If there's a topic that's led to consistent debate and occasional toxicity in online gaming discourse over the past few months, it's NFTs. Non-fungible tokens aren't actually particularly new to early adopters of blockchain technologies, but 2021 was the year when they broke into mainstream media and conversations around arts and entertainment. From fine art auctions to in-game cosmetics, NFTs became a hot topic in conversations also focused on blockchain technology and ties to cryptocurrencies.
You don't need to look far online to find passionate arguments for and against NFTs, though such is the fervour of the debate that at times it can feel like facts and realities get set aside. For example, arguments against often cite environmental factors and cryptocurrency issues, which aren't necessarily applicable to all NFTs. On the other side, some defending the concept blithely disregard all genuine issues. Overall, it's rarely a civil or calm debate.
We want to try and separate fact from fiction, while sharing the views of industry figures with active interests — positive and negative — when it comes to the increasing trend of NFTs in gaming.
We spoke to former game journalist (and Pure Xbox editor) Kenneth Barnes, who now runs a web platform related to blockchain technologies. We also spoke to Michael Yum, founder and CEO of PM Studios with extensive business experience in blockchain technology. Finally we got the views of Tim Dawson from Witch Beam Games (Assault Android Cactus, Unpacking), who is vocally against NFTs in gaming. The contributions from all three have been hugely useful and, importantly, balanced and eloquent. This writer is also generally against the idea, but the goal of this article is to give both perspectives a fair hearing while sticking to facts.
First, A Quick Overview of NFTs
What's an NFT and a blockchain again?
Non-fungible tokens are digital assets that are stored in the blockchain; more accurately, if you purchase an NFT you buy a unique token that is then stored on a blockchain. A 'blockchain' is best considered as a shared online 'ledger' maintained across multiple computers on a shared network.
A 'blockchain' is best considered as a shared online 'ledger' maintained across multiple computers on a shared network
The concepts aren't new, to be clear, but the evolution of cryptocurrencies in particular — such as Bitcoin and Ethereum's 'Ether' and a host of smaller alternatives — has transformed awareness and usage.
NFTs are often traded in cryptocurrencies, which is where some of the debate can be confused and lose context, but in early cases within gaming, consumers earn NFTs through gameplay — or perhaps in future will be able to use 'real' money or a game's virtual currency to make the purchase — with the host platform (like Ubisoft with Quartz) then partnering with Blockchain platforms that operate with cryptocurrencies (we'll come back to Ubisoft's initiative later).
Back to the NFTs. If you buy one, you own a token (like a receipt) for that asset, whether it's artwork, an in-game cosmetic, etc. Part of the debate is whether that ownership actually matters, as the nature of the internet makes it a wild west of image sharing and downloading, so you may own an NFT for an image while millions download an identical JPEG. Nevertheless, there has been a boom in the last 12-24 months of image owners — notably people in pictures that became 'memes' — making huge sales in cryptocurrencies for an NFT token of that image.
To advocates, NFTs give image rights and ownership back to creators, allowing them to make money from their work. There's also the argument that if you own a digital item as an NFT you can then re-sell, trade or give to others, a perspective that we'll come back to in the discussion of NFTs in games.
To critics, it's irrelevant as the item being sold is virtual and arguably unenforceable, making it 'worthless'. The argument can be that it's a cryptocurrency-driven artificial boom / bubble that won't ever truly reach the mainstream. The truth may, unexcitingly, be somewhere in the middle.
But Aren't NFTs Bad For The Environment, Open To Fraud and So On?
The short answer is the technology of which NFTs are a part can undoubtedly be power-hungry and environmentally damaging. The most known types of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, in particular, are significantly energy hungry as a result of 'mining' requiring high powered PCs to be running over long periods of time. You've likely read about Bitcoin 'farms', which are controversial for the sheer scale of power they demand; they were even 'banned' in China, driving these businesses to other countries.
However, some areas of blockchain technology are moving to a potentially better solution; Michael Yum explains that gaming's environmental impact is ultimately more fundamental than just the potential growth of NFTs:
Truthfully all network based games whether its blockchain or not have a huge environmental impact. When you interact on the internet, you are consuming energy. Its plain and simple. However, ‘proof of stake’ does reduce the energy consumption because it requires less data transaction points and it is a very big step forward from what is currently happening with Ethereum and ‘proof of work’.
To clarify the difference between 'proof of stake' and 'proof of work', we turn to Ken Barnes. There's no doubt that the former, which is being adopted in some products including Ubisoft Quartz, is far less power hungry.
The environmental impact is a huge concern for proof of work chains such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. Proof of stake uses many magnitudes less energy, mainly due to there being no mining requirement.
The problem is that when people hear the words “blockchain”, “cryptocurrency”, or “NFT”, they instantly think of Bitcoin, immorally expensive NFTs that look like finger paintings being sold on Ethereum, or people lining up to buy 40 graphics cards that they’ll then have hooked up and running 24/7 to try to mine them a few bucks. Understandably so, given those things have seen more coverage than any other coins, tokens, or chains.
However, proof of stake chains – such as Cardano, Tezos (which Ubisoft is using), Stellar, Algorand, and many more – don’t have a mining component. Rather than being mined, new coins are generated by the network and periodically sent to users who “stake” their coins, almost in the same way that your bank pays you interest on your savings. That means a lot less energy is used. In terms of NFTs, it’s estimated that creating a single NFT on Ethereum takes 1.5million times as much energy as it would on Tezos. Therefore, the environmental impact is much, much less pronounced on proof of stake chains, to the point that Tezos estimates that their entire blockchain uses 0.0000006TWh of electricity annually, as opposed to Bitcoin’s 130TWh and Ethereum’s 26TWh. [Reference]
This doesn't entirely wash with Tim Dawson, however, as he sees the lower power consumption of proof of stake as hiding other fundamental issues.
Proof of stake is cited as a fix but has major drawbacks as well - it's less energy consuming than proof of work but has its own energy scaling issues, it's less secure and centers power with the wealthy (less democratic) and perhaps the most damning part is that despite the issues being widely known and this solution being widely touted, major cryptocurrencies aren't using it and haven't made any attempts to migrate to it.
Ethereum, a prominent major blockchain with its currency Ether being second only to Bitcoin in value, is aiming to shift to proof of stake this year, but it hasn't completed the process as yet. As Dawson alludes to, it's not a perfect solution in any case, and as blockchain and its related products / technologies are decentralised and unregulated, it's not hard to find cases of users being scammed regardless of the cryptocurrencies, NFTs or platforms.
Even those with direct experience in the industry recognise the issue. Ken Barnes fairly suggests that as the markets mature issues can be tackled, highlighting some technical solutions to manage volatility. Michael Yum, for his part, emphasizes that stability is key to deal with nature of the technology.
Sadly this is one of the biggest concerns with NFTs and Cryptocurrencies. Due to its decentralized nature, the volatility is very unstable because the pricing and data ownership cannot be controlled by the developer. I do think this is a very big issue and there are no solid solutions. I believe there will be some sort of stability offered with stable coins in the near future.
