7 ms·

> There is absolutely zero chance of, say, EA and Activision collaborating on a spec to share assets across brands. Zero, no matter how much you could spin it t

> There is absolutely zero chance of, say, EA and Activision collaborating on a spec to share assets across brands. Zero, no matter how much you could spin it to executives. We're seeing the startup mentality being applied to generate these new markets within gaming and people just aren't buying it. It's such an intellectually dishonest argument to make that players want to be able to share assets across games as you point out, yet we're seeing these highly-respected tech leaders try to convince us that such a brain-dead idea is visionary. Why? Because they stand to make another fortune on it and they have absolutely no problem lying to our faces about it.

duskwuff 4y ago
And the closely related concept of being able to transfer functional game items between games, or sell them on the open market, is even more ridiculous. Not only is it completely incompatible with any concept of game balance, but it's really just a roundabout way of saying that every game should be pay-to-win (by buying items outside the game) -- which is a mechanic which most gamers hate.
- malermeister 4y ago
  It's technologically impossible and also straight up makes no sense if you think about it for longer than a second. Call of Duty should implement all the various potions from World of Warcraft? What does a Mario Kart powerup do in your Halo game?
  - mark242 4y ago
    I'm trying to envision the pitch to, for example, Fromsoftware, makers of Elden Ring. Ignore the cross-game component for a second because that's mind-bogglingly dumb. "You could have artificial scarcity of Rivers of Blood*! Imagine that only 1000 people could own it, and could auction it off, and you'd make a percentage of every single transaction! You'd have a brand new monetary stream in-game!" Alright. Now try to wrap your head around a scenario in which, for a primarily single-player game, people wouldn't completely excoriate Fromsoftware for doing that. It breaks the story. It breaks the sense of achievement in-game. It breaks even the loose sense of community that the game has. It breaks the fundamental nature of the game itself, which is "you have the freedom to build your character how you want as long as you git gud**". I just don't see the value added at all. There's zero point to it. There used to be games that allowed you to import your characters from older games in the series, for example Ultima. That was interesting for a minute as a bit of a novelty, but that quickly died off because it turns out that people really just want to start out at zero and work their way up. The idea of paying for it is just wildly crazy. * note to reader: massively overpowered weapon that you get later in the game which takes your character to a completely other level. ** learn the game mechanics, enemies, strengths/weaknesses of weapons, armor, etc. An artificially scarce weapon would never get used.
    - imtringued 4y ago
      When I read Rivers of Blood I thought people started owning a location that is necessary to progress through the story and that there would be an overpowered NPC trying to commit highway robbery. I like these game based experiments of adding real economic elements into a game and seeing exactly where and why it is going wrong because games haven't been politicized to death with partisan interest groups defending their ideology. No, most developers are focused on providing good entertainment and a lot of real world business practices are openly hostile to enjoying yourself which is exactly how many feel about the real world economy but any discussion about improving it will then be thrown into one of the left right baskets, people are more concerned whether something could be called communism or socialism or not than if it is an effective policy that helps both the country and the people.
  - SrslyJosh 4y ago
    > It's technologically impossible and also straight up makes no sense if you think about it for longer than a second. Oh, it's possible, with significant limitations. It would just be such a huge pain in the ass that no one is going to do it, except for cryptobros trying to con people into playing their own awful games.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    You don't have to do so. You could make them just show up as a png in some menu. Or just not show up in the game at all. There is value in having cross game resources. Take for example a collection of racing simulators which you can import a car to drive around against AI. You could have a standard for staring a model for the car and stats about it that games should use to customize the experience of using it.
    - malermeister 4y ago
      Why would I buy something that just shows up as a png in some menu? Why would I accept a car bought in some other game as a developer trying to make money? How would that even work? Need for speed and Forza for example have dramatically different driving models. Does sharing stats between those even make sense? What about licensing deals? Money exchanges hands when real life brands are used in games. Not sure they'd be thrilled about some random other game using it all of a sudden.
      - charcircuit 4y ago
        >Why would I buy something that just shows up as a png in some menu? Because in the game it's for it actually does something. >How would that even work? They would need to come up with some kind of standard. >Need for speed and Forza for example have dramatically different driving models. You would want to standardize on one to try and keep things consistent. >Does sharing stats between those even make sense? Having the car you paid for be separate from the simulator you use to drive it makes sense. >What about licensing deals? Whoever is selling you the car NFT would license it instead of the game.
        marak830 4y ago
        You do realise how impossible all of that is, right? Technically, no, but in reality, it's never going to happen.
        charcircuit 4y ago
nl 4y ago
> yet we're seeing these highly-respected tech leaders try to convince us that such a brain-dead idea is visionary. Why? Because they stand to make another fortune on it and they have absolutely no problem lying to our faces about it. They are clearly wrong, but I think much of the time they aren't lying so much as ignorant. They aren't gamers, and the logic makes sense to them but they are missing the details that actual gamers care about.
- Nursie 4y ago
  "What do I care about? Making money. It's the focus of my life. Therefore everyone else cares about that too. We should inject external economic motives into games, they're totally gonna eat this up!"
  - chaosbolt 4y ago
    >"What do I care about? Making money. It's the focus of my life. You should've listened then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18183102#18184642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18183102#18184642
    - Nursie 4y ago
      In case you didn't understand the content of my post there, it wasn't about me. I note that chainlink is still not "the next bitcoin or ethereum", and frankly I wouldn't care if it was.

