7 ms·

Valve has already done this stuff in a way that makes far more sense. A lot of people lament CSGO’s skins (and yes they have some issues) but here are some poin

Valve has already done this stuff in a way that makes far more sense. A lot of people lament CSGO’s skins (and yes they have some issues) but here are some points about them: - Skins are purely cosmetic and tied to a competitive game that many people tie their life to. Cosmetics of differing expense make sense, the better players show off their personality in the expense and style of their cosmetics. - Skins are tradeable on the steam market which itself is a ledger, no reason for it to be distributed. - The best thing about skins is that after you buy them and you don’t want them anymore, you can resell them and recoup a portion of the money you spent, or in some cases even make profit. - Additionally, because the ledger isn’t distributed, valve can actively change skins and fix mistakes to them. This allows for user submitted skins to even work, as they can respond to DMCA take downs

Hokusai 5y ago
> no reason for it to be distributed Many decisions are taken to increase market value. It makes sense a distributed ledger based on blockchain if that increases the shares value, but I guess that you mean that it does not improve the product at all. And I can't agree more that if anything it makes it worse.
- webkike 5y ago
  It hinders the product. By controlling the ledger and being able to make changes, user submitted products are possible. Otherwise they wouldn’t be able to respond to DMCA in the case of accidentally accepting copyrighted material
  - detaro 5y ago
    They could always block stuff they don't want from actually doing anything in the games and not host it, which would resolve that problem. (similar to how with IPFS public gateways often have blocklists of content they won't deliver, even if it is available in the IPFS network)
    - webkike 5y ago
      Now you have two ledgers, one of which isn’t distributed
      - detaro 5y ago
        Integration of user-generated content in ubisoft games will always have a centralized component, sure. They wouldn't dare having that unrestricted.
        webkike 5y ago
        Yeah I guess my main point is all of this is fine and dandy and definitely works. But from a technical standpoint it’s just kinda stupid
        hannasanarion 5y ago
        So now you are maintaining an expensive and complex distributed database that duplicates the work that's already being done by a cheap and manageable internal database. For what benefit?
        sokoloff 5y ago
        So you can say you have an NFT to offer. (I wish I was kidding here.)
        Spivak 5y ago
        And so they don't actually have to administer the marketplace. From their perspective it's just create a new skin and some NFTs for it, and release them into the wild.
        WorldMaker 5y ago
        Administering the marketplace is that part that actually makes money, though, because the house always gets a cut of the transactions (in service fees and transaction fees). That's been a lot of Valve's success in all the easy profit from the Steam Marketplace. If this is to increase shareholder value in Ubi long term, NFTs are ass backwards because they aren't long term revenue generating, but a marketplace they owned actually would be.
me_me_me 5y ago
There is an insult in schools for kids who have default skins in games. This is basically laughing at kid's being poor, can't stop it. But game producers are actively creating those environments where even if its just cosmetics you are still in a lower caste if not buying into cosmetics. There are also pattens by Ubi or activation where you are places on server with higher rated player so when they dominate you their characters with weapons and skins are presented in a kill cam. That is to create subconscious idea of getting those to play better. Thirdly on Valve and buying/selling items. Arcanas are skins in Dota. They are very expensive as its alternative character skin with new voice lines and visuals for skill. Nowdays arcanas are expensive, none tradable/marketable, and more importantly one time exclusive. Its massive FOMO pressure. Back in the day you could buy an arcana and while it costed you a bit you could sell it back at small % loss, not anymore. Those companies are doing all of it cuz it makes them piles of cash, as those tactics while predatory - do work - and work very well.
- webkike 5y ago
  Kids making fun of poorer kids for not having nicer cosmetics is absolutely nothing new… are we really going to pin the blame on this on the designer clothes brands, or the educational environment we are raising children? I think people with nicer skins are more highly invested in the game both literally and figuratively, and thus are more likely to be better. I don’t think kill cams are the way valve is trying to convince you to buy skins. And for your last point, yes that sucks but is that any worse than the default experience for literally every multiplayer video game on the market?
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Why can't we blame both? Why must we encourage a society that values wasting money as a sign of status? The only people benefiting from this are the people selling the bullshit.
    - webkike 5y ago
      It’s not necessarily a sign of status, people think the cosmetics look nice. Why must I suffer a worse experience just because you think it’s a waste of money? It’s an M rated game, kids shouldn’t be playing it in the first place
mminer237 5y ago
Surely Ubisoft is just storing metadata about the items in the blockchain, not the actual model or anything. This whole thing is purpose-built to support the game. If the NFT says player X owns red_skin #33856, then the game will say such, but Ubisoft would still be free to change the model at their discretion or remove the item from the game if they want, making the NFT useless in such a case. It really is not any different from Valve's system except it's way more complicated, it's using a trendy thing, you don't need Ubisoft to trade things (although you still have to complete trust in Ubisoft for the NFTs to have any use as they still have to mint the items and could still remove an item or ban a specific item number), item duplication is impossible, and fraud protection is impossible.
- webkike 5y ago