Tim Dawson sees the dangers of scams as a major issue with blockchain technology increasigly moving into the gaming space.
For me, the biggest negatives of NFTs and blockchain technology is their association with scams, "rug pulls" and pyramid schemes. The crypto community has demonstrated it's more interested in profit than providing any useful service or improvements and to see this mindset turned towards video games makes me fearful that my peers, both gamers and developers, will be taken advantage of.
In terms of the laws around cryptocurrencies in particular, the technology is new enough that many governments simply haven't figured out strategies. They're decentralised and not currencies tied to nations, so therefore aren't taxed; how long that state of affairs continues in its current form is anyone's guess.
I Sort Of Understand, But I'm Confused
Yep, that's pretty normal, hopefully this information helps a little, but it is undoubtedly complex.
Right, So What's Happening With NFTs in Games then?
This is where our interviews were most educational, and two key approaches were highlighted to us.
Microtransactions / DLC
This is currently the most high-profile scenario courtesy of Ubisoft and its Quartz programme. It offers 'digits', which is just branding for NFTs, that take the form of cosmetics in Ghost Recon: Breakpoint for PC. These NFTs weren't directly sold to players initially, but distributed on a first-come-first-served basis if you claimed them or met certain in-game requirements, such as playing for a minimum number of hours (it varied depending on the item). The initiative is partnered with Tezos, a platform with its own cryptocurrency (XTZ); transactions seem to be taking place with the Tezos cryptocurrency, so anyone that sells a Quartz Digit will need to navigate the Tezos 'wallet' system and follow multi-step processes if they want to convert the sale into a conventional currency like US dollars.
Ubisoft won't be the last to tie what were previously microtransactions into limited edition NFTs, we're likely to see more companies attempt the model. What it does allow, for those who either earn or buy the items, is the option to sell them on again if there's demand. Ken Barnes highlights the potential positives of this in comparison to standard microtransactions in things like FIFA Ultimate Team, while highlighting an obvious downside.
In some ways, it’s great. Take FIFA as an example. Right now, you can purchase certain kits from the in-game marketplace and they’re only available for a limited time. If somebody starts playing in March, they can’t get those kits. If those things were NFTs, people would be able to jump onto a marketplace and buy them from somebody who isn’t using them anymore. The same goes for limited-time Fortnite skins or Destiny emotes. With that said, if you didn’t care about cosmetics before, then NFTs aren’t going to change your mind right now.
Ownership and the transferability of content are key things for me, but it could lead to entire new career paths being forged, for some. Many would be tempted if they were told they could use their skills to level up a character, build a team, or earn some sort of in-game reward, and then be able to sell it on for actual cash. Not only that, but as consumers, we should expect to be able to do something as simple as passing our in-game content on to a sibling or a friend when we’re done with a game. With NFTs, that would be entirely possible.
The inevitable downside is that NFTs being “the new thing” means that — at least for a short while — publishers and developers will probably start rushing to get to the point that they’re selling individual moustache hairs for your in-game characters as cosmetic NFTs.
Barnes does go on to highlight, also, that the business of making money from games could lead to concepts like these being heavily abused.
Firstly, that the issue of gambling and lootboxes become an even bigger problem than they are which, without regulation, they absolutely will. If people can chuck in £10 to buy some FIFA packs in the hope that one of them contains a Cristiano Ronaldo that will sell for many times more than that, then it doesn’t take a genius to see that we’ll be walking into a horrorscape. That could cause massively negative – potentially life-changing - consequences for susceptible users.
Secondly, that game design is affected by developers trying to shoehorn blockchain technology into every single game that they make is a concern. It just isn’t going to be suitable or even remotely useful for every type of game, yet we’ve seen how lootboxes and add-on content have worked their way into nearly every genre.
Finally, that people will forget that a publisher or developer can cut off services for a game at any point is a concern. If you’ve got 20 player skins in your wallet as NFTs and the publisher decides that they’re killing off the servers for the game, there’s not going to be a great deal you can do with those skins unless the publisher offers some sort of trade-in or upgrade scheme.
Tim Dawson feels that the potential boom of NFTs in games is really just a new cover for old and previously flawed concepts.
It appears many companies are trying to take advantage of the goldrush by selling to people who will buy anything with NFT in the name, or to attract investors who are doing the same but at scale. There's very little an NFT - which is a digital record stored on a distributed ledger - offers over tracking item purchases on a game server, which has to exist and you have to have a connection to in order to play the game anyway. Companies could allow items to be bought and resold if they wanted, but have historically prevented it to stop gold farming and real money purchases making the game worse, so I'm not sure why I should be excited at the thought of NFTs bringing that back.
...Personally I think it's only a matter of time until major online games start offering "NFTs'' with no cryptocurrency integration at all - technically they will still be 'non fungible tokens', but without the overhead of using a blockchain or having to pay minting costs.
Michael Yum also highlights that initiatives in the style of Ubisoft Quartz achieve little that non-blockchain technologies can't, feeling new ideas are needed.
I really don’t think that is unique nor takes advantage of blockchain. Developers can still do these things without blockchain. There needs to be more usage for NFTs. Hopefully we will see something soon. We are currently working on something very special but cannot reveal it yet.
What's needed is True Ownership where you can do anything you want with what you own. Currently everything is still controlled by Central platforms.
That seems to be a key issue right now — what does something like Ubisoft Quartz achieve even for those who are interested? While owners own a token, a receipt in essence, the 'asset' only exists in the game. If the game and its servers shut down, your NFT loses its purpose. It doesn't appear to be a valid use of blockchain, or even one that's particularly functional — perhaps it's the result of a business keen to have users on a controlled environment (user accounts on game servers, etc) while attempting to utilise an entirely decentralised technology that thrives on not being controlled.
Tim Dawson, looking at it as a developer and considering how the technology can contribute to a game, struggles to see an upside due to that fundamental clash.
As a developer I prefer to consider the potential for good rather than fixate on the bad, as often imperfect implementations can still lead to interesting ideas. The problem is blockchain is just terribly suited for games. A distributed ledger loses most of its advantages the moment it has to coordinate with a central authoritative system, which most games are and will continue to be.
Digital Game Trading
At present the role of in-game transactions with NFTs seems difficult, but what about digital game ownership? In recent years it's become a notable topic as digital stores have closed down, such as the Wii Shop, and some game content has been 'lost' forever. While defunct stores do sometimes give us a means of accessing our old purchased content for redownload, the small print often emphasizes that this isn't a permanent luxury. The reality is that when we buy a download game we're effectively leasing it — theoretically it can disappear anytime.
If the game and its servers shut down, your NFT loses its purpose. It doesn't appear to be a valid use of blockchain, or even one that's particularly functional
The blockchain can't really fix that for the reasons we've highlighted — our game content is controlled centrally by the platform holders / publishers, etc. However, one area that is open to change is what we do with our digital games while they're active, and the form our 'ownership' takes. What, for example, if you could re-sell your download games when you're finished with them?
