4 ms·

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 respo

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.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]