7 ms·

This isn't about cryptocurrency at all. It's about the obviously bad idea of transferable digital in-game goods [sold for cryptocurrency]. You don't need the cr

by soiler 4y ago

This isn't about cryptocurrency at all. It's about the obviously bad idea of transferable digital in-game goods [sold for cryptocurrency]. You don't need the crypto part to see why it's not a good idea, although the model described here (selling loot to other players?) is not the extremely silly one I've heard more often (buy a CSGO skin and wear it in other games!).

hgsgm 4y ago
Once you've crossed the line of purchasable in-game goods, transferable isn't silly.
- quickthrowman 4y ago
  It certainly is silly, what incentive does a game developer have to let someone transfer in game assets they bought for a different game instead of selling the in game assets themselves? There isn’t any incentive to allow it so it won’t happen. If you mean transferable as in able to sell an in game asset to another player, Valve has offered that for at least a decade.
  - CBarkleyU 4y ago
    Yep, it's the same reason why I can only smirk when people tell me that crypto is the next thing for buying/selling "used" video games. News flash: The reason why you can't sell your games on Steam isnt because of tech issues...
- easygenes 4y ago
  The earliest popular instance of this model I’m aware of is Magic: Online, which went live in 2002 and worked entirely on physical analogy. You would buy virtual card packs just as you would physically, and could trade cards between players without restriction. This was seen as an evil ploy by many at the time, who balked at the idea of it not just being a subscription model with unlimited access to cards.
- soiler 4y ago
  Purchasable is also (usually) silly, but here we are.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
I'm actually a big fan of transferable digital in-game goods, although I see why some publishers wouldn't want it. Real currency resale markets obviously come with a cost to the publishers, who are the original sellers of the good. However, they also have upsides to the publishers and players. Magic the gathering is a good example because they have two online versions with different approaches. In Magic The Gathering Online, you can transfer your digital goods. This means there are all kinds of 3rd parties making the ecosystem more efficient. You can buy and sell cards for real cash on dozens of websites, and you can even pay cash to rent expensive cards from bots. All in game purchases are also done in a tradable currency, so in theory, you could play the game without spending a penny with the publisher, but the publisher is still the origin of all consumable game currency. The publisher also has a 2nd generation online platform, Magic the Gathering Arena. This version has no transferable assets and no financial ecosystem. They capture every penny, but miss out on users who want a financial exit option, and a ton of free publicity and events hosted by businesses operating in the MTGO ecosystem. I think this is one of the better examples because Magic is already a collectables card game. That said, similar ecosystems have existed in games like eve online, Diablo, ect... As with most things, I wonder what the value add is from Crypto, but perhaps it is there. I know some games have struggled with duplication and fake goods, which is particularly problematic when people are paying real cash for them. Perhaps crypto can address this issue
- soiler 4y ago
  Hm, you're right that there are digital situations where it does make sense. And that's exactly what the article is about: Does it make sense in your game? In most cases, no.
leppr 4y ago
You are right. From reading the article, Neal Stephenson doesn't criticize cryptocurrency in itself. His whole criticism is about integrating it inside the universe of games. I don't agree with your opinion that item transferability is necessarily silly, though. I was happy to be able to sell the rare Dota 2 items I accumulated after playing it for a couple years. It was never a central motivation for playing, but the transferability didn't detract from the experience in any way. It just made for some nice pocket change when all was said and done. ___ Meta remark: It's pretty sad that one of the only HN comments correctly pointing out the disconnect between the article title, the HN knee-jerk reactions, and the actual content of the article, seems about to be downvoted to oblivion. The article is barely 3 paragraphs. Is it too much to ask to read it, before jumping in with the same tired crypto takes as every link to crypto-related resources on HN gets?
- soiler 4y ago
  People may be downvoting because I stuffed my comment with opinions they dislike more so than my calling out the title being irrelevant to the article.
- tfandango 4y ago
  I wonder how much corporate domain blocking comes into play on articles like this gaining traction on HN during the day on weekdays? I am reading the comments here on my lunch break before reading the article since "gaming" links are blocked. If it sounds interesting, I try to look it up after work.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  Selling isn't silly. Buying is silly.
JohnFen 4y ago
The part I never understood about the concept of transferrable in-game goods is -- why bring crypto into it? I don't see how the blockchain solves any of the difficulties with the idea, either for the players or for any companies who are on-board with it. I also don't see why any of the companies would be on-board with it, given that accomplishing it would take a lot of development effort for little reward, and the game companies are in this business to maximize their reward.
- WeylandYutani 4y ago
  This was all cooked up by people who obviously don't play videogames nor understand the videogame market. The creators of Fortnite don't want you to take your DLC with you to play another game. They want you to keep playing Fortnite and spend money in their store.
  - soiler 4y ago
    Fortnite might be a bad example. I could actually see it happening there; Fortnite is big on cross-IP content. I can imagine that buying a skin in Fortnite or a Marvel game and then using it in both could be a selling point. (This could get someone to buy that Marvel game when they might not have otherwise.)