Michael Yum points us to Robot Cache, which is "like Steam and GameStop in one". It allows people to buy PC games and then, when they're ready, sell them on. As you can see if you view the store, there are a number of publishers on board, and purchases and sales can be made with standard currencies like US dollars or the store's own virtual currency, 'IRON'. When you want to sell a game, it is listed for the same price you paid, but you get 25% of the money — 5% goes to the store, with the publisher then getting 70% of the resell. It functions rather like used game trade-ins with physical games, but in this case the publisher / developer gets a big chunk of money each time.
The games are stored on the blockchain to facilitate the functionality, and there's a lot of sense to the approach, enough to tempt in some publishers and developers. Our sole criticism is the IRON virtual currency, which is not actually a cryptocurrency. Instead, users are encouraged to use a 'mining pool' tool on their PC that will work towards varied cryptocurrencies in the background, which then convert to 'IRON' in a user's account. It's a workaround that potentially dodges regulations but ultimately delivers a lot of the old trappings, encouraging users to 'mine' cryptocurrencies when not using their PCs for other things. Yep, that's the mining that has been industrialised into farms and is heavily criticised on energy consumption / environmental grounds.
Elsewhere, the Intellivision Amico will utilise blockchain to enable people to share their digital games. It will have RFID (radio frequency identification) game cards that you 'scan' on the system to redeem a download — the goal is for the blockchain to combine with the scannable card to allow people to share and transfer ownership of games.
Michael Yum highlights this as 'a fantastic idea' but doesn't expect major platform holders like Nintendo to adopt a similar approach. Ken Barnes highlights a good scenario for why companies like Nintendo would likely not follow a similar approach.
Platform holders would undoubtedly take a perpetual royalty from future sales – which is possible and can be entirely automated with an NFT – at a rate that would be far too high for most gamers to stomach. Only a very few people are going to accept selling a £50 game to a friend for £30 if they must split that cash 50/50 with Nintendo. On the flipside, any less than that sort of royalty and Nintendo would likely make more money from just providing regular discounts on their own store and selling the item direct.
Tim Dawson, meanwhile, sees the Amico approach as another example of blockchain technology being cited but achieving nothing that is significantly new .
Honestly it feels like buzzwords and marketing smoke. Instead of selling you games, Amico will sell you a RFID that will sync with a server somewhere and give your console permission to download the game. Somehow NFTs are involved. That just sounds like a traditional downloadable game model with NFTs shoehorned into it so they can attract media attention. Once you spot this pattern you can see it everywhere - the NFT serves almost no function, and would be worthless if the server that actually hosts the real content ever goes down.
I expect major companies to continue to test the waters with NFTs because investors like it or because they hope to make some short term gains but I hope companies like Nintendo ultimately decide to protect their dignity and their users.
Right now there is no indication of Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft shifting their digital game ownership models.
Erm, so what's the summary here?
It's important to separate the broader debate around blockchain technologies like NFTs and cryptocurrencies, and how these are used in games. What became clear to us in our interviews was that adopting these ideas into games is difficult and is yet to find a true purpose. We haven't even touched upon games that exist solely to gamify cryptocurrency acquisition, which is hugely controversial but very much a PC-only concern at this point. Steam has notably banned games of that nature.
What became clear to us in our interviews was that adopting these ideas into games is difficult and is yet to find a true purpose
That rather applies across the board, too, with initiatives like Ubisoft's being limited to PC, or game companies looking at simply selling artwork as NFTs through online marketplaces. The decentralised and unregulated nature of blockchain means that platform holders like Nintendo are currently staying away — quietly in the case of Nintendo, while Phil Spencer of Xbox has spoken out against some of the exploitative current trends.
Gaming companies are exploring the possibilities, however. We've seen SEGA express interest in the idea of NFT content then backpedal after a negative reaction, while Square Enix is eager to pursue opportunities in the space. Konami has already been selling NFT artworks in an auction to celebrate Castlevania's 35th Anniversary; at the time of writing some were trading in 'WETH' at US dollar values well north of $1000.
GameStop is also planning to run an NFT marketplace and potentially accept specific cryptocurrencies, a goal its investors rather liked. There's also talk of the 'metaverse' in gaming, in which major publishers and developers could theoretically team up and allow NFTs of in-game items to work across different titles, so your NFT of an in-game outfit could be worn in multiple games. It's a theory, but of course could be some way off being a reality. Epic might be doing a good job of licensing every IP imaginable as purchasable Fortnite content, but the sheer technological hurdles and impracticality of making even a branded hat transfer seamlessly between multiple games is mindboggling, let alone the paperwork and finances involved once the IP lawyers are called in.
A broad problem that all three of our interviewees agreed upon is that the lack of regulation, which cuts to the heart of the broad concept, has led to the emergence of scams and abusive practices as individuals and companies try to cash in. Those issues, and the negative publicity they bring, have contributed to public hostility that can overlook any positives. As we've seen, there are notable practical issues of bringing blockchain into mainstream gaming, too. It's an issue where every positive seems to have a matching negative, so finding the middle ground seems to be the only potential solution.
The big question, we think, is what can NFTs and related blockchain concepts bring to games that don't already exist, or can't be replicated with centralised approaches? We feel that's not been entirely proven as yet — the idea of genuinely owning digital content is very attractive compared to the current flawed reality, but while our games and gaming services are from major platform holders that won't happen. The strength and binding nature of ecosystems like Nintendo eShop mean that even disruptive technologies struggle to make a dent on the standard centralised model.
For those of us living the Nintendo Life, NFTs and all of the noise around them will likely still be an issue for other platforms in the coming years, but it's certainly a space that will continue to evolve.
Comments 119
NTFs will be used mainly for money laundering and reason to try and sue people because they are using "your asset" in videos or any content in general.
NFTs are the opposite of art - art is a shared experience, NFTs turn them into nothing more than a status symbol, something that exists NOT to be shared. The only upside to NFTs is verification for things like concert tickets - however, even then the environmental costs cannot justify that.
If you truly "own" your NFT, try pitching a cartoon starring your Bored Ape or Lazy Lion to Adult Swim or Comedy Central - tell me how the lawsuit goes!
Great to see an NFT article with actual facts, usually it's just overwhelmingy positive or negative article based on feelings.
They remind me of nba top shot. Both are really dumb and a waste of money.
Why use blockchain when a database would work? I understand it's supposed to be decentralized but... the games themselves are not. And NFTs are essentially just a receipt for the asset.
Even moreso, your NFT wallet is integrated with your account in 99% of these cases.
Yeah, I still don't really understand what it is, but more importantly, I don't understand WHY it is.
2nd, 3rd and 4th generation: Arcades that cheat, games you can't beat without a strategy guide
5th and 6th generation: Expansion Packs
7th generation: DLC, Season Passes
8th generation: Microtransactions, Loot Boxes, Battle Passes
9th generation: NFTs
The only "plus" I got out of it, was being able to sell/trade/give digital assets you own. So, if I'm able to gift/sell/trade, even just once, a digital game im no longer playing, why not.
The other thing I didnt quite...get. when referencing the Ronaldo jersey and owning the nft of it. Am I able to sell multiple jerseys to multiple users and make a profit? Cause it sounds like you buy one nft and sell one nft.
