4 ms·

NFTs for video games objects (such as guns in Counter-Strike): 1. Can be traded on the chain the publisher integrated in their game, 2. Can be limited in numb

NFTs for video games objects (such as guns in Counter-Strike): 1. Can be traded on the chain the publisher integrated in their game, 2. Can be limited in numbers based on random drops, such that the publisher will not have infinite "printing" privilege, 3. Will require the wallet connected to your account in the game, 4. Owning the digital file permits the owner to actually use the item. I don't see digital ownership for video games NFTs as unfeasible, nor bullshit.

rhn_mk1 6y ago
Ironic. We create digital worlds where we're utopically not bound by scarcity any more, and then we build scarcity back into them.
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  I guess it turns out scarcity is pretty enjoyable as long as you don't actually need whatever is scarce. Maybe future utopias will also have fake scarcity to keep people entertained
  - salawat 6y ago
    >The first Matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime; a triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. -The Architect to Neo >Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed that we lacked the programming language to describe your "perfect world". But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. So the perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. -Agent Smith to Morpheus
    - thatguy0900 6y ago
      I don't neccessarily think it needs to be suffering, people just want something tangable to work towards. Noone is suffering or miserable without a fortnite skin, but without working towards them the game would be far less fun.
      - rhn_mk1 6y ago
        People are in fact suffering for not having Fortnite skins: https://www.thegamer.com/fortnite-default-insult-kids/ https://www.thegamer.com/fortnite-default-insult-kids/ This might even be the point of having scarce skins, if we combine it with the causes for bullying: https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/most-teen-bullying-occurs-among-peers-climbing-social-ladder https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/most-teen-bullying-occurs-among... I can agree with limitations giving structure to our expression, but the consequences don't end there.
        thatguy0900 6y ago
        I don't know, Ive spent a bit of time around children. If they don't have a actual reason to bully other kids then they will invent a reason whole cloth. You would have a hard time convincing me that scarcity has anything at all to do with that. If fortnite skins didn't exist it would be freckles, or names, or head shape, or literally something made up. You're second link even says bullying is just climbing the social ladder, I don't think scarcity of being the popular one is solvable unless everyone lives in a personal world full of only ai. Alot of kids and teenagers are honestly just dicks.
smt88 6y ago
> NFTs for video games objects (such as guns in Counter-Strike) You don't want or need blockchain for this. The game publisher is the centralized source of truth. You're essentially talking about decentralized DRM, which has no benefit on top of DRM for either the user or the publisher. > Can be limited in numbers based on random drops, such that the publisher will not have infinite "printing" privilege This does absolutely nothing to curb the publisher's power to make more items. They own the game. They can agree to the "contract" of the blockchain and then break it at any time. As long as they can change the game bits, there is no added security from blockchain. > Will require the wallet connected to your account in the game Who would want this and why? If anything, it's another avenue for de-anonymizing a wallet with no added benefit for the wallet owner. > Owning the digital file permits the owner to actually use the item. Again, the game developer permits the owner to use them. Blockchain could be an authentication scheme, but it doesn't take that power away from the developer. > I don't see digital ownership for video games NFTs as unfeasible, nor bullshit. You haven't proposed a problem that blockchain can actually solve. For the problems you implied, I offered easy workarounds. The problem with NFTs is that they don't actually prove anything outside of themselves. You can "own" a copy of some 0s and 1s in a particular order, but that doesn't change the fact that the file can be infinitely replicated by anyone once it's decrypted.
- megameter 6y ago
  Assumed is the model of production: bespoke assets for each game. This is untenable going forward if the industry continues to have a rising cost curve. Raph Koster's discussion of game cost is a good overview of what's happening and the challenges that result from it. The step towards an NFT market begins with the creation of viable transfer mediums - assets not optimized towards particular games but with a reasonable degree of retargetability. The market for modding and independent asset creation then writes to that format and some games start to subscribe to it, enacting a "Multiverse". At that point opting in to an NFT market and allowing trade across games becomes a viable way to offer new experiences at lower cost, and the tokens themselves are meaningful for the same reasons that existing microtransaction tokens are - use value in-game, ability to "flex", but probably not an in-game advantage(unless we go full "Barcode Battler" and manufacture a randomized meaning from the token). This isn't hypothetical - ESPA/Digitalax is an example of an attempt to make this market. It's pre-launch with a lot of unanswered elements on the technology side of things - I doubt the format that they currently propose - but the concept otherwise makes sense, and it's possible to pivot, aim lower, and not go for universal formats right off the bat.