  I think on the whole you’re correct. However, Valve taking a cut of items bought on the market I would argue is actually a feature, because it gives them an incentive to work on the game. Players who invest lots of money and players who don’t both benefit from the arrangement. And if you don’t like it, you can trade in person and do bank transfers and stuff like that
- jonny_eh 5y ago
  > Surely Ubisoft is just storing metadata about the items in the blockchain, not the actual model or anything. So Ubisoft could delete the item from the game, and therefore owning the NFT means nothing. What's the point of using NFT instead of a Ubisoft owned DB?
  - theplumber 5y ago
    Boom! Now you know what NFTs are.
  - na85 5y ago
    > What's the point of using NFT instead of a Ubisoft owned DB? Now they get to say they're using NFTs in their press.
    - 5y ago
SpaceManNabs 5y ago
I don't know much about CSGO, but it is similar to the marketplace for Dota 2 cosmetics. Based on that marketplace, I can see some flaws that the NFT landscape can improve. > Skins are tradeable on the steam market which itself is a ledger, no reason for it to be distributed. This is false in the Dota2 world. Some skins and cosmetics cannot be put on the market again or resold. Some people would see this constraint from a centralized force as a flaw. > Skins are purely cosmetic and tied to a competitive game that many people tie their life to. Cosmetics of differing expense make sense, the better players show off their personality in the expense and style of their cosmetics In decentralized gaming, anyone is free to take those assets and build a game off them. For example, if you had a certain rare skin, and someone made a dota fan game (or custom game if you are from the old WCIII days or custom lobby in current dota days), then you could enable certain functionality if they had the skin or NFT. There is a lot you can do from here that isn't purely cosmetic but also not P2W. > additionally, because the ledger isn’t distributed, valve can actively change skins and fix mistakes to them. This allows for user submitted skins to even work, as they can respond to DMCA take downs Excellent point on DMCA. On submitted skins, some people could see that as a limit. Who approves submissions (this was a big complaint in previous TIs)? I am someone that has a lot of stuff on the Dota2 marketplace, and some of the centralized decisions have definitely left me with some bitterness. For example, I mentioned before that some cosmetics are not re-tradeable or ever seen again after some period of exclusivity. Except this rule was broken once where they allowed an Invoker cosmetic to come up again (the kid Persona), but for some reason didn't bring back [Dark Artistry] in an event where they put these skins together. I had the kid persona invoker item but never had the [Dark Artistry]. They essentially devalued my cosmetic, again somewhat arbitrarily.
- gjulianm 5y ago
  > Some skins and cosmetics cannot be put on the market again or resold. Some people would see this constraint from a centralized force as a flaw. But the skin owner can code pauses/restraints in the NFT smart contract, right? A decentralized market wouldn't change that. > In decentralized gaming, anyone is free to take those assets and build a game off them. For example, if you had a certain rare skin, and someone made a dota fan game (or custom game if you are from the old WCIII days or custom lobby in current dota days), then you could enable certain functionality if they had the skin or NFT. There is a lot you can do from here that isn't purely cosmetic but also not P2W. But for that you need to have free assets, to the point where someone else can build a game. And I bet in that case you don't need to own the skin, just load the asset in the game and that's it.
floatboth 5y ago
2011: Dammit Valve, who exactly asked for these tradeable hats? Keep games free of this crap! 2021: Praise Valve, the only big name keeping in-game-crap economies free of "blockchain" garbage and generally being the least awful one. How low can the games industry sink?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  I am often found defending Valve here on HN, so I'd just like to go on record that these skin and card trading markets are bad and Valve is bad for running them.
  - webkike 5y ago
    Can you articulate why?
  - WillPostForFood 5y ago
    Why do you think it is bad? Is the negative effect is on games, or Steam users?
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      > Is the negative effect is on games, or Steam users? Yes. Steam users most of all though because it exploits bad habits people have like gambling, collectionism, and completionism with all the ugliness that comes with them for the sake of profit.
- egfx 5y ago
  That reads just like an xkcd comic :D
- markwkw 5y ago
  Games mimic life. Some players like the ability to pursue luxury, express themselves and display status. Now Valve as an established player; market operator and sort of a financial institution of the "tradable hats" world plays conservative.
MikusR 5y ago
The only difference from what Valve is doing is that these are numbered and in limited quantity.
- gus_massa 5y ago
  The numbered part is easy, but nobody guaranty that they will not issue more in the future after they reconsider something or something.
- webkike 5y ago
  CSGO skins are limited in quantity as well. Some items are so rare they’re one of one, costing millions of dollars Source: https://youtu.be/4nCt99ezhiA https://youtu.be/4nCt99ezhiA
  - MikusR 5y ago
    Then it's the same. And the only bad thing is that it's Ubisoft and not the PC game market monopolist doing it.
maccolgan 5y ago
Valve relentlessly rent-seeks the secondary market, making it impossible to trade the skins for anything useful. They have gone out of their way to end any way to exchange them with any real world currency, because it then ends up being akin to gambling. Valve is almost a despot, exchanging skins as NFT would take these powers out of the game dev's hands, that's the whole point.
xboxnolifes 5y ago
This is mostly because I have some friends very much into CSGO who also constantly make fun of NFTs, but my favorite thing about CSGO skins is that they are basically modern NFTs in every way except not being stored on a blockchain. Every skin has: The skin name, a random 0 - 1.0 damage value, and a skin offset (, optionally stattrak, attached stickers, etc). I'm not sure if the randomness guarantees uniqueness, but it's damn near close enough. Not that distributed is even in the initialism of NFT, so I guess csgo skins are NFTs.