NFTs take something that can be free and open, and make it limited and scarce.
They are fundamentally useless and an artificial way to make digital spaces worse.
What the ***** is even an NFT???
Here's an idea, and this is not snark or out of hand dismissiveness...can we just not, with any of this?
There are no shortage of actual, season game-devs across social going out of their way to explain, in painful detail, why NFTs and video games (especially the whole "unlock X item in Game A and use it Game B) simply doesn't work...and not in a "that's a lot of work, but it's doable" way. It fundamentally does not work for myriad reasons and the people pushing that narrative, a lot of them admittedly, know NOTHING about game development.
I get that this is a huge conversation atm, but the sooner we just agree to stop giving it space and let it die the death it deserves, the better off we'll all be.
What will NFTs mean for gaming? I suggest nothing good. I see guys in suits figuring ways to overcharge gamers for so-called "value-added" experiences. Unfortunately, I've been in those business meetings. Those who object are considered bad employees.
I fear NFTs will be something painted as being for our convenience, like the self-checkout stations in the grocery store or Taco Bell, or the self-serve pump at gas stations ... things that work in the business's favor while inconveniencing us but that just eventually get accepted because it's not worth the bother to do something about it.
We're seeing this now in that developers are releasing half-baked games — using the pandemic as an excuse — with the promise of updates and patches to come. What other business sells you something for full price on the promise that some of the goods will be delivered later?
We're all being fleeced, ladies and gentlemen. And when NFTs have lost their appeal, there will undoubtedly be something else waiting to take their place ... and our money.
Good article and a good break down of their implications for gaming, i.e. they do nothing that existing technologies don't already do. "There's very little an NFT [...] offers over tracking item purchases on a game server." And we don't even need NFTs to do that.
NFTs are a solution looking for a problem. The only thing they are selling is FOMO.
No matter how much I read about NFTs, the blockchain, cryptocurrency, or whatever else... I simply do not understand any of it. I've tried so many times. I just can't understand what the hell anyone is talking about.
Why pay when I can screenshot?
That’s great and all, but here’s me… what the **** is an NFT?! What the heck does non-fungible mean and what is the blockchain?! I simply do not understand and I feel completely indifferent to it. If this is the future, I’ll become indifferent to gaming too. I just wanna have fun mate, sue me.
Divisive??? Not among REAL gamers.
The bubble's gonna pop sooner or later. That's all I have to say for this.
@SigmaNoire I don’t know, this article is more positive about NFT then the Truth.
We have been looking into NFT over as year as in offering the Type of solution for out clients. As sustainable company we still think this is not a good solution for the consumer or environment.
In shot, you need more CO2 for NFT then Ording the poster from a online store that get delivered to your door. Also NFT has major benefit for the sales not the consumer.
There has been allot of noise about how video game companies not being pro-consumer. Well NFT is definitely has no benefit for the consumer.
As an artist in the games industry, I see them as a net neutral. Just like Free To Play, it is another monetary vehicle. Some people will hate some will find value. It is another form of the auction house in World of War craft. Players could use NFT's to sell a character or item that they have invested "x" amount of time into and actually get realworld money out of it. This will not speak to everyone. There will be abuses, and there will be winners. Overall, it is just another means to do transactions. Another example: imagine you purchased a bunch of cosmetics for a game that you loved, but just will never play again. You could potentially sell that digital content for money, like you would a physical copy.
Some people still hate Free to Play. Some only get free to play on their phone. I imagine NFTs, as they mature and figure out their stride, will have similar division in the future.
I willingly got banned from "The Red Ape Family" discord server in exactly 4:16.87 (/srs), I think my opinion on NFTS are clear, but if it isn't, well, to put it short: I hate them. To put it longer:
They're stupid. They're wastes of money that do NOTHING but harm the environment and turn people into money hungry Goombas.
If a game company decides to make an NFT, my first instinct is to stop supporting them immediately. I care more about my planet than the funny men with whips, KONAMI. If a company decides to cancel their NFT plans, I am willing to accept that and continue supporting them, like Sega for example.
Also: Why have in-game NFTS? You're keeping thousands, maybe millions, out of having the feeling of 100%ing a game.
In my opinion, NFTS should not exist in general. You're harming our planet, and for what? Money? An Ape that looks like a Picrew? A costume that could have been purchased with in game currency that you don't need to spend real money to get? In my eyes, there will never be a point.
@AmplifyMJ Yeah that's pretty much me. I do think NL might have brought TW back just to write this article but I still don't know why I'm expected to care about NFTs? I binged Mr. Robot, great show, highly recommend, so I get cyrpto, but block chain has always seemed like a solution in search of a problem and NFTs at just digital capitalism run amok.
$5 horse armor being bad I get. Nintendo saying no to DLC then selling $60 worth for SSBU and no one batting an eye, crazy but whatever. NFT? Hasn't affected me good or bad yet, don't see how it ever will.🤷
The digital age should be an age for opensource innovation and lead to opportunity for all but that's bad for business, business requires supply and demand and current day business is all about inflated and often invented scarcity — thus, the NFT. NFTs are nothing but invented scarcity for the digital age they are something that should not exist, a misnomer in concept.
@montrayjak The decentralization talking point is probably one of the more frustrating justifications in all of this. Because it sounds ideal on paper, but there's open acknowledgement that such a system can be abused.
And then, because of this desperate race of everyone trying to stake their claim, it begs the question how guaranteed will it be that things wont inevitably just be consolidated into different, fewer hands?
Game publishers adopting NFTs is a nightmare scenario for game ownership.
AAA publishers would love physical games being able to do a blockchain to determine "ownership" of the game disc in your console. Or having digital game prices tied to some sort of superfluous database, rather than a standard price point for all.
I cannot, for the life of me, fathom a defense of a system where you don't actually "own" a piece of digital content, but instead have a "digital receipt" that says then digital content you own is "Totally Legit For Reals!"
NFT technology amounts to little more than a digital [redacted] measuring contest, and it has no actual purpose or function in video games.
I'm not excited, as a tax accountant in the US, about the implementation of more NFTs. Laws are barely catching up to crypto in general.
NFT are a Poison to gaming, once it gets in, It will slowly kill you.
This article made my head hurt.
@Z-Core If you tell some NFT sellers that the apes/lions are basically just expensive Picrews, the reactions you can get are pretty great.
This is probably the best article i read on nintendo life. Really good, guys.
I remember the first time I got a NFT in a game. It was 1999, and me and my Guild had just finished the "Mistmoore" GM event in Everquest. Several members of our guild were given the infamous "Can o` Whoop Ass" while myself and one other guildmember who had roleplayed joining the "bad guys" and almost broke the event got a custom last name (back then you got a last name when you reached a given level ... 20 or so?) that acted as a title identifying us as vampires. It had characters in it that you normally couldn't have and was longer then normally allowed.
But that's not an NFT! Sure it was. It's ownership was tied to a identifier (my account) and it couldn't be reproduced. There was no need for a blockchain because it was never intended to transfer ownership, but it's this same thing; a digital item with fixed ownership available only to the owner.
