4 ms·

My kids are already (occasionally) preferring virtual goods over physical ones. Having the right stuff in Fortnite and Movie Star Planet is the thing. It’s not

My kids are already (occasionally) preferring virtual goods over physical ones. Having the right stuff in Fortnite and Movie Star Planet is the thing. It’s not hard to see big brands wanting to get a piece of that. And if VR/AR catches up, I would expect the market to expand.

strict9 5y ago
The divide between those who dislike or don't understand virtual goods and NFTs is very much along generational lines. Two of my nephews are into Fortnite and how they talk about the game, the economy, and v-bucks is fascinating. They don't care how about the underlying technology or how it works, only the end result. I suspect future relationships between brands and NFTs will work similarly--increased direct reach to customers and enhanced ownership and proof of attendance/souvenirs. But it'll appeal much more to the younger generation than the older generation.
- blacksmith_tb 5y ago
  My kneejerk reaction is "throwing money away" but thinking about it a little more, most consumption in modern economies is for crap, but physical crap that clutters up your home, and then ends up in a landfill. Maybe virtual goods are the step towards not buying stuff you don't need.
- choward 5y ago
  > The divide between those who dislike or don't understand virtual goods and NFTs is very much along generational lines. Virtual goods don't appeal to me but they make sense. It's the decentralization that makes no sense. It wouldn't solve any problems for Fortnite. > They don't care how about the underlying technology or how it works, only the end result. You just admitted that decentralization doesn't matter. V bucks are not a cryptocurrency. They work just fine centralized. Anyway, my point is that just because you think NFTs are absurd doesn't mean you think digital goods are.
  - almostkorean 5y ago
    I think the decentralization only matters in edge cases, I'm guessing 99% of users won't care. But for people who are spending a ton of money on skins, they should care that it is decentralized. If I was the guy who spent $60k on a CS skin I would rather own it in a decentralized database vs Steam. With that said, I don't think this is enough incentive for major gaming platforms to adopt NFTs any time soon.
    - choward 5y ago
      But you use the skin in a game controlled and centralized by steam. Steam could choose not to display your skin. Your skin means nothing without steam existing. The decentralized skin bought you nothing. Now if the game was decentralized too it might make a little more sense.
      - almostkorean 5y ago
        I did make some assumptions, lets lay out the the possible scenarios: 1. NFT points to Steam owned URL 2. NFT points to some decentralized storage (IPFS/Arweave) 3. NFT data stored on-chain And the skin data itself has these options: 1. Proprietary format that only Steam can read 2. Some format that is readable by third party software 3. Established standard format like SVG (is there an SVG for 3d stuff?) So if it was steam URL and data is in steam only format then you are mostly correct. IMO, any combination of the other options I think the decentralized skin means more than nothing. The guy didn't pay $60k to only use the skin while playing CS, he bought it as a piece of esports history. There is a lot more to be discussed about composability with NFTs and the second and third skin data options I described, but just trying to explain the optimistic point of view.
        choward 5y ago
        > The guy didn't pay $60k to only use the skin while playing CS, he bought it as a piece of esports history. That's where you lose me. This is what I'll never understand about NFTs. What does that even mean to own a part of esports history? There's nothing to own. Why do you feel the need to own something? What are you going to do with it if you don't use it in game? What could you do besides say "I own this URL that points to a model". Not trying to be rude but this is one of the main reasons why NFTs baffle me.
threecheese 5y ago
I've had a lot of trouble understanding what the real value of NFTs are, as basically we can implement most use cases using non-blockchain tech (as lots of folks in this these threads argue). I've heard the use case of portable in-game assets over and over, and this made no sense to me from a game platform economy perspective; why would a video game company allow somebody else to participate/squeeze value out of their captive market? Why would they work with their competitor? Your post made the light bulb go off: it will be large vendors like Nike that will push it. Rather than every brand build and run their own platform, or have the game companies form a joint venture to do the same, they will leverage the "global shared storage" (this is the first time I've written 'global' in this context and really meant it) and the game companies will individually implement blockchain clients because their customers will demand virtual sneakers. Gary Vee was right. (sigh)