rhn_mk1 6y ago

Ironic. We create digital worlds where we're utopically not bound by scarcity any more, and then we build scarcity back into them.

thatguy0900 6y ago
I guess it turns out scarcity is pretty enjoyable as long as you don't actually need whatever is scarce. Maybe future utopias will also have fake scarcity to keep people entertained
- salawat 6y ago
  >The first Matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime; a triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. -The Architect to Neo >Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed that we lacked the programming language to describe your "perfect world". But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. So the perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. -Agent Smith to Morpheus
  - thatguy0900 6y ago
    I don't neccessarily think it needs to be suffering, people just want something tangable to work towards. Noone is suffering or miserable without a fortnite skin, but without working towards them the game would be far less fun.
    - rhn_mk1 6y ago
      People are in fact suffering for not having Fortnite skins: https://www.thegamer.com/fortnite-default-insult-kids/ https://www.thegamer.com/fortnite-default-insult-kids/ This might even be the point of having scarce skins, if we combine it with the causes for bullying: https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/most-teen-bullying-occurs-among-peers-climbing-social-ladder https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/most-teen-bullying-occurs-among... I can agree with limitations giving structure to our expression, but the consequences don't end there.
      - thatguy0900 6y ago
        I don't know, Ive spent a bit of time around children. If they don't have a actual reason to bully other kids then they will invent a reason whole cloth. You would have a hard time convincing me that scarcity has anything at all to do with that. If fortnite skins didn't exist it would be freckles, or names, or head shape, or literally something made up. You're second link even says bullying is just climbing the social ladder, I don't think scarcity of being the popular one is solvable unless everyone lives in a personal world full of only ai. Alot of kids and teenagers are honestly just dicks.

smt88 6y ago

> NFTs for video games objects (such as guns in Counter-Strike) You don't want or need blockchain for this. The game publisher is the centralized source of truth. You're essentially talking about decentralized DRM, which has no benefit on top of DRM for either the user or the publisher. > Can be limited in numbers based on random drops, such that the publisher will not have infinite "printing" privilege This does absolutely nothing to curb the publisher's power to make more items. They own the game. They can agree to the "contract" of the blockchain and then break it at any time. As long as they can change the game bits, there is no added security from blockchain. > Will require the wallet connected to your account in the game Who would want this and why? If anything, it's another avenue for de-anonymizing a wallet with no added benefit for the wallet owner. > Owning the digital file permits the owner to actually use the item. Again, the game developer permits the owner to use them. Blockchain could be an authentication scheme, but it doesn't take that power away from the developer. > I don't see digital ownership for video games NFTs as unfeasible, nor bullshit. You haven't proposed a problem that blockchain can actually solve. For the problems you implied, I offered easy workarounds. The problem with NFTs is that they don't actually prove anything outside of themselves. You can "own" a copy of some 0s and 1s in a particular order, but that doesn't change the fact that the file can be infinitely replicated by anyone once it's decrypted.

megameter 6y ago
Assumed is the model of production: bespoke assets for each game. This is untenable going forward if the industry continues to have a rising cost curve. Raph Koster's discussion of game cost is a good overview of what's happening and the challenges that result from it. The step towards an NFT market begins with the creation of viable transfer mediums - assets not optimized towards particular games but with a reasonable degree of retargetability. The market for modding and independent asset creation then writes to that format and some games start to subscribe to it, enacting a "Multiverse". At that point opting in to an NFT market and allowing trade across games becomes a viable way to offer new experiences at lower cost, and the tokens themselves are meaningful for the same reasons that existing microtransaction tokens are - use value in-game, ability to "flex", but probably not an in-game advantage(unless we go full "Barcode Battler" and manufacture a randomized meaning from the token). This isn't hypothetical - ESPA/Digitalax is an example of an attempt to make this market. It's pre-launch with a lot of unanswered elements on the technology side of things - I doubt the format that they currently propose - but the concept otherwise makes sense, and it's possible to pivot, aim lower, and not go for universal formats right off the bat.