3 ms·

there could be licensing restrictions. (i think we can do better, but it's a path.) in the absence of licensing restrictions, the nft owners are incentivized t

there could be licensing restrictions. (i think we can do better, but it's a path.) in the absence of licensing restrictions, the nft owners are incentivized to prefer projects that provide utility for their nfts.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> there could be licensing restrictions. Ok, but the supposed benefit was to a game's prospective competition. Why in the hell would the game developer want to license content created for their game to be used in a competitor's game? > in the absence of licensing restrictions, the nft owners are incentivized to prefer projects that provide utility for their nfts. And everyone who doesn't have those NFTs have no such incentive. Even if I own game X's NFTs, there is no disincentive for me to play game Y that straight up uses game Z's NFTs for free. Or hell, even if it used game X's. I might want to play with an item I don't have in game X, after all. If a game came out tomorrow that reused TF2's hats and shit, do you really think anyone would consider the fact that they have hats in their TF2 account a disincentive to play the new game? This is like that part in HGttG[0] where the Golgafrinchans decided leaves were currency and burnt down the forests to ensure their scarcity. I have no idea why you people can't see how mad you all are. [0] In case anyone doesn't know: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams.
- dropnerd 5y ago
  minecraft and roblox show the demand for games with content from a variety of artists. imagine you paid a few hundred or thousand dollars for the hat, you'd be strongly incentivized to call the games that aren't contributing back to the ecosystem freeloaders. and as for everyone else, there's a thin line between not caring about the artist getting paid and piracy, and i suspect there isn't a whole lot of money in the segment anyways. your last analogy makes no sense.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> there could be licensing restrictions. Ok, but the supposed benefit was to a game's prospective competition. Why in the hell would the game developer want to license content created for their game to be used in a competitor's game? > in the absence of licensing restrictions, the nft owners are incentivized to prefer projects that provide utility for their nfts. And everyone who doesn't have those NFTs have no such incentive. Even if I own game X's NFTs, there is no disincentive for me to play game Y that straight up uses game Z's NFTs for free. Or hell, even if it used game X's. I might want to play with an item I don't have in game X, after all. If a game came out tomorrow that reused TF2's hats and shit, do you really think anyone would consider the fact that they have hats in their TF2 account a disincentive to play the new game? This is like that part in HGttG[0] where the Golgafrinchans decided leaves were currency and burnt down the forests to ensure their scarcity. I have no idea why you people can't see how mad you all are. [0] In case anyone doesn't know: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams.

dropnerd 5y ago
minecraft and roblox show the demand for games with content from a variety of artists. imagine you paid a few hundred or thousand dollars for the hat, you'd be strongly incentivized to call the games that aren't contributing back to the ecosystem freeloaders. and as for everyone else, there's a thin line between not caring about the artist getting paid and piracy, and i suspect there isn't a whole lot of money in the segment anyways. your last analogy makes no sense.