On the same note, "Once Upon a Time in Shaolin" was released in 2014, no blockchain needed. Not even an official track list has leaked to the public.
So ... get over it? NFTs are nothing but a extension of technology that has been here for decades, and the idea of letting rich people pay more to get things you can't have because you're poor is ... not new.
They are tool, and like all tools, human actors will decide if they are used for good or evil (spoiler: evil). They could make existing ideas way better, like if DOTA and CS:GO skins tracked creation and ownership though a block chain it would solve a lot of fraud and thief problems with the Steam marketplace. They could be used like my title; to give players unique tokens for in game achievements that can not be forged or replicated. Or they can make a $2 million DLC that only Martin Shkreli can ever play.
But I mean ... they can do all of that right now, without NFTs.
I like how this article included Tim Dawson's comments, but I don't like how it buries them in a mountain of fence-sitting and non-commitment.
There is literally nothing that NFTs bring to the table for gaming. Trading micro transactions, trading digital games, user-generated content, play-to-earn... All of these things could be implemented just as easily using a normal database hosted by the platform holder.
Not only that, but they still need that big ol' normal database anyway, in order to be worth anything at all. Any form of digital ownership certificate is 100% useless unless the platform holder (Ubisoft, Steam, etc) recognises and honours that certificate to provide its value (e.g. allow the player to play the game, or equip the hat).
The only thing that you can say about distributed NFTs is that, if Ubisoft were to disappear tomorrow, you will still own that sweet hat you bought for Ghost Recon. But a fat lot of good it will do you if you can't play Ghost Recon anymore.
This is 100% just business as usual, with a side order of today's current buzzword shoehorned in to get media attention.
Owning digital content is a great idea. But selling it just doesn’t make sense as you can always make copies and continuously sell it till the end of time. A photographer may own the copyright on photos they take but they can’t stop you from making and distributing copies either for free or sale. It’s a foolish fool thing a foolish fool would do to fool their foolish selves.
@HedgehogEngine They are just another tool, that is all I am saying. For the most part it is opt in, and there will always be games that don't do it.
In the real world Gold, Steel, Oil, Sugar, Van Gogh paintings, and 1958 Gibson Les Pauls have a generally agreed upon price because there is only so much of those products available. A digital image or sound can’t be unique or finite, because A: they are infinitely copyable, and B: you can copy the concept if not the exact art. True, you could buy a sound clip of an actor saying something, but that actor could record that sentence 500 different ways so it’s not rare or valuable.
Plus does anybody really want that scribble or a sentence in the first place?
Say HELL NO to NFT for the sake of humanity and our environments.
@MrGawain I agree with you. NFTs, crypto, etc are just a continuation for the subversive capitalism that pervades gaming. They will only exist as long as people place value on them, but they don’t have an actual physical value. Digitalization of assets… it’s an illusion made to replicate the feeling of physical ownership. I can see where people can rationalize how great NFTs are, but I personally feel that the current economic trends are increasingly volatile and liquid and NFTs are another symptom of a confused capitalist system that doesn’t know how to progress in a meaningful way forward.
@Savage_Joe very well said my friend, well said 👏
Nice article, Thomas.
I don't really see this technology being in implemented in a way that benefits consumers in any meaningful way. Quite the contrary.
Let's focus on the core point. The technology is accidental.
If a game publisher or dev is a publically traded company, their only goal is to make money / make themselves look good, so their stock grows in value.
Given that, any technology, will be misused and twisted to the absolute maximum allowed by law until it's forbidden.
So inherently, the crazy ideas of being able to trade old things in FIFA will not come to pass. Simply because, you will be trading on EAs crypto chain and while they might not prevent you from trading the stuff, they will certainly prevent you from using it.
My head hurts.🤕
It's official: I'm too old and stupid to understand what's going on. And I'm ok with that.
I could read this article, but not a day goes by that I’m not that glad I have absolutely no clue what NFTs are.
@CharlieGirl “ AAA publishers would love physical games being able to do a blockchain to determine "ownership" of the game disc in your console.”
For reference: Go look up the Xbox One reveal and how that was already tried, loathed by gamers, mocked by the competition and how it pushed back the Xbox brand a decade in terms of sales and PR.
NFTs are not for and won’t be used for determining ownership of a disc. It’s not the concept, it’s not the function of it and hopefully, companies will have learned of Xbox past mistakes.
Look it's the mainstream that's inevitably gonna buy into this as more and more people succumb to the ever looming all digital future. I for one want no part in it and will resist for as long as I can. The future is looking pretty grim indeed.
This is an excellent, well balanced article. What I think was represented very well was that basically nothing that is being proposed requires the use of NFTs to work. To the extent that any of this stuff ever takes off it will have nothing to do with blockchain or cryptocurrency as crypto-utopians advocate it (which is fine by me).
@Savage_Joe I like this thread that compares NFTs to the star naming scam:
http://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1445795667826208770
Imagine you are playing musical chairs and instead of being stuck without a chair, you are stuck with an expensive JPEG you bought from a Russian guy who stole a picture off Deviantart and is now buying krokodil.
There NFT explained.
@sonicmeerkat LMAO at the krokodyll
Ok, but what about the content creators perspective? How about legit artists that make NFTs?
@nintendolife
Thanks for the article making good points on the topic.
Somewhat dislike the false balancing though, as not all opinions should be treated as equal, but you made good effort on giving an obvious turn towards questioning the actual utility of the tech.
I have no interest in NFTs. That is all.
Great article. I'm still confused though
Really the main reason I don't like them is because they are used as another means to gouge more money out of consumers. In a world where publishers are making record breaking profits and still end up laying people off I have no interest in supporting the idea of NFTs or microtransactions, I don't care to line the rich executive's pockets while their employees are underpaid and overworked. It's all just greed from already super rich companies and I am sick of it.
@Savage_Joe you're engaging in whataboutism is what that is. Just because other stuff we do is bad for the planet doesn't excuse the harm of NFTs.
You're doing the equivalent of responding to "We should improve society" with "and yet, you participate in society! How curious!" and shows you're looking to dismiss legitimate issues out of hand.
Further is the severe thievery and grifting involved in the current NFT space. Even going so far as pilfering the works of the recently deceased for profit.
You act like you understand. Yet show you understand nothing about thise against.
NFTs are just another thing to distract people from what is important.
@MegaVel91 @Savage_Joe It’s not whataboutism lmfao. He’s taking about prioritizing deeper problems instead of focusing on a small one. NFTs are the least of our worries in society at this time. You can’t think of even one social or environmental issue that should be higher up on the priority scale to move towards rectifying?
Any company that starts with this NFT garbage won't be getting my money for anything, worst case scenario i have a decent sized backlog of games to go through that will probably take me a heck of a long time to play them all
@Longondo Not biased in any way shape or form.
Thanks for this article! I appreciate your attempt at writing something in a fairly balanced way, as all of the shouting that everyone else is doing does not help me to understand what this is all about.
That being said, I agree with most on here that the whole idea of NFTs for the most part is a silly idea. I don't understand the idea of creating this false ownership of a digital item (especially when it comes to things like images!) that can easily be duplicated. I can say I have unique ownership of this special edition jpg, but if joe blow down the street made himself a copy of it then what really is the point?
