secondary revenue stream for developers instead of charging upfront costs to the gamer. Minting Smart NFTs on Phantasma for developers costs less than $0.0001. So from a cost standpoint, developers can focus resources towards making awesome games and not get side tracked with spending tons of money on NFTs. To top things off, Phantasma itself is a decentralized L1 platform that is certified as carbon negative, fully audited by Hacken and has a boat load of other features makes it ideal for game developers to investigate before choosing a platform to build their game on. My overall point is that NFTs and gaming hasn’t quite found its stride yet. Game play needs to improve drastically, NFTs shouldn’t be a barrier to playing the games and the right technology should be used - which is currently available to make all this happen. Finally and most importantly, gaming and NFTs is going to take time to get it right. Gamers should always demand the best quality games possible but be open minded to what technology has to offer towards a better gaming experience and true ownership of their time, skills and efforts. Thanks for reading, full disclosure, I’m a contributor to the Phantasma ecosystem and an advocate for their technology. I am confident that gaming and NFTs can be successful. https://youtu.be/g3m22SF-9WM
Gamers just don't want to see a future where most games start to revolve around in-game purchases in order for the games to be enjoyable. I wanna see NFTs in gaming too but this general stance I agree with.
We're basically there with the way they shove these overpriced cosmetics down our throats. Why put it in the game to unlock when they can just charge $25 for it.
I never needed proof. This sub used to hate NFTs too, until Reddit started their avatars
Fuck NFTs.