3 ms·

I could see there eventually being some NFT project that gets implemented kind of like a shared library in a bunch of games, but I agree that it won't be most N

I could see there eventually being some NFT project that gets implemented kind of like a shared library in a bunch of games, but I agree that it won't be most NFT projects (probably just one or two "winners", and probably no existing project that's out there right now, I'm betting, most are profile pic centered and not object/weapon-centered) and it certainly won't be all games that do it. There could come a time where it makes good marketing sense to include support for certain ones, though. I agree that right now it would not make much financial sense as there's a lot of vehement hatred of NFTs out there and I don't think any project is yet big enough to recoup the time and investment spent, unless it's on some really basic level, like supporting importing of the images and putting them on the walls of a house or something (I've seen something similar like that already). I do agree that people buying these things thinking everything they're buying they'll be able to take to every single virtual place they go to and be able to hold a 3d model of it and wield it in the future are likely just deluding themselves, unless there's eventually some software library that builds these things automatically without artists having to manually build them or developers having to put code in to support, it in the future. And even then it will likely butt heads with various limitations of the game engine unless controlled, like number of polygons it can handle and not clipping through environments/animations, not being able to be much more than a static model without more metadata included/manual effort involved, etc. Although perhaps for anything manual that is involved that person that owns the NFT could hire someone to adjust things so it works better in the game they're wanting to play, assuming there are tools included with the game to do so. Like there's already NFT projects out there making 3D models of certain NFTs specific for certain game worlds using their existing tools, or the owners currently commissioning new art based on their NFT art, etc. Just taking it as it is currently on a profile pic level, we see that Twitter supports NFTs officially now with Twitter Blue, and Discord seems to be on the verge of supporting it, and possibly more sites in the future, and even if other sites don't support it officially, unofficially you could use an NFT as a picture anywhere (even those you don't own of course, but most people in these spaces do seem to stick with those they own). That's taking an NFT and using it in multiple platforms, and companies having a financial incentive to include support for it, right there. It's not that much of a stretch to see that happening for some games in the future, especially those built with support of high levels of customization or with prior knowledge of the NFT space and trying to incorporate it from the start of development, which some of these metaverse-like games are definitely doing with Decentraland and Sandbox (albeit right now at the detriment of gameplay, imo. They're pretty boring spaces at the moment, mostly just run around and talk to people).

