3 ms·

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 K

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.

smt88 6y ago
Wow, none of that makes sense. Let me go through it point by point. > 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. You seem to be completely ignoring the points in my post. You can do this without blockchain. In fact, blockchain would be a hindrance. If I create a game that supports a common asset format (which is a dubious concept to begin with), then I have already centralized the "truth" of the asset's value. I, the developer, and not the blockchain, determine the ownership. I can completely ignore whatever the blockchain says at any time. There is no contract. The ownership is meaningless because it is instantly ignorable. > 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 This would increase the cost of the game, not decrease it. It would do this in two ways: 1. Supporting a third-party format is going to take extra dev time. Games are not standardized enough at this point for the behavior of an asset to be fungible between games. 2. Selling unique assets (not allowing people to reuse existing assets) is what gives devs the highest margins. Custom assets are a revenue center, not a cost center.

smt88 6y ago

Wow, none of that makes sense. Let me go through it point by point. > 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. You seem to be completely ignoring the points in my post. You can do this without blockchain. In fact, blockchain would be a hindrance. If I create a game that supports a common asset format (which is a dubious concept to begin with), then I have already centralized the "truth" of the asset's value. I, the developer, and not the blockchain, determine the ownership. I can completely ignore whatever the blockchain says at any time. There is no contract. The ownership is meaningless because it is instantly ignorable. > 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 This would increase the cost of the game, not decrease it. It would do this in two ways: 1. Supporting a third-party format is going to take extra dev time. Games are not standardized enough at this point for the behavior of an asset to be fungible between games. 2. Selling unique assets (not allowing people to reuse existing assets) is what gives devs the highest margins. Custom assets are a revenue center, not a cost center.