strict9 5y ago

The divide between those who dislike or don't understand virtual goods and NFTs is very much along generational lines. Two of my nephews are into Fortnite and how they talk about the game, the economy, and v-bucks is fascinating. They don't care how about the underlying technology or how it works, only the end result. I suspect future relationships between brands and NFTs will work similarly--increased direct reach to customers and enhanced ownership and proof of attendance/souvenirs. But it'll appeal much more to the younger generation than the older generation.

blacksmith_tb 5y ago
My kneejerk reaction is "throwing money away" but thinking about it a little more, most consumption in modern economies is for crap, but physical crap that clutters up your home, and then ends up in a landfill. Maybe virtual goods are the step towards not buying stuff you don't need.
choward 5y ago
> The divide between those who dislike or don't understand virtual goods and NFTs is very much along generational lines. Virtual goods don't appeal to me but they make sense. It's the decentralization that makes no sense. It wouldn't solve any problems for Fortnite. > They don't care how about the underlying technology or how it works, only the end result. You just admitted that decentralization doesn't matter. V bucks are not a cryptocurrency. They work just fine centralized. Anyway, my point is that just because you think NFTs are absurd doesn't mean you think digital goods are.
- almostkorean 5y ago
  I think the decentralization only matters in edge cases, I'm guessing 99% of users won't care. But for people who are spending a ton of money on skins, they should care that it is decentralized. If I was the guy who spent $60k on a CS skin I would rather own it in a decentralized database vs Steam. With that said, I don't think this is enough incentive for major gaming platforms to adopt NFTs any time soon.
  - choward 5y ago
    But you use the skin in a game controlled and centralized by steam. Steam could choose not to display your skin. Your skin means nothing without steam existing. The decentralized skin bought you nothing. Now if the game was decentralized too it might make a little more sense.
    - almostkorean 5y ago
      I did make some assumptions, lets lay out the the possible scenarios: 1. NFT points to Steam owned URL 2. NFT points to some decentralized storage (IPFS/Arweave) 3. NFT data stored on-chain And the skin data itself has these options: 1. Proprietary format that only Steam can read 2. Some format that is readable by third party software 3. Established standard format like SVG (is there an SVG for 3d stuff?) So if it was steam URL and data is in steam only format then you are mostly correct. IMO, any combination of the other options I think the decentralized skin means more than nothing. The guy didn't pay $60k to only use the skin while playing CS, he bought it as a piece of esports history. There is a lot more to be discussed about composability with NFTs and the second and third skin data options I described, but just trying to explain the optimistic point of view.
      - choward 5y ago
        > The guy didn't pay $60k to only use the skin while playing CS, he bought it as a piece of esports history. That's where you lose me. This is what I'll never understand about NFTs. What does that even mean to own a part of esports history? There's nothing to own. Why do you feel the need to own something? What are you going to do with it if you don't use it in game? What could you do besides say "I own this URL that points to a model". Not trying to be rude but this is one of the main reasons why NFTs baffle me.

threecheese 5y ago

I've had a lot of trouble understanding what the real value of NFTs are, as basically we can implement most use cases using non-blockchain tech (as lots of folks in this these threads argue). I've heard the use case of portable in-game assets over and over, and this made no sense to me from a game platform economy perspective; why would a video game company allow somebody else to participate/squeeze value out of their captive market? Why would they work with their competitor? Your post made the light bulb go off: it will be large vendors like Nike that will push it. Rather than every brand build and run their own platform, or have the game companies form a joint venture to do the same, they will leverage the "global shared storage" (this is the first time I've written 'global' in this context and really meant it) and the game companies will individually implement blockchain clients because their customers will demand virtual sneakers. Gary Vee was right. (sigh)