by soiler 4y ago

hgsgm 4y ago

Once you've crossed the line of purchasable in-game goods, transferable isn't silly.

quickthrowman 4y ago
It certainly is silly, what incentive does a game developer have to let someone transfer in game assets they bought for a different game instead of selling the in game assets themselves? There isn’t any incentive to allow it so it won’t happen. If you mean transferable as in able to sell an in game asset to another player, Valve has offered that for at least a decade.
- CBarkleyU 4y ago
  Yep, it's the same reason why I can only smirk when people tell me that crypto is the next thing for buying/selling "used" video games. News flash: The reason why you can't sell your games on Steam isnt because of tech issues...
easygenes 4y ago
The earliest popular instance of this model I’m aware of is Magic: Online, which went live in 2002 and worked entirely on physical analogy. You would buy virtual card packs just as you would physically, and could trade cards between players without restriction. This was seen as an evil ploy by many at the time, who balked at the idea of it not just being a subscription model with unlimited access to cards.
soiler 4y ago
Purchasable is also (usually) silly, but here we are.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

I'm actually a big fan of transferable digital in-game goods, although I see why some publishers wouldn't want it. Real currency resale markets obviously come with a cost to the publishers, who are the original sellers of the good. However, they also have upsides to the publishers and players. Magic the gathering is a good example because they have two online versions with different approaches. In Magic The Gathering Online, you can transfer your digital goods. This means there are all kinds of 3rd parties making the ecosystem more efficient. You can buy and sell cards for real cash on dozens of websites, and you can even pay cash to rent expensive cards from bots. All in game purchases are also done in a tradable currency, so in theory, you could play the game without spending a penny with the publisher, but the publisher is still the origin of all consumable game currency. The publisher also has a 2nd generation online platform, Magic the Gathering Arena. This version has no transferable assets and no financial ecosystem. They capture every penny, but miss out on users who want a financial exit option, and a ton of free publicity and events hosted by businesses operating in the MTGO ecosystem. I think this is one of the better examples because Magic is already a collectables card game. That said, similar ecosystems have existed in games like eve online, Diablo, ect... As with most things, I wonder what the value add is from Crypto, but perhaps it is there. I know some games have struggled with duplication and fake goods, which is particularly problematic when people are paying real cash for them. Perhaps crypto can address this issue

soiler 4y ago
Hm, you're right that there are digital situations where it does make sense. And that's exactly what the article is about: Does it make sense in your game? In most cases, no.

leppr 4y ago

You are right. From reading the article, Neal Stephenson doesn't criticize cryptocurrency in itself. His whole criticism is about integrating it inside the universe of games. I don't agree with your opinion that item transferability is necessarily silly, though. I was happy to be able to sell the rare Dota 2 items I accumulated after playing it for a couple years. It was never a central motivation for playing, but the transferability didn't detract from the experience in any way. It just made for some nice pocket change when all was said and done. ___ Meta remark: It's pretty sad that one of the only HN comments correctly pointing out the disconnect between the article title, the HN knee-jerk reactions, and the actual content of the article, seems about to be downvoted to oblivion. The article is barely 3 paragraphs. Is it too much to ask to read it, before jumping in with the same tired crypto takes as every link to crypto-related resources on HN gets?

soiler 4y ago
People may be downvoting because I stuffed my comment with opinions they dislike more so than my calling out the title being irrelevant to the article.
tfandango 4y ago
I wonder how much corporate domain blocking comes into play on articles like this gaining traction on HN during the day on weekdays? I am reading the comments here on my lunch break before reading the article since "gaming" links are blocked. If it sounds interesting, I try to look it up after work.
hgsgm 4y ago
Selling isn't silly. Buying is silly.

JohnFen 4y ago

The part I never understood about the concept of transferrable in-game goods is -- why bring crypto into it? I don't see how the blockchain solves any of the difficulties with the idea, either for the players or for any companies who are on-board with it. I also don't see why any of the companies would be on-board with it, given that accomplishing it would take a lot of development effort for little reward, and the game companies are in this business to maximize their reward.

WeylandYutani 4y ago
This was all cooked up by people who obviously don't play videogames nor understand the videogame market. The creators of Fortnite don't want you to take your DLC with you to play another game. They want you to keep playing Fortnite and spend money in their store.
- soiler 4y ago
  Fortnite might be a bad example. I could actually see it happening there; Fortnite is big on cross-IP content. I can imagine that buying a skin in Fortnite or a Marvel game and then using it in both could be a selling point. (This could get someone to buy that Marvel game when they might not have otherwise.)