4 ms·

Because of ownership and the idea of digital property. In a MySQL the provider owns all data, with an NFT the key holder owns the data.

• meheleventyone 5y ago
  Well no they don't because the NFT only has meaning in the game world which is still owned and operated by the game company. NFTs in their current incarnation merely move the receipt from a centralized private DB to a decentralized public one and make the entire thing much more expensive.
  • mantenpanther 5y ago
    But the NFT should be independent of the game and exists elsewhere. The game company can integrate it - or not.
    • meheleventyone 5y ago
      So someone’s selling in-game items for games with no game with the expectation that games will just magically support them despite the cost to the developers to do so? FWIW I can definitely see an asset store like model if that’s what you mean. Where games that share an engine can share developed assets. But you need to look at how that works out in practice in terms of how much integration cost there is, gamers tolerance for asset reuse and actually how broadly applicable it is between different games. And even then extant asset stores already work perfectly well so it’s not clear what putting it on the blockchain and presumably some decentralised storage actually provides.