10 ms·

It would be cool if the cards could be NFT'd[0] as in some sort of digital collectible that you could own. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fungible_token

It would be cool if the cards could be NFT'd[0] as in some sort of digital collectible that you could own. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fungible_token https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fungible_token

whateveracct 5y ago
Why? People want the physical card.
- klmadfejno 5y ago
  As a kid, nobody had a clue how to play the game properly. But the pokemon tcg video game forced you to play it properly, and was pretty fun. Digital formats have appeal.
  - NoOneNew 5y ago
    I was a kid when Pokemon first hit the states. All of us that collected them knew how to play. The game wasn't difficult and it already attracted a nerdy crowd to boot. At that, "house rules" are typically more fun than original. A digital version would stifle that.
  - wincy 5y ago
    Me and my friends went to Toys’R’Us every Saturday for the weekly tournament back in the late 90s, we all knew how to play properly.
  - whateveracct 5y ago
    But the TCG game let you get any card in the game without paying extra or there being limits to ownership. That's a good digital format, and adding NFTs to it provides no value-add. Probably negative value-add.
    - klmadfejno 5y ago
      I think I agree. The problem with a traditional TCG is that there's a small set of cards. One could imagine a really cool NFT based game with only unique cards, and permadeath rules that cause you to actually lose the card when used or lost or whatever.
- Jarwain 5y ago
  Maybe treat the NFT as a license of ownership that must be transferred if the card is traded, and let the owner of the NFT reprint the card for a fee in case the card is damaged or otherwise lost
  - gspr 5y ago
    What problem does this solve?
    - cle 5y ago
      The card's ownership is public knowledge? Like, if the physical card is stolen or forged, then it's trivial to see that it's illegitimate. (Not an NFT expert, correct me if I'm wrong please.)
      - gspr 5y ago
        How does it do this?
        cle 5y ago
        I assume by using the private key to sign a message. If the card holder doesn't also hold the NFT, they can't transfer the NFT to the buyer. My understanding is that NFTs are useful when the cost of preventing theft, forgeries, etc. is higher than the cost of protecting a private key. If "ownership" is agreed to require proof of holding the NFT as well, then it's not good enough to steal some cards from Target, you have to also steal the private key for each card, or coerce the owner to transfer the NFTs to you, etc. I guess we could think of it as a kind of two factor auth?
        gspr 5y ago
        You're describing a contract. But specifically done digitally. We've been able to do that since the 70s. What do NFTs add?
swiley 5y ago
The reason I used to buy these was to play the game with my siblings and friends. If I wanted to have a computer involved I would have just played the official video game (which is pretty cool too, but only some of my friends enjoyed that.)
gspr 5y ago
NFTs are pure, unadulterated insanity.
- kizer 5y ago
  From what I’ve read and come to understand, NFTs may one day become meaningful if they are legally recognized as a claim to ownership. Then, they can serve as a decentralized, easily sold form of copyright. To sell IP for example now, you need a bunch of lawyers and everything is all on paper anyways. There’s nothing tangible to exchange; it’s all dependent on contracts, lawyers. NFTs could expedite this process according to people whom I’ve asked what possible usefulness NFTs could have.
  - gspr 5y ago
    Bullshit. You're describing a system to replace the paper and ink part of copyright, at best. What you're proposing would still need law behind it to be meaningful as a replacement for copyright itself. So then what's the point? Only the law stops you from using IP without permission today. And only the law will stop you with what you propose.
    - im3w1l 5y ago
      > So then what's the point? It's useful to keep track of ownership of digital goods. And if you did it in a centralized way there are issues with that. We have seen with Amazon and Apple that there can be issues with ownership getting revoked, or services being discontinued as with Google music. It may also not be transferrable. And if you instead make the Government keep track of who owns what there can be some privacy concerns.
      - manigandham 5y ago
        Ownership means nothing without adjudication and enforcement, and that's still centralized which means ownership is centralized. NFTs don't change anything, they're not real ownership.
ironmagma 5y ago
That would be good for Digimon - arguably what that brand should have been all along.
dehrmann 5y ago
Good luck recovering those NFTs you bought and forgot about 20 years ago. At least people's old MTG cards might still be in the back of a childhood closed.

