4 ms·

Why would they run this as an NFT though. They're going to want control over what assets can be added, and TBH would probably much rather they could do somethin

Why would they run this as an NFT though. They're going to want control over what assets can be added, and TBH would probably much rather they could do something about theft, money laundering etc to avoid bad publicity.

alkonaut 5y ago
> Why would they run this as an NFT though. Imagine you had a set of digital drawings of apes you wanted to sell. What can you charge for a nice colurful drawing of an ape? $1? Now add "NFT" to the description. Same with a hat. The studios would do this because they see a situation in which a few of their assets become $10M ape assets and they make $100k. Before this hype dies down, the studios are afraid of missing out on it. No studio wants to be the one that missed the golden rain of NFT hats of 2023 because they didn't get on the hype train. of course this won't be a long term thing. But we'll see land grabs like these now for a while because it's a low risk/high reward kind of thing.
- bilbo0s 5y ago
  Here's the thing you don't understand about AAA gaming. If they make a hat that they sell for 10 mil, there is no way they are going to agree to only take 100k of that price. This discussion ignores the financial realities of the business side of AAA gaming. You're asking the studios to give away 99% of their profit. Even in the worst case, they can all put their own platinum plated, cancer curing, blow job giving hat on the Eth blockchain and charge 10 mil for it without agreeing to share anything with anyone other than gas fees and miner bonuses. They won't. You know why? Because if they sell it in their own stores they can easily sell one thousand of them for 10 grand each and pay nothing in gas fees and miner bonuses.
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    No studios barely make anything in this setup (user created content) or they just make what they always did (Fortnite style cosmetic assets). This is studios using their status as "places where people see hats" and the newly invented hysteria around NFTs to set up a scheme with very little investment. They don't make something and sell for $10M because nothing studios create and market would have that kind of value. The high price of an asset is only because end users trade it among themselves (quite literally in the case of wash trades) to inflate the value. Studios can only provide the scarcity or exposure of the assets - they don't set the prices other than perhaps initially. But the key is that every time an asset changes hands, the studio gets a cut. A hat is sold for $10 then they get $1. Then it's sold 100x over, and the studio takes $1 each time. If a hat for some mysterious reason becomes the $1M monkey picture of hats, then it earns them a bigger cut in the transaction. But the key is: this is only happening because people want to take part in the lottery/hysteria of NFTs on the eth blockchain. Not because they are ready to pay $1M for a game asset. So the studio isn't "losing" 99% of anything. They just tricked people into trading NFTs which earn studios a cut, instead of other NFTs that don't.

alkonaut 5y ago

> Why would they run this as an NFT though. Imagine you had a set of digital drawings of apes you wanted to sell. What can you charge for a nice colurful drawing of an ape? $1? Now add "NFT" to the description. Same with a hat. The studios would do this because they see a situation in which a few of their assets become $10M ape assets and they make $100k. Before this hype dies down, the studios are afraid of missing out on it. No studio wants to be the one that missed the golden rain of NFT hats of 2023 because they didn't get on the hype train. of course this won't be a long term thing. But we'll see land grabs like these now for a while because it's a low risk/high reward kind of thing.

bilbo0s 5y ago
Here's the thing you don't understand about AAA gaming. If they make a hat that they sell for 10 mil, there is no way they are going to agree to only take 100k of that price. This discussion ignores the financial realities of the business side of AAA gaming. You're asking the studios to give away 99% of their profit. Even in the worst case, they can all put their own platinum plated, cancer curing, blow job giving hat on the Eth blockchain and charge 10 mil for it without agreeing to share anything with anyone other than gas fees and miner bonuses. They won't. You know why? Because if they sell it in their own stores they can easily sell one thousand of them for 10 grand each and pay nothing in gas fees and miner bonuses.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  No studios barely make anything in this setup (user created content) or they just make what they always did (Fortnite style cosmetic assets). This is studios using their status as "places where people see hats" and the newly invented hysteria around NFTs to set up a scheme with very little investment. They don't make something and sell for $10M because nothing studios create and market would have that kind of value. The high price of an asset is only because end users trade it among themselves (quite literally in the case of wash trades) to inflate the value. Studios can only provide the scarcity or exposure of the assets - they don't set the prices other than perhaps initially. But the key is that every time an asset changes hands, the studio gets a cut. A hat is sold for $10 then they get $1. Then it's sold 100x over, and the studio takes $1 each time. If a hat for some mysterious reason becomes the $1M monkey picture of hats, then it earns them a bigger cut in the transaction. But the key is: this is only happening because people want to take part in the lottery/hysteria of NFTs on the eth blockchain. Not because they are ready to pay $1M for a game asset. So the studio isn't "losing" 99% of anything. They just tricked people into trading NFTs which earn studios a cut, instead of other NFTs that don't.