3 ms·
> This idea doesn't work at all. For your dota skin to work in world of warcraft, the developers of WoW would have to acknowledge that 0x1fab... corresponds wit
by conanbatt 5y ago
> This idea doesn't work at all. For your dota skin to work in world of warcraft, the developers of WoW would have to acknowledge that 0x1fab... corresponds with $ITEM in $GAME and then spend the time actually implementing that item in the game.
Yes? Why wouldn't that work?
Since that would take an inordinate amount of effort for absolutely no benefit for WoW or Dota, this would only ever feasibly be used between games made by the same company, which at that point they would just use a centralised database for obvious reasons.
> The Movable-Game-Assets thing has been done before on a huge scale by the biggest gaming company in the world, with nintendo's Amiibos. Look at how they turned out! Barely any games on the switch actually support the full set of amiibos, and those that do don't give much. Amiibos already implement the exact thing you're talking about without any blockchain at all.
Nintendo is a super closed system. But also there is a difference in kind: games that implement API for cross-game assets will get users, players and payers, by implementing an entry way to an already existing community.
The future is uncertain, but if you are not curious about this i don't know what to tell you.
- zkldi 5y ago> Yes? Why wouldn't that work? Because videogames are different? There's absolutely no logic connecting items in one game to another in almost all cases. As such, the set of items the developers would actually want to implement (ever) would be only those that make sense inside their game, and they'd have to reimplement the models and statistics. Even more so, the effort necessary to implement new items in any game means that they'll only ever bother with the most expensive items (that also happen to make sense within their world), which restricts the set of items *massively*. Oh, and the developers get absolutely nothing back for doing this except a PR disaster. Furthermore, it's entirely centralised anyway. You have to trust the game client to interpret 0x1fabc3... as $ITEM when the game client could completely lie and change what item that corresponds to, or how useful it was. This is quite literally just an expensive API call. NFTs serve literally no purpose here. There's no decentralisation, there's no reason why items in videogames should ever be cross-compatible anyway (It's literally like asking why you can't write C# and Haskell in the same file and just have it work).
- conanbatt 5y agoThere are already many cross-game implementations: 1- Taking money 2- Having Achievements and API's on Steam 3- Accepting OAuth login 4- Supporting non-standard inputs like joysticks And interestingly you could implement 3/4 items above with NFT's alone with some benefits: 1- No store commissions 2- Public data/metrics on usage (that could be interpreted as achievements) 3- No country, age or identity restrictions
- zkldi 5y agoThe benefit of no store commissions is immediately negated by gas fees. Public Metrics on usage is already possible without the blockchain, you can do this with a centralised database and an API. If your retort to this is "what if steam change your progress underfoot?", that is nonsense because they gain absolutely nothing from doing that except annoying users. No country, age or identity restrictions is a disaster. The age one primarily, since it is necessary to require age restrictions on things like online gambling for ethical reasons. Also, what the hell do NFTs have to do with implementing joystick input?
- conanbatt 5y agoGas fees on polygon, L2 and Solana is lower than credit card transaction fees.