At high level play, Gods Unchained no doubt requires a healthy set of very rare cards, that is exactly the same for pretty much every TCG under the sun. With my slightly modified Nature starter deck I am now halfway through the ranks, I do have TCG experience so that probably helped when building it. It required zero money.
All cards are available through packs gained by playing or buying. Series get introduced and will be discontinued after a certain time. This does add an incentive to play an awful lot while a series is available or buy a couple of these packs.
Cards come in different rarities (common, rare, legendary etc.) and different editions (glossy ed.) All former cards can be gained by playing and the latter are only different cosmetically and can also be gained by playing but have an increased chance of dropping if you buy, as seen in the more expensive packs you can buy. This is a collector’s thing and not a gameplay thing. This is where the real money goes around.
Gods Unchained has pretty much all the traits of a physical TCG, except that you can also earn packs by playing. If that is fair or not depends on how much you can tolerate the genre in general, not the blockchain. However, none of the above is why I mentioned the game, I mentioned it because the game is really good and has NFT’s, not the other way around. And if I get a really rare edition of a card? Damn right I will sell l it
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I don't disagree with you, but many seem to be ignoring the fact that NFTs minted for use only in one specific game doesn't resolve the fact that, if God's Unchained pulls the plug on the servers, you're left with a useless NFT that you can't even access in any useful way, much less sell.
That is another important difference between the online TCGs and physical TCGs, and it's a huge one with heavy potential implications.
If you think market manipulation is bad, expect more of it from streamers and such when you add in NFTs.
Nope, even if Gods Unchained did pull the plug players would still posses their cards. They will still be able to trade/sell them on any NFT market place, pretty much forever.
What good is it to have cards if you can't play the card game?
At high level play, Gods Unchained no doubt requires a healthy set of very rare cards, that is exactly the same for pretty much every TCG under the sun. With my slightly modified Nature starter deck I am now halfway through the ranks, I do have TCG experience so that probably helped when building it. It required zero money.
All cards are available through packs gained by playing or buying. Series get introduced and will be discontinued after a certain time. This does add an incentive to play an awful lot while a series is available or buy a couple of these packs.
Cards come in different rarities (common, rare, legendary etc.) and different editions (glossy ed.) All former cards can be gained by playing and the latter are only different cosmetically and can also be gained by playing but have an increased chance of dropping if you buy, as seen in the more expensive packs you can buy. This is a collector’s thing and not a gameplay thing. This is where the real money goes around.
Gods Unchained has pretty much all the traits of a physical TCG, except that you can also earn packs by playing. If that is fair or not depends on how much you can tolerate the genre in general, not the blockchain. However, none of the above is why I mentioned the game, I mentioned it because the game is really good and has NFT’s, not the other way around. And if I get a really rare edition of a card? Damn right I will sell l it
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I don't disagree with you, but many seem to be ignoring the fact that NFTs minted for use only in one specific game doesn't resolve the fact that, if God's Unchained pulls the plug on the servers, you're left with a useless NFT that you can't even access in any useful way, much less sell.
That is another important difference between the online TCGs and physical TCGs, and it's a huge one with heavy potential implications.
If you think market manipulation is bad, expect more of it from streamers and such when you add in NFTs.
Nope, even if Gods Unchained did pull the plug players would still posses their cards. They will still be able to trade/sell them on any NFT market place, pretty much forever.
What good is it to have cards if you can't play the card game?
Keepsakes?
One of the reasons physical cards are different is because they will always exist independent of any game system created using them, and the creator cannot unilaterally deny access to said card once the consumer purchases it. Even if the manufacturer sinks, the card still exists in the possession of the buyer (and this frequently increases the value of said cards).
If an asset is created only for use in a game engine that is no longer available, what are you actually retaining with the NFT if the developer revokes your right to use said engine? It would seem to leave gamers in the same place as microtransactions do now.