Hokusai 5y ago

> no reason for it to be distributed Many decisions are taken to increase market value. It makes sense a distributed ledger based on blockchain if that increases the shares value, but I guess that you mean that it does not improve the product at all. And I can't agree more that if anything it makes it worse.

webkike 5y ago
It hinders the product. By controlling the ledger and being able to make changes, user submitted products are possible. Otherwise they wouldn’t be able to respond to DMCA in the case of accidentally accepting copyrighted material
- detaro 5y ago
  They could always block stuff they don't want from actually doing anything in the games and not host it, which would resolve that problem. (similar to how with IPFS public gateways often have blocklists of content they won't deliver, even if it is available in the IPFS network)
  - webkike 5y ago
    Now you have two ledgers, one of which isn’t distributed
    - detaro 5y ago
      Integration of user-generated content in ubisoft games will always have a centralized component, sure. They wouldn't dare having that unrestricted.
      - webkike 5y ago
        Yeah I guess my main point is all of this is fine and dandy and definitely works. But from a technical standpoint it’s just kinda stupid
      - hannasanarion 5y ago
        So now you are maintaining an expensive and complex distributed database that duplicates the work that's already being done by a cheap and manageable internal database. For what benefit?
        sokoloff 5y ago
        So you can say you have an NFT to offer. (I wish I was kidding here.)
        Spivak 5y ago
        And so they don't actually have to administer the marketplace. From their perspective it's just create a new skin and some NFTs for it, and release them into the wild.
        WorldMaker 5y ago
        Administering the marketplace is that part that actually makes money, though, because the house always gets a cut of the transactions (in service fees and transaction fees). That's been a lot of Valve's success in all the easy profit from the Steam Marketplace. If this is to increase shareholder value in Ubi long term, NFTs are ass backwards because they aren't long term revenue generating, but a marketplace they owned actually would be.

