4 ms·

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

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.
- SpaceManNabs 5y ago
  > But the skin owner can code pauses/restraints in the NFT smart contract, right? A decentralized market wouldn't change that. I think it is fine if skin providers in a free marketplace can impose constraints on their NFTs. I think the problem is if someone can impose arbitrary constraints on all the assets at any time. > 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. Yes, you need certain amount of assets. I am not sure why you wouldn't need to own the skin. We already have verification for assets in centralized ledgers to exclusive access. I am saying a situation where I might give asset owners access to specific game functions if they own an asset from another game for example. This is pretty useful for RPG games (think branching paths in games like Mass Effect or other Bioware games)
  - gjulianm 5y ago
    > I am not sure why you wouldn't need to own the skin. If the game maker doesn't want to restrict who uses the skin? And I guess that's the thing that would happen if someone makes a mod out of free assets.
pavlov 5y ago
> "In decentralized gaming, anyone is free to take those assets and build a game off them." Certainly not. The assets are owned by the game developer. The NFT is just a receipt that you paid for them. I suppose another developer can read that receipt and offer you some content in their game, but if that content looks anything like the original asset, they're liable to get sued for copyright infringement.
- SpaceManNabs 5y ago
  You are right; I was being loose with my language on assets and receipts. Thank you for the correction. > but if that content looks anything like the original asset, they're liable to get sued for copyright infringement. I am thinking something more along the lines of a game that supports in-game mods for it. There is nothing limiting you to use the original asset; you just need proof of ownership to give access to a different functionality. I have no idea how this would work across developers and with copyright, but there are real scenarios right now that would love to use proof of ownership or for mods.
  - josho 5y ago
    You are seeing a potential future, and an exciting one at that. Unfortunately, there is nothing in what Ubisoft has announced that will help usher in that future.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- negroni 5y ago
  > "Certainly not. The assets are owned by the game developer." It may be the case for Ubisoft. However, some NTFs include the IP rights. For example, if you bought a Bored Ape NFT, you'd have the rights to use that Ape any way that you want. You can license it out for a Cartoon. Movie or Comic Book. Sell T-shirts, etc.
  - 5y ago

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.

SpaceManNabs 5y ago
> But the skin owner can code pauses/restraints in the NFT smart contract, right? A decentralized market wouldn't change that. I think it is fine if skin providers in a free marketplace can impose constraints on their NFTs. I think the problem is if someone can impose arbitrary constraints on all the assets at any time. > 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. Yes, you need certain amount of assets. I am not sure why you wouldn't need to own the skin. We already have verification for assets in centralized ledgers to exclusive access. I am saying a situation where I might give asset owners access to specific game functions if they own an asset from another game for example. This is pretty useful for RPG games (think branching paths in games like Mass Effect or other Bioware games)
- gjulianm 5y ago
  > I am not sure why you wouldn't need to own the skin. If the game maker doesn't want to restrict who uses the skin? And I guess that's the thing that would happen if someone makes a mod out of free assets.

pavlov 5y ago

> "In decentralized gaming, anyone is free to take those assets and build a game off them." Certainly not. The assets are owned by the game developer. The NFT is just a receipt that you paid for them. I suppose another developer can read that receipt and offer you some content in their game, but if that content looks anything like the original asset, they're liable to get sued for copyright infringement.

SpaceManNabs 5y ago
You are right; I was being loose with my language on assets and receipts. Thank you for the correction. > but if that content looks anything like the original asset, they're liable to get sued for copyright infringement. I am thinking something more along the lines of a game that supports in-game mods for it. There is nothing limiting you to use the original asset; you just need proof of ownership to give access to a different functionality. I have no idea how this would work across developers and with copyright, but there are real scenarios right now that would love to use proof of ownership or for mods.
- josho 5y ago
  You are seeing a potential future, and an exciting one at that. Unfortunately, there is nothing in what Ubisoft has announced that will help usher in that future.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
negroni 5y ago
> "Certainly not. The assets are owned by the game developer." It may be the case for Ubisoft. However, some NTFs include the IP rights. For example, if you bought a Bored Ape NFT, you'd have the rights to use that Ape any way that you want. You can license it out for a Cartoon. Movie or Comic Book. Sell T-shirts, etc.
- 5y ago