3 ms·
> That is one result, the bigger picture is that the strategies centralized owners of those items use to make profits at the expense of each user would go away.
by imustbeevil 5y ago
> That is one result, the bigger picture is that the strategies centralized owners of those items use to make profits at the expense of each user would go away.
It's the opposite. No real game developer would ever make assets tied to NFTs that have already been sold because they can't make any profit from that. The only thing the NFT provides is transferability, which most game developers also wouldn't want to support. The company makes more money if all consumers have to buy the same items separately. They build in scarcity by removing transferability.
Some companies might use NFTs to sell things no one would buy otherwise (like Disney selling pictures of R2D2), but that's pretty much the only use case for them.
- mattwilsonn888 5y agoNo game developer would do it for free, correct, but they wouldn't be able to centralize those items around their control. The game itself would have to make money, and the items being operable with the game without too much cost (that's why I said "fairly enough") would attract users to the game which may be monetized in other ways. As for your other points they were already addressed. Did you read my whole comment before finishing yours?