me_me_me 5y ago

There is an insult in schools for kids who have default skins in games. This is basically laughing at kid's being poor, can't stop it. But game producers are actively creating those environments where even if its just cosmetics you are still in a lower caste if not buying into cosmetics. There are also pattens by Ubi or activation where you are places on server with higher rated player so when they dominate you their characters with weapons and skins are presented in a kill cam. That is to create subconscious idea of getting those to play better. Thirdly on Valve and buying/selling items. Arcanas are skins in Dota. They are very expensive as its alternative character skin with new voice lines and visuals for skill. Nowdays arcanas are expensive, none tradable/marketable, and more importantly one time exclusive. Its massive FOMO pressure. Back in the day you could buy an arcana and while it costed you a bit you could sell it back at small % loss, not anymore. Those companies are doing all of it cuz it makes them piles of cash, as those tactics while predatory - do work - and work very well.

webkike 5y ago
Kids making fun of poorer kids for not having nicer cosmetics is absolutely nothing new… are we really going to pin the blame on this on the designer clothes brands, or the educational environment we are raising children? I think people with nicer skins are more highly invested in the game both literally and figuratively, and thus are more likely to be better. I don’t think kill cams are the way valve is trying to convince you to buy skins. And for your last point, yes that sucks but is that any worse than the default experience for literally every multiplayer video game on the market?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Why can't we blame both? Why must we encourage a society that values wasting money as a sign of status? The only people benefiting from this are the people selling the bullshit.
  - webkike 5y ago
    It’s not necessarily a sign of status, people think the cosmetics look nice. Why must I suffer a worse experience just because you think it’s a waste of money? It’s an M rated game, kids shouldn’t be playing it in the first place

mminer237 5y ago

Surely Ubisoft is just storing metadata about the items in the blockchain, not the actual model or anything. This whole thing is purpose-built to support the game. If the NFT says player X owns red_skin #33856, then the game will say such, but Ubisoft would still be free to change the model at their discretion or remove the item from the game if they want, making the NFT useless in such a case. It really is not any different from Valve's system except it's way more complicated, it's using a trendy thing, you don't need Ubisoft to trade things (although you still have to complete trust in Ubisoft for the NFTs to have any use as they still have to mint the items and could still remove an item or ban a specific item number), item duplication is impossible, and fraud protection is impossible.

webkike 5y ago
I think on the whole you’re correct. However, Valve taking a cut of items bought on the market I would argue is actually a feature, because it gives them an incentive to work on the game. Players who invest lots of money and players who don’t both benefit from the arrangement. And if you don’t like it, you can trade in person and do bank transfers and stuff like that
jonny_eh 5y ago
> Surely Ubisoft is just storing metadata about the items in the blockchain, not the actual model or anything. So Ubisoft could delete the item from the game, and therefore owning the NFT means nothing. What's the point of using NFT instead of a Ubisoft owned DB?
- theplumber 5y ago
  Boom! Now you know what NFTs are.
- na85 5y ago
  > What's the point of using NFT instead of a Ubisoft owned DB? Now they get to say they're using NFTs in their press.
  - 5y ago