acdha 5y ago
> I agree that right now it would not make much financial sense as there's a lot of vehement hatred of NFTs out there I would consider that it's less “vehement hatred” rather than “clear understanding of the limitations”. The backlash comes from proposing NFTs where they don't provide an advantage. For example: > Although perhaps for anything manual that is involved that person that owns the NFT could hire someone to adjust things so it works better in the game they're wanting to play, assuming there are tools included with the game to do so. The problem here is that the person who owns the NFT doesn't own the rights to the assets. If the people who do want to grant permission to modify and reuse those assets, they can do so without paying significant amounts of money to a third-party. Similarly: > Just taking it as it is currently on a profile pic level, we see that Twitter supports NFTs officially now with Twitter Blue, and Discord seems to be on the verge of supporting it, and possibly more sites in the future, and even if other sites don't support it officially, unofficially you could use an NFT as a picture anywhere (even those you don't own of course, but most people in these spaces do seem to stick with those they own). That's taking an NFT and using it in multiple platforms, and companies having a financial incentive to include support for it, right there. This is like Gravatar except that it costs hundreds of dollars, and it actually doesn't give the companies a financial incentive to include support for it unless they start selling NFTs. If they wanted to charge you to upload a profile picture, they could do that already and it's unclear why anyone else would want to encourage that.
- cableshaft 5y ago
  > I would consider that it's less “vehement hatred” rather than “clear understanding of the limitations”. Check pretty much any articles about NFTs on Kotaku, there's plenty of vehement hatred on there by both the writers and most of the commenters. Here on HN it's a bit more nuanced, sure. > The problem here is that the person who owns the NFT doesn't own the rights to the assets. Depends on the NFT project. But it doesn't grant copyright by default, correct. "Indeed, it seems like the NFT space is bifurcating into two camps: projects where creators control the IP and Creative Commons projects, or CC0s, as folks are calling them...The big CC0 projects are CrypToadz, NounsDAO and Vine co-founder Dom Hoffman’s Blitmap. These projects are the most open, with no rights reserved to anyone. Bored Apes offers a more limited set of rights, only to the holder of the Ape, who can profit from the art and make derivatives."[1] This isn't mentioned out of ignorance or possibly intentionally by most anti-NFT articles, including all of Kotaku's articles and from what I've heard (haven't sat down to watch it yet, but I intend to) the Line Goes Up documentary, so understandably most people not following these things just assume no one but the creator has the copyright, like with most other products. But the NFT space has evolved differently. > This is like Gravatar except that it costs hundreds of dollars, and it actually doesn't give the companies a financial incentive to include support for it unless they start selling NFTs. I already said why they might have a financial incentive and you're skipping over that again: marketing. Companies do all sorts of shit and spend tens of millions of dollars for the sake of marketing, and eventually (not yet, eventually) there could come a time where it makes sense from a marketing perspective, even if the company doesn't mint NFTs themselves. I don't know when that will be the case, it could be 10-20 years out for all I know. And again I don't see there ever being the case where all games support all (or even any) of these projects, but some games supporting some projects I definitely see (and already see on a much smaller scale). I would also agree that right now the starting price for most NFTs are ridiculous. There are cheap or free NFTs out there (I've gotten a couple to support some friends of mine for around $20-30. Considering I can easily spend that much on lunch, that's not super crazy to me), but they're unlikely to be projects that will get incorporated into these various things. Like Clone X might eventually be used in several games, and I could have gotten one at 2.5 ETH (almost $7.5k at the time, which is insane). And yet now, a month later, if I did happen to buy one then I could sell it for a minimum of 14 ETH or ~$43k, which is even more insane. Almost all of that is speculation and that should calm down over the next 5-ish years once a lot of novelty wears off and as people get a better feel for what these can realistically offer. In the meantime there's definitely a greater fool effect going on, where people are buying expecting to sell to a greater fool at a higher price later. Hopefully the projects that do become mainstream and integrated into all of these things end up with more reasonable price tags, at least for the common items (maybe some rares will be stupid expensive still). Considering way back in 2007 there's a World of Warcraft character that sold for $10,000[2], which is also something I would consider nuts, and farming WoW virtual gold to sell to people used to be a valid full-time profession for hundreds of thousands of people in some countries[3], I don't really forsee a future where there won't be any NFTs with crazy price tags to them. [1]: https://thedefiant.io/bored-apes-yacht-club-cryptopunks-copyright-fight/ https://thedefiant.io/bored-apes-yacht-club-cryptopunks-copy... [2]: https://www.engadget.com/2007-09-17-wow-character-sells-for-nearly-10-000.html https://www.engadget.com/2007-09-17-wow-character-sells-for-... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_farming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_farming

acdha 5y ago

> I agree that right now it would not make much financial sense as there's a lot of vehement hatred of NFTs out there I would consider that it's less “vehement hatred” rather than “clear understanding of the limitations”. The backlash comes from proposing NFTs where they don't provide an advantage. For example: > Although perhaps for anything manual that is involved that person that owns the NFT could hire someone to adjust things so it works better in the game they're wanting to play, assuming there are tools included with the game to do so. The problem here is that the person who owns the NFT doesn't own the rights to the assets. If the people who do want to grant permission to modify and reuse those assets, they can do so without paying significant amounts of money to a third-party. Similarly: > Just taking it as it is currently on a profile pic level, we see that Twitter supports NFTs officially now with Twitter Blue, and Discord seems to be on the verge of supporting it, and possibly more sites in the future, and even if other sites don't support it officially, unofficially you could use an NFT as a picture anywhere (even those you don't own of course, but most people in these spaces do seem to stick with those they own). That's taking an NFT and using it in multiple platforms, and companies having a financial incentive to include support for it, right there. This is like Gravatar except that it costs hundreds of dollars, and it actually doesn't give the companies a financial incentive to include support for it unless they start selling NFTs. If they wanted to charge you to upload a profile picture, they could do that already and it's unclear why anyone else would want to encourage that.

