3 ms·

The value of the decentralized token would be determined by the free market. If the centralized entity ever had a history of patching the game to block tokens,

by Vadoff 8y ago

The value of the decentralized token would be determined by the free market. If the centralized entity ever had a history of patching the game to block tokens, then the value of that token would go down a lot.

theamk 8y ago
But if the value is determined by a single centralized entity, what is the value that crypto tokens bring? For example, if WOW currency were to become decentralized overnight -- what would practically change? Either way Blizzard can take them away. Either way value of token will drop if Blizzard does this a lot.
- woah 8y ago
  A game accepting the token would be able to get an instant potential audience of people who had built up a lot of value in it already
  - vertex-four 8y ago
    So this sounds like a good reason for game developers not to use decentralised currencies, since it makes it easier for competitors to steal players away.
    - miscreanity 8y ago
      While not participating means no "real world" money involved and an uphill battle for adoption. The game would have to be an outstanding gem, and even then markets will form. Would it be worthwhile for a game developer to spend time on an economic system, or the game? Unless the game is an economic system...
      - vertex-four 8y ago
        Generally speaking, game developers need to create and maintain "fixed" economic systems to make the game fun. Games regularly suffer from ridiculous economic effects because it's too easy to get money and not enough sinks, or vice versa. Making the tokens tradeable outside the game doesn't fix this, and in fact creates even more problems - the presence of gold farmers and those who pay them can unbalance the game for others playing the game with them. People spend their lives struggling under capitalism and use games to escape - and then you want to create a capitalist class system there too?
        miscreanity 8y ago
        You can try to stop it, but that never works in the long run. Ever. If there's going to be a social element, it will be exploited to the game's level of popularity. That isn't to say a game can't remain closed and private with a simplistic model, just that popularity will generally weaken whatever community aspects made it great early on.
    - woah 8y ago
      It’s the same question as whether or not an office suite or a graphics editor should use an open format. There are arguments for and against. If you are open, you can attract users from other products, and being open may make users want to use your software. If you’re closed, then you get to lock users in, which can also be very lucrative.
- chrisco255 8y ago
  A better example might be Minecraft, where there are different servers hosting the game and you can't necessarily port your items over. But verification of rare digital assets could produce some interesting scenarios. One could make a virtual trophy room showcasing their in-game achievements. Imagine there's some game tournament for StarCraft for example. Winners get paid in cash and also get one-time issued virtual medals as proof of their achievement. Like Super Bowl rings, these medals would have sentimental and tangible value.
  - anonymouz 8y ago
    > A better example might be Minecraft, where there are different servers hosting the game and you can't necessarily port your items over. How would items appear on the blockchain in this case? If every minecraft server can record created items on the blockchain, I can just run my own server that's modified to give me whatever I want. At that point a simply federation of servers seems to provide the same utility of transferring items between servers (but for free). EDIT, added: > Winners get paid in cash and also get one-time issued virtual medals as proof of their achievement. Like Super Bowl rings, these medals would have sentimental and tangible value. They have to be issued by the organizer of the tournament to provide any value. What does decentralization buy me there? The organizer might as well just put on the website "X won Y". A lot of these pie in the sky ideas seem poorly thought out once one asks what new value would a blockchain solution add.
    - chrisco255 8y ago
      http://erc721.org/ http://erc721.org/ <= That gives you the spec for Ethereum's ERC721 standard, which provides the ability to produce non-fungible assets on the blockchain (which is what CryptoKitties is based on). The creators of Minecraft (or insert future hit video game here) can issue limited release assets using this standard. Whatever arbitrary criteria they want to come up with for dispursing these tokens is ultimately up to them. It's not hard to imagine scenarios where this plays out in in-game economies. We've already seen multi-million dollar economies spring up in MMOs. It's also not hard to conceive of cross-game assets that grant special in-game abilities, special in-game decor, or what have you. If you think the big names like Blizzard have no incentive to do so, well how about the indies? Someone could easily come up with some reward scheme that several or more indies agree to recognize within their games. This would produce an incentive for players to play multiple games and succeed to a certain level in order to collect a complete set of items. As for organizers of tournaments issuing an ERC721 token in recognition of some achievement, well, as noted...the asset is non-fungible. It will last on the blockchain for as long as Ethereum as a network stays functional. A note on a webpage isn't tradeable. It isn't referenceable by other games. It can be duplicated infinitely. Provably rare digital assets now exist. And the implications of that are just beginning to be explored. I think it's exciting times.