SpaceManNabs 5y ago

I don't know much about CSGO, but it is similar to the marketplace for Dota 2 cosmetics. Based on that marketplace, I can see some flaws that the NFT landscape can improve. > Skins are tradeable on the steam market which itself is a ledger, no reason for it to be distributed. This is false in the Dota2 world. Some skins and cosmetics cannot be put on the market again or resold. Some people would see this constraint from a centralized force as a flaw. > Skins are purely cosmetic and tied to a competitive game that many people tie their life to. Cosmetics of differing expense make sense, the better players show off their personality in the expense and style of their cosmetics In decentralized gaming, anyone is free to take those assets and build a game off them. For example, if you had a certain rare skin, and someone made a dota fan game (or custom game if you are from the old WCIII days or custom lobby in current dota days), then you could enable certain functionality if they had the skin or NFT. There is a lot you can do from here that isn't purely cosmetic but also not P2W. > additionally, because the ledger isn’t distributed, valve can actively change skins and fix mistakes to them. This allows for user submitted skins to even work, as they can respond to DMCA take downs Excellent point on DMCA. On submitted skins, some people could see that as a limit. Who approves submissions (this was a big complaint in previous TIs)? I am someone that has a lot of stuff on the Dota2 marketplace, and some of the centralized decisions have definitely left me with some bitterness. For example, I mentioned before that some cosmetics are not re-tradeable or ever seen again after some period of exclusivity. Except this rule was broken once where they allowed an Invoker cosmetic to come up again (the kid Persona), but for some reason didn't bring back [Dark Artistry] in an event where they put these skins together. I had the kid persona invoker item but never had the [Dark Artistry]. They essentially devalued my cosmetic, again somewhat arbitrarily.

gjulianm 5y ago
> Some skins and cosmetics cannot be put on the market again or resold. Some people would see this constraint from a centralized force as a flaw. But the skin owner can code pauses/restraints in the NFT smart contract, right? A decentralized market wouldn't change that. > In decentralized gaming, anyone is free to take those assets and build a game off them. For example, if you had a certain rare skin, and someone made a dota fan game (or custom game if you are from the old WCIII days or custom lobby in current dota days), then you could enable certain functionality if they had the skin or NFT. There is a lot you can do from here that isn't purely cosmetic but also not P2W. But for that you need to have free assets, to the point where someone else can build a game. And I bet in that case you don't need to own the skin, just load the asset in the game and that's it.

floatboth 5y ago

2011: Dammit Valve, who exactly asked for these tradeable hats? Keep games free of this crap! 2021: Praise Valve, the only big name keeping in-game-crap economies free of "blockchain" garbage and generally being the least awful one. How low can the games industry sink?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
I am often found defending Valve here on HN, so I'd just like to go on record that these skin and card trading markets are bad and Valve is bad for running them.
- webkike 5y ago
  Can you articulate why?
- WillPostForFood 5y ago
  Why do you think it is bad? Is the negative effect is on games, or Steam users?
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    > Is the negative effect is on games, or Steam users? Yes. Steam users most of all though because it exploits bad habits people have like gambling, collectionism, and completionism with all the ugliness that comes with them for the sake of profit.
egfx 5y ago
That reads just like an xkcd comic :D
markwkw 5y ago
Games mimic life. Some players like the ability to pursue luxury, express themselves and display status. Now Valve as an established player; market operator and sort of a financial institution of the "tradable hats" world plays conservative.

MikusR 5y ago

The only difference from what Valve is doing is that these are numbered and in limited quantity.

gus_massa 5y ago
The numbered part is easy, but nobody guaranty that they will not issue more in the future after they reconsider something or something.
webkike 5y ago
CSGO skins are limited in quantity as well. Some items are so rare they’re one of one, costing millions of dollars Source: https://youtu.be/4nCt99ezhiA https://youtu.be/4nCt99ezhiA
- MikusR 5y ago
  Then it's the same. And the only bad thing is that it's Ubisoft and not the PC game market monopolist doing it.

maccolgan 5y ago

Valve relentlessly rent-seeks the secondary market, making it impossible to trade the skins for anything useful. They have gone out of their way to end any way to exchange them with any real world currency, because it then ends up being akin to gambling. Valve is almost a despot, exchanging skins as NFT would take these powers out of the game dev's hands, that's the whole point.

xboxnolifes 5y ago

This is mostly because I have some friends very much into CSGO who also constantly make fun of NFTs, but my favorite thing about CSGO skins is that they are basically modern NFTs in every way except not being stored on a blockchain. Every skin has: The skin name, a random 0 - 1.0 damage value, and a skin offset (, optionally stattrak, attached stickers, etc). I'm not sure if the randomness guarantees uniqueness, but it's damn near close enough. Not that distributed is even in the initialism of NFT, so I guess csgo skins are NFTs.