duskwuff 4y ago

And the closely related concept of being able to transfer functional game items between games, or sell them on the open market, is even more ridiculous. Not only is it completely incompatible with any concept of game balance, but it's really just a roundabout way of saying that every game should be pay-to-win (by buying items outside the game) -- which is a mechanic which most gamers hate.

malermeister 4y ago
It's technologically impossible and also straight up makes no sense if you think about it for longer than a second. Call of Duty should implement all the various potions from World of Warcraft? What does a Mario Kart powerup do in your Halo game?
- mark242 4y ago
  I'm trying to envision the pitch to, for example, Fromsoftware, makers of Elden Ring. Ignore the cross-game component for a second because that's mind-bogglingly dumb. "You could have artificial scarcity of Rivers of Blood*! Imagine that only 1000 people could own it, and could auction it off, and you'd make a percentage of every single transaction! You'd have a brand new monetary stream in-game!" Alright. Now try to wrap your head around a scenario in which, for a primarily single-player game, people wouldn't completely excoriate Fromsoftware for doing that. It breaks the story. It breaks the sense of achievement in-game. It breaks even the loose sense of community that the game has. It breaks the fundamental nature of the game itself, which is "you have the freedom to build your character how you want as long as you git gud**". I just don't see the value added at all. There's zero point to it. There used to be games that allowed you to import your characters from older games in the series, for example Ultima. That was interesting for a minute as a bit of a novelty, but that quickly died off because it turns out that people really just want to start out at zero and work their way up. The idea of paying for it is just wildly crazy. * note to reader: massively overpowered weapon that you get later in the game which takes your character to a completely other level. ** learn the game mechanics, enemies, strengths/weaknesses of weapons, armor, etc. An artificially scarce weapon would never get used.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    When I read Rivers of Blood I thought people started owning a location that is necessary to progress through the story and that there would be an overpowered NPC trying to commit highway robbery. I like these game based experiments of adding real economic elements into a game and seeing exactly where and why it is going wrong because games haven't been politicized to death with partisan interest groups defending their ideology. No, most developers are focused on providing good entertainment and a lot of real world business practices are openly hostile to enjoying yourself which is exactly how many feel about the real world economy but any discussion about improving it will then be thrown into one of the left right baskets, people are more concerned whether something could be called communism or socialism or not than if it is an effective policy that helps both the country and the people.
- SrslyJosh 4y ago
  > It's technologically impossible and also straight up makes no sense if you think about it for longer than a second. Oh, it's possible, with significant limitations. It would just be such a huge pain in the ass that no one is going to do it, except for cryptobros trying to con people into playing their own awful games.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  You don't have to do so. You could make them just show up as a png in some menu. Or just not show up in the game at all. There is value in having cross game resources. Take for example a collection of racing simulators which you can import a car to drive around against AI. You could have a standard for staring a model for the car and stats about it that games should use to customize the experience of using it.
  - malermeister 4y ago
    Why would I buy something that just shows up as a png in some menu? Why would I accept a car bought in some other game as a developer trying to make money? How would that even work? Need for speed and Forza for example have dramatically different driving models. Does sharing stats between those even make sense? What about licensing deals? Money exchanges hands when real life brands are used in games. Not sure they'd be thrilled about some random other game using it all of a sudden.
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      >Why would I buy something that just shows up as a png in some menu? Because in the game it's for it actually does something. >How would that even work? They would need to come up with some kind of standard. >Need for speed and Forza for example have dramatically different driving models. You would want to standardize on one to try and keep things consistent. >Does sharing stats between those even make sense? Having the car you paid for be separate from the simulator you use to drive it makes sense. >What about licensing deals? Whoever is selling you the car NFT would license it instead of the game.
      - marak830 4y ago
        You do realise how impossible all of that is, right? Technically, no, but in reality, it's never going to happen.
        charcircuit 4y ago

nl 4y ago

> yet we're seeing these highly-respected tech leaders try to convince us that such a brain-dead idea is visionary. Why? Because they stand to make another fortune on it and they have absolutely no problem lying to our faces about it. They are clearly wrong, but I think much of the time they aren't lying so much as ignorant. They aren't gamers, and the logic makes sense to them but they are missing the details that actual gamers care about.

Nursie 4y ago
"What do I care about? Making money. It's the focus of my life. Therefore everyone else cares about that too. We should inject external economic motives into games, they're totally gonna eat this up!"
- chaosbolt 4y ago
  >"What do I care about? Making money. It's the focus of my life. You should've listened then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18183102#18184642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18183102#18184642
  - Nursie 4y ago
    In case you didn't understand the content of my post there, it wasn't about me. I note that chainlink is still not "the next bitcoin or ethereum", and frankly I wouldn't care if it was.