cableshaft 5y ago
> I would consider that it's less “vehement hatred” rather than “clear understanding of the limitations”. Check pretty much any articles about NFTs on Kotaku, there's plenty of vehement hatred on there by both the writers and most of the commenters. Here on HN it's a bit more nuanced, sure. > The problem here is that the person who owns the NFT doesn't own the rights to the assets. Depends on the NFT project. But it doesn't grant copyright by default, correct. "Indeed, it seems like the NFT space is bifurcating into two camps: projects where creators control the IP and Creative Commons projects, or CC0s, as folks are calling them...The big CC0 projects are CrypToadz, NounsDAO and Vine co-founder Dom Hoffman’s Blitmap. These projects are the most open, with no rights reserved to anyone. Bored Apes offers a more limited set of rights, only to the holder of the Ape, who can profit from the art and make derivatives."[1] This isn't mentioned out of ignorance or possibly intentionally by most anti-NFT articles, including all of Kotaku's articles and from what I've heard (haven't sat down to watch it yet, but I intend to) the Line Goes Up documentary, so understandably most people not following these things just assume no one but the creator has the copyright, like with most other products. But the NFT space has evolved differently. > This is like Gravatar except that it costs hundreds of dollars, and it actually doesn't give the companies a financial incentive to include support for it unless they start selling NFTs. I already said why they might have a financial incentive and you're skipping over that again: marketing. Companies do all sorts of shit and spend tens of millions of dollars for the sake of marketing, and eventually (not yet, eventually) there could come a time where it makes sense from a marketing perspective, even if the company doesn't mint NFTs themselves. I don't know when that will be the case, it could be 10-20 years out for all I know. And again I don't see there ever being the case where all games support all (or even any) of these projects, but some games supporting some projects I definitely see (and already see on a much smaller scale). I would also agree that right now the starting price for most NFTs are ridiculous. There are cheap or free NFTs out there (I've gotten a couple to support some friends of mine for around $20-30. Considering I can easily spend that much on lunch, that's not super crazy to me), but they're unlikely to be projects that will get incorporated into these various things. Like Clone X might eventually be used in several games, and I could have gotten one at 2.5 ETH (almost $7.5k at the time, which is insane). And yet now, a month later, if I did happen to buy one then I could sell it for a minimum of 14 ETH or ~$43k, which is even more insane. Almost all of that is speculation and that should calm down over the next 5-ish years once a lot of novelty wears off and as people get a better feel for what these can realistically offer. In the meantime there's definitely a greater fool effect going on, where people are buying expecting to sell to a greater fool at a higher price later. Hopefully the projects that do become mainstream and integrated into all of these things end up with more reasonable price tags, at least for the common items (maybe some rares will be stupid expensive still). Considering way back in 2007 there's a World of Warcraft character that sold for $10,000[2], which is also something I would consider nuts, and farming WoW virtual gold to sell to people used to be a valid full-time profession for hundreds of thousands of people in some countries[3], I don't really forsee a future where there won't be any NFTs with crazy price tags to them. [1]: https://thedefiant.io/bored-apes-yacht-club-cryptopunks-copyright-fight/ https://thedefiant.io/bored-apes-yacht-club-cryptopunks-copy... [2]: https://www.engadget.com/2007-09-17-wow-character-sells-for-nearly-10-000.html https://www.engadget.com/2007-09-17-wow-character-sells-for-... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_farming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_farming