At high level play, Gods Unchained no doubt requires a healthy set of very rare cards, that is exactly the same for pretty much every TCG under the sun. With my slightly modified Nature starter deck I am now halfway through the ranks, I do have TCG experience so that probably helped when building it. It required zero money.
All cards are available through packs gained by playing or buying. Series get introduced and will be discontinued after a certain time. This does add an incentive to play an awful lot while a series is available or buy a couple of these packs.
Cards come in different rarities (common, rare, legendary etc.) and different editions (glossy ed.) All former cards can be gained by playing and the latter are only different cosmetically and can also be gained by playing but have an increased chance of dropping if you buy, as seen in the more expensive packs you can buy. This is a collector’s thing and not a gameplay thing. This is where the real money goes around.
Gods Unchained has pretty much all the traits of a physical TCG, except that you can also earn packs by playing. If that is fair or not depends on how much you can tolerate the genre in general, not the blockchain. However, none of the above is why I mentioned the game, I mentioned it because the game is really good and has NFT’s, not the other way around. And if I get a really rare edition of a card? Damn right I will sell l it
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I don't disagree with you, but many seem to be ignoring the fact that NFTs minted for use only in one specific game doesn't resolve the fact that, if God's Unchained pulls the plug on the servers, you're left with a useless NFT that you can't even access in any useful way, much less sell.
That is another important difference between the online TCGs and physical TCGs, and it's a huge one with heavy potential implications.
If you think market manipulation is bad, expect more of it from streamers and such when you add in NFTs.
Nope, even if Gods Unchained did pull the plug players would still posses their cards. They will still be able to trade/sell them on any NFT market place, pretty much forever.
What good is it to have cards if you can't play the card game?
Keepsakes?
One of the reasons physical cards are different is because they will always exist independent of any game system created using them, and the creator cannot unilaterally deny access to said card once the consumer purchases it. Even if the manufacturer sinks, the card still exists in the possession of the buyer (and this frequently increases the value of said cards).
If an asset is created only for use in a game engine that is no longer available, what are you actually retaining with the NFT if the developer revokes your right to use said engine? It would seem to leave gamers in the same place as microtransactions do now.
Samething with NFT cards. They will always exist independent of any game system. The creator cannot deny access to said card once purchased. Even if the manufacture sinks, the NFT card still exist in the possesion of the buyer.
If Gods Unchained shut down the owner of the cards would still have and be able to view, trade and sell their cards.
Make money, you mean while playing a game? That would be awesome, but for some reasons devs think they're the only ones allowed to make money off the game, we're just here to spend, while they design crappy game mechanics that lead us into their cash shops , totatally unfair. We should be able to run cash shops, at best they could take a micro percentage from all the business, but right now its one sides, they're here to feaste on us. But yeah it woudl be cool to have fun , and make money doing it, look at allt he work we invest, for nothing while devs get rich. We should be able to feed ourselves in real life killing rats in mmo's. Why not?
Probably a better way for the player to make money from games, is to give players a decent set of tools to build encounters. Players could build events for the game (dungeons, fairs, contests, etc.) set in instanced zones. They'd upload their maps and encounters, along with scripts to operate the event. The game company would review the event, and add any rewards (XP, money, items), then runs the event. Players pay a small fee ($1-$5) to enter, and company and designer (player) split the revenue.
Players design content for others, under the operational control of the game company. Totally optional, but rewards creativity.
Micro transactions. That's the power of blockchain. This is happening, and will happen on a much larger scale.
Using The Sandbox as an example, the content creator buys the land, then builds. The creator monitizes their content through entry fees paid $SAND.
This could easily be done without NFTs. Your response doesn't address my suggestion of the developer as overseer and partner. Enjoy your e-penis NFT collection.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
At high level play, Gods Unchained no doubt requires a healthy set of very rare cards, that is exactly the same for pretty much every TCG under the sun. With my slightly modified Nature starter deck I am now halfway through the ranks, I do have TCG experience so that probably helped when building it. It required zero money.
All cards are available through packs gained by playing or buying. Series get introduced and will be discontinued after a certain time. This does add an incentive to play an awful lot while a series is available or buy a couple of these packs.
