5 ms·

Oh, boy! Time for everyone to bash on crypto. For me, the proof of NFT validity is the fact that for more than 10 years people have been pouring money into owni

Oh, boy! Time for everyone to bash on crypto. For me, the proof of NFT validity is the fact that for more than 10 years people have been pouring money into owning video game assets, when most of the time those assets are non-transferrable to other users let alone to other games. In a purely digital world (aka a video game), purely digital assets and purely digital ownership clearly make sense. One might say that a company could come along and provide the authority and trusted infrastructure to handle transferring digital assets across games and users, but let's draw a parallel to the real world. What if every time you wanted to sell something, you had to sell it on Amazon. You couldn't just give someone cash for it, or put it up on Craigslist. Blockchain tech lets people trustlessly transfer assets and have full digital ownership over a digital asset.

redisman 5y ago
Video games are video games. You get real actual value out of the items you buy because it’s a virtual world. If I buy a flaming sword. I can actually take it and go hit enemies with it for fire damage and show it off prominently on my person (in game). I can break it into component parts, I can trade it, I can enhance it. Other players can buy a similar one but they can’t just copy it. Basically none of this is true for non-game NFTs
meheleventyone 5y ago
The problem for digital items that can be transferred between games isn’t really tracking ownership but interoperability and licensing.
Noos 5y ago
The game assets only have value in the game world, which is run by a centralized authority though. There's really no point in transferring assets outside of the game at all, except to break the rules that authority has in place. Its much more efficient just to allow trading assets in the structure via an ingame auction house. The exception is account trading and resale, and that's a huge minefield no digital creator really wants to happen. Being able to sell your character or library often has significant issues with little upsides to the functioning of the environment.
- dbmikus 5y ago
  Yeah, it is a question to be determined if people would interoperate assets across games. I think if the NFT market becomes large enough, that will happen. I think the way to grow the market is first with user-to-user trades within a game, or when two users want to trade assets for one game for assets in another, such as when you want to start playing a new game and sell your old assets. I think people will want to have real true ownership over an asset, such that if the game provider stops running their marketplace or game, you can still own the asset. I could be wrong, but I really think there's demand there.
ffggvv 5y ago
why would a game allow that when thats literally their only revenue source? (for games like league of legends) And you could still do that with a centralized auciton house or exchange. the tricky part of that is getting people on board to use the system. not the technology. i could make an easy crud app with a database that allows all that.

redisman 5y ago

Video games are video games. You get real actual value out of the items you buy because it’s a virtual world. If I buy a flaming sword. I can actually take it and go hit enemies with it for fire damage and show it off prominently on my person (in game). I can break it into component parts, I can trade it, I can enhance it. Other players can buy a similar one but they can’t just copy it. Basically none of this is true for non-game NFTs

meheleventyone 5y ago

The problem for digital items that can be transferred between games isn’t really tracking ownership but interoperability and licensing.

Noos 5y ago

The game assets only have value in the game world, which is run by a centralized authority though. There's really no point in transferring assets outside of the game at all, except to break the rules that authority has in place. Its much more efficient just to allow trading assets in the structure via an ingame auction house. The exception is account trading and resale, and that's a huge minefield no digital creator really wants to happen. Being able to sell your character or library often has significant issues with little upsides to the functioning of the environment.

dbmikus 5y ago
Yeah, it is a question to be determined if people would interoperate assets across games. I think if the NFT market becomes large enough, that will happen. I think the way to grow the market is first with user-to-user trades within a game, or when two users want to trade assets for one game for assets in another, such as when you want to start playing a new game and sell your old assets. I think people will want to have real true ownership over an asset, such that if the game provider stops running their marketplace or game, you can still own the asset. I could be wrong, but I really think there's demand there.

ffggvv 5y ago

why would a game allow that when thats literally their only revenue source? (for games like league of legends) And you could still do that with a centralized auciton house or exchange. the tricky part of that is getting people on board to use the system. not the technology. i could make an easy crud app with a database that allows all that.