by Vadoff 8y ago

theamk 8y ago

But if the value is determined by a single centralized entity, what is the value that crypto tokens bring? For example, if WOW currency were to become decentralized overnight -- what would practically change? Either way Blizzard can take them away. Either way value of token will drop if Blizzard does this a lot.

woah 8y ago
A game accepting the token would be able to get an instant potential audience of people who had built up a lot of value in it already
- vertex-four 8y ago
  So this sounds like a good reason for game developers not to use decentralised currencies, since it makes it easier for competitors to steal players away.
  - miscreanity 8y ago
    While not participating means no "real world" money involved and an uphill battle for adoption. The game would have to be an outstanding gem, and even then markets will form. Would it be worthwhile for a game developer to spend time on an economic system, or the game? Unless the game is an economic system...
    - vertex-four 8y ago
      Generally speaking, game developers need to create and maintain "fixed" economic systems to make the game fun. Games regularly suffer from ridiculous economic effects because it's too easy to get money and not enough sinks, or vice versa. Making the tokens tradeable outside the game doesn't fix this, and in fact creates even more problems - the presence of gold farmers and those who pay them can unbalance the game for others playing the game with them. People spend their lives struggling under capitalism and use games to escape - and then you want to create a capitalist class system there too?
      - miscreanity 8y ago
        You can try to stop it, but that never works in the long run. Ever. If there's going to be a social element, it will be exploited to the game's level of popularity. That isn't to say a game can't remain closed and private with a simplistic model, just that popularity will generally weaken whatever community aspects made it great early on.
  - woah 8y ago
    It’s the same question as whether or not an office suite or a graphics editor should use an open format. There are arguments for and against. If you are open, you can attract users from other products, and being open may make users want to use your software. If you’re closed, then you get to lock users in, which can also be very lucrative.
chrisco255 8y ago
A better example might be Minecraft, where there are different servers hosting the game and you can't necessarily port your items over. But verification of rare digital assets could produce some interesting scenarios. One could make a virtual trophy room showcasing their in-game achievements. Imagine there's some game tournament for StarCraft for example. Winners get paid in cash and also get one-time issued virtual medals as proof of their achievement. Like Super Bowl rings, these medals would have sentimental and tangible value.
- anonymouz 8y ago
  > A better example might be Minecraft, where there are different servers hosting the game and you can't necessarily port your items over. How would items appear on the blockchain in this case? If every minecraft server can record created items on the blockchain, I can just run my own server that's modified to give me whatever I want. At that point a simply federation of servers seems to provide the same utility of transferring items between servers (but for free). EDIT, added: > Winners get paid in cash and also get one-time issued virtual medals as proof of their achievement. Like Super Bowl rings, these medals would have sentimental and tangible value. They have to be issued by the organizer of the tournament to provide any value. What does decentralization buy me there? The organizer might as well just put on the website "X won Y". A lot of these pie in the sky ideas seem poorly thought out once one asks what new value would a blockchain solution add.
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    http://erc721.org/ http://erc721.org/ <= That gives you the spec for Ethereum's ERC721 standard, which provides the ability to produce non-fungible assets on the blockchain (which is what CryptoKitties is based on). The creators of Minecraft (or insert future hit video game here) can issue limited release assets using this standard. Whatever arbitrary criteria they want to come up with for dispursing these tokens is ultimately up to them. It's not hard to imagine scenarios where this plays out in in-game economies. We've already seen multi-million dollar economies spring up in MMOs. It's also not hard to conceive of cross-game assets that grant special in-game abilities, special in-game decor, or what have you. If you think the big names like Blizzard have no incentive to do so, well how about the indies? Someone could easily come up with some reward scheme that several or more indies agree to recognize within their games. This would produce an incentive for players to play multiple games and succeed to a certain level in order to collect a complete set of items. As for organizers of tournaments issuing an ERC721 token in recognition of some achievement, well, as noted...the asset is non-fungible. It will last on the blockchain for as long as Ethereum as a network stays functional. A note on a webpage isn't tradeable. It isn't referenceable by other games. It can be duplicated infinitely. Provably rare digital assets now exist. And the implications of that are just beginning to be explored. I think it's exciting times.