Cards come in different rarities (common, rare, legendary etc.) and different editions (glossy ed.) All former cards can be gained by playing and the latter are only different cosmetically and can also be gained by playing but have an increased chance of dropping if you buy, as seen in the more expensive packs you can buy. This is a collector’s thing and not a gameplay thing. This is where the real money goes around.
Gods Unchained has pretty much all the traits of a physical TCG, except that you can also earn packs by playing. If that is fair or not depends on how much you can tolerate the genre in general, not the blockchain. However, none of the above is why I mentioned the game, I mentioned it because the game is really good and has NFT’s, not the other way around. And if I get a really rare edition of a card? Damn right I will sell l it
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I don't disagree with you, but many seem to be ignoring the fact that NFTs minted for use only in one specific game doesn't resolve the fact that, if God's Unchained pulls the plug on the servers, you're left with a useless NFT that you can't even access in any useful way, much less sell.
That is another important difference between the online TCGs and physical TCGs, and it's a huge one with heavy potential implications.
If you think market manipulation is bad, expect more of it from streamers and such when you add in NFTs.
Nope, even if Gods Unchained did pull the plug players would still posses their cards. They will still be able to trade/sell them on any NFT market place, pretty much forever.
What good is it to have cards if you can't play the card game?
Keepsakes?
One of the reasons physical cards are different is because they will always exist independent of any game system created using them, and the creator cannot unilaterally deny access to said card once the consumer purchases it. Even if the manufacturer sinks, the card still exists in the possession of the buyer (and this frequently increases the value of said cards).
If an asset is created only for use in a game engine that is no longer available, what are you actually retaining with the NFT if the developer revokes your right to use said engine? It would seem to leave gamers in the same place as microtransactions do now.
Samething with NFT cards. They will always exist independent of any game system. The creator cannot deny access to said card once purchased. Even if the manufacture sinks, the NFT card still exist in the possesion of the buyer.
If Gods Unchained shut down the owner of the cards would still have and be able to view, trade and sell their cards.
Without the game itself, you're reduced to owning an art NFT that, like all art NFTs, can be copy/pasta'd infinitely and freely so long as one single person uploads the image to the internet.
Physical cards cannot be so easily and freely copied and deteriorate far more easily and quickly. This difference will become important when you consider collectible resale value.
Make money, you mean while playing a game? That would be awesome, but for some reasons devs think they're the only ones allowed to make money off the game, we're just here to spend, while they design crappy game mechanics that lead us into their cash shops , totatally unfair. We should be able to run cash shops, at best they could take a micro percentage from all the business, but right now its one sides, they're here to feaste on us. But yeah it woudl be cool to have fun , and make money doing it, look at allt he work we invest, for nothing while devs get rich. We should be able to feed ourselves in real life killing rats in mmo's. Why not?
Probably a better way for the player to make money from games, is to give players a decent set of tools to build encounters. Players could build events for the game (dungeons, fairs, contests, etc.) set in instanced zones. They'd upload their maps and encounters, along with scripts to operate the event. The game company would review the event, and add any rewards (XP, money, items), then runs the event. Players pay a small fee ($1-$5) to enter, and company and designer (player) split the revenue.
Players design content for others, under the operational control of the game company. Totally optional, but rewards creativity.
Micro transactions. That's the power of blockchain. This is happening, and will happen on a much larger scale.
Using The Sandbox as an example, the content creator buys the land, then builds. The creator monitizes their content through entry fees paid $SAND.
This could easily be done without NFTs. Your response doesn't address my suggestion of the developer as overseer and partner. Enjoy your e-penis NFT collection.
You had a great thought. Not sure why you took offense.
Micro transaction in terms of blockchain usually refers to streams of small transactions of less than a penny. For example a streamer being paid real time for their viewers. A song stream paying the artist realtime, all without a third party. This can't be done easily without blockchain because it's too expensive to make very small transaction on a consistant basis.