whateveracct 5y ago

Why? People want the physical card.

klmadfejno 5y ago
As a kid, nobody had a clue how to play the game properly. But the pokemon tcg video game forced you to play it properly, and was pretty fun. Digital formats have appeal.
- NoOneNew 5y ago
  I was a kid when Pokemon first hit the states. All of us that collected them knew how to play. The game wasn't difficult and it already attracted a nerdy crowd to boot. At that, "house rules" are typically more fun than original. A digital version would stifle that.
- wincy 5y ago
  Me and my friends went to Toys’R’Us every Saturday for the weekly tournament back in the late 90s, we all knew how to play properly.
- whateveracct 5y ago
  But the TCG game let you get any card in the game without paying extra or there being limits to ownership. That's a good digital format, and adding NFTs to it provides no value-add. Probably negative value-add.
  - klmadfejno 5y ago
    I think I agree. The problem with a traditional TCG is that there's a small set of cards. One could imagine a really cool NFT based game with only unique cards, and permadeath rules that cause you to actually lose the card when used or lost or whatever.
Jarwain 5y ago
Maybe treat the NFT as a license of ownership that must be transferred if the card is traded, and let the owner of the NFT reprint the card for a fee in case the card is damaged or otherwise lost
- gspr 5y ago
  What problem does this solve?
  - cle 5y ago
    The card's ownership is public knowledge? Like, if the physical card is stolen or forged, then it's trivial to see that it's illegitimate. (Not an NFT expert, correct me if I'm wrong please.)
    - gspr 5y ago
      How does it do this?
      - cle 5y ago
        I assume by using the private key to sign a message. If the card holder doesn't also hold the NFT, they can't transfer the NFT to the buyer. My understanding is that NFTs are useful when the cost of preventing theft, forgeries, etc. is higher than the cost of protecting a private key. If "ownership" is agreed to require proof of holding the NFT as well, then it's not good enough to steal some cards from Target, you have to also steal the private key for each card, or coerce the owner to transfer the NFTs to you, etc. I guess we could think of it as a kind of two factor auth?
        gspr 5y ago
        You're describing a contract. But specifically done digitally. We've been able to do that since the 70s. What do NFTs add?

swiley 5y ago

The reason I used to buy these was to play the game with my siblings and friends. If I wanted to have a computer involved I would have just played the official video game (which is pretty cool too, but only some of my friends enjoyed that.)

gspr 5y ago

NFTs are pure, unadulterated insanity.

kizer 5y ago
From what I’ve read and come to understand, NFTs may one day become meaningful if they are legally recognized as a claim to ownership. Then, they can serve as a decentralized, easily sold form of copyright. To sell IP for example now, you need a bunch of lawyers and everything is all on paper anyways. There’s nothing tangible to exchange; it’s all dependent on contracts, lawyers. NFTs could expedite this process according to people whom I’ve asked what possible usefulness NFTs could have.
- gspr 5y ago
  Bullshit. You're describing a system to replace the paper and ink part of copyright, at best. What you're proposing would still need law behind it to be meaningful as a replacement for copyright itself. So then what's the point? Only the law stops you from using IP without permission today. And only the law will stop you with what you propose.
  - im3w1l 5y ago
    > So then what's the point? It's useful to keep track of ownership of digital goods. And if you did it in a centralized way there are issues with that. We have seen with Amazon and Apple that there can be issues with ownership getting revoked, or services being discontinued as with Google music. It may also not be transferrable. And if you instead make the Government keep track of who owns what there can be some privacy concerns.
    - manigandham 5y ago
      Ownership means nothing without adjudication and enforcement, and that's still centralized which means ownership is centralized. NFTs don't change anything, they're not real ownership.

ironmagma 5y ago

That would be good for Digimon - arguably what that brand should have been all along.

dehrmann 5y ago

Good luck recovering those NFTs you bought and forgot about 20 years ago. At least people's old MTG cards might still be in the back of a childhood closed.