3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.