"Take FIFA as an example. Right now, you can purchase certain kits from the in-game marketplace and they’re only available for a limited time. If somebody starts playing in March, they can’t get those kits. If those things were NFTs, people would be able to jump onto a marketplace and buy them from somebody who isn’t using them anymore."
Or maybe just charge a dollar for the kits and don't make them limited-time things. Isn't that easier than forcing someone to fence secondhand DLC?
NFT’s are something I don’t attempt to understand beyond the fact that they’re almost unanimously considered bad, so they must be bad. So, I don’t want them in the gaming industry, but it seems like an inevitability at this point.
The trick to all of this is the same trick to winning at poker. Don't let FOMO get into your head and know when to keep your wallet in your pocket. Or in the immortal words of Kenny Rogers, every hands a winner and every hands a loser.
My usecase for NFTs and blockchain technology in general is simply to leave my own personalized digital footprint on a superior record keeping system. The metaverse records every single action you make on it and will keep it forever. Like, a forever in a tougher cement than what the current internet can provide for anyone who wants a memory of themselves kept in any idea of an eternity.
@FiveDigitLP That can be, and has been, said of almost any digital property. I'm not sure where NFTs sand in a legal perspective of IPs, though. Has there been any case law on them?
Divisive? The only division I see is between sane people and the crooks who feel they can make easy money by fooling gullible people into buying their nonsense.
It seems to me to be a truly wasteful usage of technology whose sole purpose is to enable the rich to fleece ordinary people.
@Savage_Joe doesn’t matter if they can help artists or don’t pollute they’re still a gross misinterpretation of what art is all about and are only made for a hole millionaires and greasy mole people neckbeards to flex their snot eating monkey pictures or crappy pixel art faces on everyone. NFTs are an objectively worthless concept and there is no reason actual artists should partake in them, especially with how a lot of innocent artists have had their work stolen and made into NFTs without their knowledge.
I don’t want this cr@p anywhere near my gaming experiences.
@Longondo
Yes .. and did. A lot!
Again, you're just giving "NFT" a power that it doesn't have. The blockchain is a disturbed record of ownership, and that's all. SOE still decides if any given loot or title is tradable or not, they are not forced to issue NFTs for items they do not want you to trade. If SOE wanted to let me sell a given digital item independent of the account, they could have done that in 1999. They could flag it as tradable, I could sell it to someone using whatever market place I wanted, and simply trade the item in-game. This isn't a theoretical ... I sold so much gold and loot in that game that I literally used it as down payment on my first house.
This should a real eye opener for you as to what "real" ownership means, given got money for selling things that on paper belonged to SOE so I could live in a house that on paper belonged to a bank.
You're also not 100% on how blockchain works. I don't "own" anything, but instead there is a system in place that everyone agrees on that communicates my proof of ownership. This proof of ownership, and therefor true ownership of the token, lies with the blockchain itself. If at any point in time someone (or a collection of bad actors) can manage to control over 50% of the processing power behind the block chain, I do not own the item any more. They do, because they now own the blockchain and I can no longer provide proof of ownerships. This happens, and as we use blockchains for more and more records of ownership, it's going to happen a lot more. There is even more technical ways in which soft and hard chain splits can cause ownership of an item to change and proof of ownership to be rejected.
Nothing plays out differently If they were using NFTs. The only variable is if SOE has the exclusive record of ownership or if that record of ownership is on a blockchain. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but NITHER creates a situation where something impossible is now possible.
@moodycat I don’t care to have a stance either. Just spectating. Still an interesting read, though.
Really don’t get why people are so excited about the ‘metaverse’. You can buy one skin and play it across all the games? Yeah ignoring all the reasons that obviously isn’t going to happen that sounds awful! Everything will be the same!
Is that really the most exciting thing you can offer me? That every game I play would be a jumbled mess of IP that I can play the exact same character in over and over? Because that sounds like a complete devolution of what makes video games so wonderful and exciting. It’s the exact opposite of what I would want.
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing
I wouldn't want an NFT if they were giving them away. Which just reminded me of when Apple gave everyone a new U2 album a few years back and I had to find out how to remove it. I don't want digital rubbish. If they start to add NFTs to games hopefully there is a disable this rubbish option rather than a long winded method of "giving them back".
They could use NFT's for good and create a digital re-sale market where you can resell your digitally purchased goods on stores that support said currency. And have some of the money go back to the developer's/publishers. It isn't rocket science.
“Honestly it feels like buzzwords and marketing smoke… Somehow NFTs are involved. That just sounds like a traditional downloadable game model with NFTs shoehorned into it so they can attract media attention… the NFT serves almost no function, and would be worthless if the server that actually hosts the real content ever goes down.”
Sums it all up for me
@Longondo
I’m sorry my friend, that’s just not what NFTs do.
Let’s look at a Steam game you “own” in a country where the laws force Steam to make them tradable. Right now, you can sell that game on the marketplace and the proof of ownership is transferred from the seller to the buyer on Valves systems.
If the game was instead and NFT, then when you tried to open it Steam would ask me for a proof of ownership, which you could get by accessing the blockchain and entering a password. A transfer in ownership would involve the password of the seller being deactivated and the password of the buyer taking over, and that record of transfer would exist in the block chain. It’s invisible to Steam; Valve has no idea who owns the game, it only knows how to verify the proof of ownership.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t stop Steam from doing anything they already do to limit people playing it. They can still geo-lock it so you can’t play it outside the country where they are forced to make games tradable, they can still allow only one instance at a time, and if the game was removed from Steam for some reason, it’s not playable even if you have the proof of ownership.
At the same time, you can do everything you are saying without NFTs. Look at Microsoft and “Play Anywhere”. Right now, if you buy “Halo” off the MS store or as a physical item, you can play it on your PC, your Xbox One, and your Xbox series X regardless of the platform you bought it for. The platform picks the best copy for that system. For example, If the game was remastered but only for PC, regardless of where you bought it you would own the original on Xbox One and Xbox X, and both the original and remaster on PC. You buy "Halo" from MS, you own all the Halo's regardless of gaming platform, but obviously only in the MS store.
Microsoft even approached Steam and Epic to try and negotiate a way to make games bought on the MS store playable on their platforms. They are approaching 3rd party publishers to get them on board. They also have tested ways of letting you “lend out” games you own to other people.
This isn’t an ability NFTs enable, it’s just completely up to the platform owner how liberal they want your "ownership" to be.
@Savage_Joe Aren't they? Then what happens if they become fully integrated into mainstream gaming in general? How do we avoid them? How do we keep developers from trying to coerce or convince us, the average player, from being pulled into this, especially if they use this to make more money?
If allowed to proliferate, we'll eventually have no escape from them until or if they turn out to not be profitable and are abandoned.
Also, what you and @BloodNinja imply, as someone else mentioned, is we can't tackle NFTs as well as other problems. We can, and we should, especially people like me whose main interests involve both art, and video games.
You have 2 issues with video games here.
