3 ms·

The secondary market and they don’t have to touch any of the regulations around handling real money if they were to run this themselves. F2P games with their ow

The secondary market and they don’t have to touch any of the regulations around handling real money if they were to run this themselves. F2P games with their own virtual currencies don’t usually let players cash out for the latter reason.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
What value is the secondary market to them? Or allowing their players to "cash out"?
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  They can take a cut of every secondary market transaction and players need to be able to cash out for a secondary market to make sense. The main reason for not doing that centrally is it becomes an attractive means of money laundering which Valve found out with their skins. Second Life also had this problem and IIRC a third party company handles all their game related banking business as a result. Note I’m not saying this is a good thing and I think all the entities involved should have the same regulatory responsibility but you can see the greasy cogs whirring in some executives brain.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    How does it being decentralized make it unattractive for money laundering?
    - meheleventyone 5y ago
      It doesn’t. Crypto is famously massively popular for money laundering. It just makes it not Ubisoft’s problem in the same way Valve farmed out the risk and responsibility to third party skin sites. Similarly Second Life dealt with this more ethically by engaging a partner to deal with the regulatory side of things It’s also not a claim I made so I’m not sure why you addressed that question to me.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        I addressed the question to you because I thought that was what you were saying: that somehow the involvement of a decentralized ledger made money laundering less attractive. Your description of the actual reasoning, that it shifts the burden of responsibility, makes a lot more sense.
        meheleventyone 5y ago
        In which case I apologise for not being clearer the first time.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

What value is the secondary market to them? Or allowing their players to "cash out"?

meheleventyone 5y ago
They can take a cut of every secondary market transaction and players need to be able to cash out for a secondary market to make sense. The main reason for not doing that centrally is it becomes an attractive means of money laundering which Valve found out with their skins. Second Life also had this problem and IIRC a third party company handles all their game related banking business as a result. Note I’m not saying this is a good thing and I think all the entities involved should have the same regulatory responsibility but you can see the greasy cogs whirring in some executives brain.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  How does it being decentralized make it unattractive for money laundering?
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    It doesn’t. Crypto is famously massively popular for money laundering. It just makes it not Ubisoft’s problem in the same way Valve farmed out the risk and responsibility to third party skin sites. Similarly Second Life dealt with this more ethically by engaging a partner to deal with the regulatory side of things It’s also not a claim I made so I’m not sure why you addressed that question to me.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      I addressed the question to you because I thought that was what you were saying: that somehow the involvement of a decentralized ledger made money laundering less attractive. Your description of the actual reasoning, that it shifts the burden of responsibility, makes a lot more sense.
      - meheleventyone 5y ago
        In which case I apologise for not being clearer the first time.