In theory NFT technology would allow artists and developers to create skins for games that are unique and can be exchanged with other players. They would also be cross-game compatible. A 3rd party like EA or Epic is never going to set up something like this because it is something they cannot control. Epic rakes in millions from Fortnite skins; you really think they’d open that market up? Decentralisation wouldn’t work for video game commodity’s without a platform holder like Nintendo making it mandatory and since when do Nintendo like losing money?
On a centralised network the technology has promise. Going back to Fortnite if each Fortnite skin had an NFT attached to it players could create an internal marketplace buying and selling skins that are only useable in Fortnite or other Epic releases. This however goes against the entire idea of blockchain as you have a walled garden approach where the whole thing is regulated by a private entity, not the marketplace itself.
So it is catch 22: Publishers and platform holders are inherently greedy and do not like sharing profits or opening things up and the only way a decentralised technology like NFT would work in video games is if it becomes centralised which defeats the purpose of the whole premise. Epic could create its own internal marketplace if it wanted to without blockchain technology.
The major issue with an open marketplace is that all digital goods are inevitably pirated. An Art NFT is worthless if I can just screenshot an image and then print it off and frame it myself. All movies, music and games are inevitably pirated.
@RadioHedgeFund Then there's all the hoops, hurdles and pitfalls developers would have to jump to make NFT's viable in VGs. Long story short, they aren't.
http://docseuss.medium.com/look-what-you-made-me-do-a-lot-of-people-have-asked-me-to-make-nft-games-and-i-wont-because-i-m-29c7cfdbbb79
Words of a game developer on the subject, dunno if it was posted before.
The TL;DR though is that NFT assets being integrated into games and then other, completely different games is an undertaking no company or development team would realistically even consider doing. The NFTs would just be abandoned and have no use or value once the game it's associated with ceases to be in some way or another.
I have reread "What is an NFT" many times and still have no idea what it is.
@RadioHedgeFund
"They would also be cross-game compatible"
-No, they wouldn't be unless the publisher and platform owner wanted them to be.
"A 3rd party like EA or Epic is never going to set up something like this because it is something they cannot control."
-Yes they can! You can completely control what NFTs do on your platform.
"Going back to Fortnite if each Fortnite skin had an NFT attached to it players could create an internal marketplace buying and selling skins that are only useable in Fortnite or other Epic releases."
-If and ONLY if Epic wanted the NFTs to do that. And if Epic wanted players to set up a marketplace and sell skins, the skins do not need to be NFTs. DOTA and CS:GO have 100s of independent skin marketplaces.
This seems to be the main misconception, that NFTs are some type of magic "thing" that force platform and content owners to do things even if they don't want to.
What makes something an NFT isn't the "thing", is that the record of ownership is stored on a blockchain rather then elsewhere, like a centralized server. And that is all. That's the complete and total difference.
Using your Epic example, let's say they release a NFT skin. All that means is that instead of Epic's servers knowing who owns it, every time you tried to enter a game with it Epic would ask you for proof of ownership, which you would have to retrieve from the blockchain. Epic can still, at any given time, revoke that skin by not accepting proof of ownership and removing it from the game. Epic could make it so when you put in the proof of ownership you also have to pay them $20 or you can't use it. They could change that to $100 if they wanted. Your NFT does nothing to prevent any of this.
It's like if I own a bar and I keep a record of people who paid for a promotion in advance in a book. That's centralized proof of ownership. If I sold a ticket and that ticket could be used to get that promotion that's an NFT. In both these situations I can still just close the bar and run away with your money. I can still tell you the offer has expired. I can still tell you the promotion only gets you a glass of water. I can still tell you it was limited time or only valid at a different location. I can still just laugh at you and say it was a scam and the ticket is worthless.
Sure, you own a ticket, but I own the bar you are trying to redeem it at. I have complete and total control. And if I didn't want the ticket to be tradable in the first place, I simply wouldn't issue one. You can't force me to stop using my book.
You gain ZERO control by owning an NFT, and in fact, you are legally in a much worse position because, by the vary nation of the blockchain, you can't prove that you were the one who paid for it in the first place.
Game companies can’t even sell video games as it is without employing absolute scumbag tactics. So no. NFTS aren’t good. It’s like Facebook touting the metaverse. Why should anyone be excited about that when Facebook can’t even run their 2d website without viral spread of misinformation and huge amounts of depression. What you currently do is rubbish so why think you’ll be any different with something else?
Does the comment section hate NFTs or not?
First things first- this was an amazing article, surprisingly well researched and incredibly balanced, neither taking a stand for nor against, and simply offering information to let the reader draw their own conclusions. That's better journalism than I've seen from any mainstream news network in the last 10 years.
The use of NFTs in gaming is a ploy to exploit gamers.
It's unfortunate because the technology has the potential to be used for good, to promote consumer rights with digital ownership. But that's not what companies intend them for. And because of the fad of selling worthless NFTs for ungodly sums, the impressions ppl take are about as negative as you can get.
A few facts though:
I see a lot of ignorance about NFTs, which is to be expected because most ppl don't even understand crypto, so they just adopt whatever popular narrative is easiest. How much less will ppl then understand Non-Fungible Tokens minted on a blockchain.
At the end of the day, NFTs has a number of use cases. It's just that, we aren't seeing those use cases leveraged. Instead, we're seeing attempts to cash in on a fad. I'm glad to see ppl standing against it. Just... don't let that become a blank check for ignorance, broadly speaking.
I'd never buy anything not tangible while I can understand if there's market for this stuff, there'll be people to exploit it. Each to their own.
@Ogbert people are excited for the metaverse? Bruh just play vr chat it’s the metaverse but good
This was a great article! I actually finally feel like I have at least a somewhat better idea of how this whole thing works so thanks for doing all the research and hard work!
As for my take on it related to games, I think I'd be perfectly fine if the major companies just focus on improving their refund policies instead of making games themselves NFTs. They just don't sound like they would really add anything of value and would just cause more headaches than anything but that's just how I see it.
@fafonio I can't speak on all creators but artists continue to accept commissions and offer adoptables, it's a system of supply and demand without a metagame speculator market.
I guess books and music could be made into NFT's but it would drive up costs since you can only sell the one instead of an infinite amount of copies and the big payoff would be in the hands of someone besides the creator down the road.
@MegaVel91 oh ok. Are you tackling the problem on this forum or somewhere meaningful? lol
The technology could be used in theory to allow decentralized DRM. Right now if you buy something digital if it has DRM, it means you only have access to it until the store is shuttered.
But what if you could verify with the blockchain/NFT similar to how bitcoin and etherium have decentralized verification? Then in theory you buy a game from steam, but could download it from gog, etc.
The main benefit to Publishers would be:
1. Good PR (So not a huge benefit, but it would say.... allow Sony to shutter a store if in theory people could still archive and play the old games)
2. Avoid governments stepping in when enough 'inheritance' issues stem from people wanting to transfer accounts/games.
Granted, removing DRM can also solve that too. Nor are NFTs the only way to accomplish this. HTTPS for example already allows multiple parties to verify site authenticity, the same could be done for digital goods.
@HedgehogEngine I’m not sure you understand how priorities work. You handle the biggest, most pressing things first, then handle lesser issues later. So if say a workplace had sexual harassment issues and energy consumption issues from NFTs, the smart thing would be to handle the SH issue first, put as much effort into fixing it as possible, then focus all attention on curing the energy consumption issue. The solution to prioritize is actually solving both the problems, just in the right time.
Apparently, I need things dumbed down even more.
Unless it really is the lame idea it presents itself to be and a complete waste of resources
NFTs are "divisive" because they are a ponzi scheme.
There are those attempting to profit from this ponzi scheme, and those who are taking a dump in their cereal.
@BrianJL haha same here
Gaming has changed.
It's no longer about fun, challenge or je ne sais quoi. It's an endless series of proxy battles, fought by viral marketers and billion dollar companies.
Gaming--and it's consumption of life--has become a well-oiled machine.
Gaming has changed.
NFT-tagged gamers carry NFT-tagged weapons, use NFT-tagged gear. Microtransactions enhance and regulate their abilities.
Game launcher control, information control, platform control, metaverse control…everything is monitored and kept under control.
Gaming…has changed.
The age of exclusivity has become the age of control, all in the name of averting catastrophe from mass availability, and he who controls the metaverse, controls history.
Gaming…has changed.
When the metaverse is under total control, gaming becomes routine.
One more thing to shove in to games for a second and third dip in to players wallets.
@HedgehogEngine I think there certainly could be better compromises than just not making NFTs. These companies are in the business of making money; they gotta do whatever it takes to put dinner on the table. If that means dabbling with some cryptocurrency, then so be it. The people that want it will buy it, those that do not, will not.
Honestly, while I wouldn't buy any, it is paving the way with another cobble stone in the path for where the industry is heading. Nintendo is preparing, as well, since they made a hybrid console that's basically a handheld. It was a smart business decision for them to do this, because in a couple more generations, dedicated consoles are gonna be quite niche. NFT style things where people can at least claim ownership over their digital goods might actually be a good thing in the long run.
@SalvorHardin Solid Snake called, he wants his speech back LOL
That was REALLY well done.
NINJA APPROVED
Very thorough, prescient, and necessary article. Glad I took the time to read it to the end. I can’t say my opinions have changed a whole lot, but they’re at least better informed.
I'm not reading all this nonsense. It's a scam and the people who pay for it are contributing to the further downfall of gaming and I hope the companies that get involved go under.
@HeadPirate So in effect they are a waste of time on the games industry because software rises and falls so quickly that having permanent ownership of digital assets is in fact a liability. What good is being able to sell on a 2nd hand software license to a dead console? Retro gaming is only big business because the copies of games are physical. A company like Nintendo would rather sell new licenses for digital games than allow players to buy and sell licenses on an open market.
I can’t even bring myself to get outraged over this. I don’t condone it but it’s just basically another form of paid digital content that I have no use for and no interest in paying for. It may well affect other people positively and negatively but will have no affect on me at all.
People used to buy genuine London fog in a bottle.
Removed - spam
Damn this was confusing. I'd rather read my auditing book. I'm not sure if any games I play deal with or will. I'll just ignore it.
@RadioHedgeFund
WTF are you even talking about?
What is honestly so hard about this? NFTs have NOTHING AT AL ... NOTHING, NO THING, DO NOT IMPACT, NOTHING TO DO WITH, IN NO WAY RELATED to your rights of ownership. If Walmart sold you a CD but stored the record of payment on the blockchain that CD would be an NFT, while also being a physical object you owned. The only impact would be if you wanted to get a refund or claim it on your taxes or something that required proof of ownership, you would need to get proof of ownership from the blockchain, Walmart would not have it on file.
You can permanently own an NFT. You can not permanently own an NFT. An NFT can be a licence. An NFT can be a physical item. An NFT can be a service. Do you know why? It's because ... and please just pay attention ... something bring an NFT only means that it's record of ownership is decentralized and on a blockchain. It has no impact on the item itself or your terms of ownership.
Man I hate living in a world where people think they have the right to an opinion on things they know absolutely nothing about, and do not in any way feel obligated to be informed on an issue to talk about it.
Thank you for this. I understand what an NFT is... slightly more than I did previously. But I'm also pretty sure that it sounds like the sort of thing that won't affect any of the sorts of games that I like playing, so whatever, dude.
@HeadPirate An NFT is nothing more than a serial number or certificate of ownership contained on the blockchain. A digital record that says you own a particular item. A physical item cannot be an NFT because the clue is in the name: it is a receipt, a record of a transaction that cannot be changed but can be resold. It’s like a deed or a green slip for a car. It can be associated with an item (file/biscuit/house) but it isn’t the item itself.
Video game companies have a tight control over their markets and do not like succeeding that control to other. Games like Animal Crossing might offer the ability to create bespoke items just for that game but without a Nintendo-supported, blockchain-backed marketplace that worked across all their titles it couldn’t spread and having a blockchain that worked just across Nintendo consoles kind of defeats the purpose of a decentralised ledger system. It will be a cold day in hell before they let players resell licences for 2nd hand digital products!
If a company like EA starts to do it across their own games it won’t be compatible with Ubisoft titles or anything else because they will want control over the it own version.
When there's a new technology, people will go, "How can I make money from it?", it's never "How can I use it to make the world a better place?".
the nytimes has a nice article on this too today, love epic'
s reaction (scam and scam) http://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/15/technology/cryptocurrency-nft-gamers.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR0twkMgrfoqE3GVb0jhUZs5kJZVkIdplW7QKOzpfpeY-i0HDor59JGe_Ik
@CharlieGirl I've done it multiple times before, either I get blocked or they make up some dumb excuse.
Or they just ignore me.
It's just a new way to separate customers from their hard earned money...
@Z-Core I bet those money hungry goombas would look like the goombas from the live-action Super Mario Bros. Movie.
@RadNitro89 True lmao (What in the world were they thinking with that design??? It's uglier than a bored ape!)
@Noid the people who bought the Dune NFT will probably be able to tell you soon, lol.
@Savage_Joe to be fair, those platforms are already here. The people complaining about not wanting NFTs seem to want to stop them before they're created, or "farmed", which means they're an extra, unnecessary harm to the environment... At least the people I've read who are against them.
Es muy interesante el mundo de las NFT, soy nueva en esto, pero me interesa saber sobre las NFT Games, buscando información me interesó una página que te asesora en la creación de tus NFT Games, y te otorgan asesoría personalizada. Les comparto la página donde encontrar la información que les comento.
Es MitSoftware y habla de NFT MINI GAMES.
It was a pleasure for me to read this article! It's a great job perfectly done so everyone could receive an objective insight into NFTs. Thanks a lot for providing us with worthy intel! By the way, I wonder if one of you could be so kind as to help me understand more about Forex trading. A friend suggested I try using the best micro forex broker http://fbs.com/trading/micro . I've researched and read all I found about Micro accounts, but unfortunately, I still don't have the proper knowledge that will allow me to start using them. I would highly appreciate any help you could provide on this subject! Cheers!
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...