I'm not sure quite what you mean by "overseer", but your idea is solid. The foundation is being laid. If you don't build it yourself, I'm sure we will see many more iterations developer, creator, player in the near future.
At high level play, Gods Unchained no doubt requires a healthy set of very rare cards, that is exactly the same for pretty much every TCG under the sun. With my slightly modified Nature starter deck I am now halfway through the ranks, I do have TCG experience so that probably helped when building it. It required zero money.
All cards are available through packs gained by playing or buying. Series get introduced and will be discontinued after a certain time. This does add an incentive to play an awful lot while a series is available or buy a couple of these packs.
Cards come in different rarities (common, rare, legendary etc.) and different editions (glossy ed.) All former cards can be gained by playing and the latter are only different cosmetically and can also be gained by playing but have an increased chance of dropping if you buy, as seen in the more expensive packs you can buy. This is a collector’s thing and not a gameplay thing. This is where the real money goes around.
Gods Unchained has pretty much all the traits of a physical TCG, except that you can also earn packs by playing. If that is fair or not depends on how much you can tolerate the genre in general, not the blockchain. However, none of the above is why I mentioned the game, I mentioned it because the game is really good and has NFT’s, not the other way around. And if I get a really rare edition of a card? Damn right I will sell l it
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I don't disagree with you, but many seem to be ignoring the fact that NFTs minted for use only in one specific game doesn't resolve the fact that, if God's Unchained pulls the plug on the servers, you're left with a useless NFT that you can't even access in any useful way, much less sell.
That is another important difference between the online TCGs and physical TCGs, and it's a huge one with heavy potential implications.
If you think market manipulation is bad, expect more of it from streamers and such when you add in NFTs.
Nope, even if Gods Unchained did pull the plug players would still posses their cards. They will still be able to trade/sell them on any NFT market place, pretty much forever.
What good is it to have cards if you can't play the card game?
Keepsakes?
One of the reasons physical cards are different is because they will always exist independent of any game system created using them, and the creator cannot unilaterally deny access to said card once the consumer purchases it. Even if the manufacturer sinks, the card still exists in the possession of the buyer (and this frequently increases the value of said cards).
If an asset is created only for use in a game engine that is no longer available, what are you actually retaining with the NFT if the developer revokes your right to use said engine? It would seem to leave gamers in the same place as microtransactions do now.
Samething with NFT cards. They will always exist independent of any game system. The creator cannot deny access to said card once purchased. Even if the manufacture sinks, the NFT card still exist in the possesion of the buyer.
If Gods Unchained shut down the owner of the cards would still have and be able to view, trade and sell their cards.
Without the game itself, you're reduced to owning an art NFT that, like all art NFTs, can be copy/pasta'd infinitely and freely so long as one single person uploads the image to the internet.
Physical cards cannot be so easily and freely copied and deteriorate far more easily and quickly. This difference will become important when you consider collectible resale value.
There will always be a place for physical collectables. I still have boxes of unopened cards from 94. There's a many reasons why Tops, Marvel, DC, and many more are issuing digital collectables though.
At high level play, Gods Unchained no doubt requires a healthy set of very rare cards, that is exactly the same for pretty much every TCG under the sun. With my slightly modified Nature starter deck I am now halfway through the ranks, I do have TCG experience so that probably helped when building it. It required zero money.
All cards are available through packs gained by playing or buying. Series get introduced and will be discontinued after a certain time. This does add an incentive to play an awful lot while a series is available or buy a couple of these packs.
Cards come in different rarities (common, rare, legendary etc.) and different editions (glossy ed.) All former cards can be gained by playing and the latter are only different cosmetically and can also be gained by playing but have an increased chance of dropping if you buy, as seen in the more expensive packs you can buy. This is a collector’s thing and not a gameplay thing. This is where the real money goes around.
Gods Unchained has pretty much all the traits of a physical TCG, except that you can also earn packs by playing. If that is fair or not depends on how much you can tolerate the genre in general, not the blockchain. However, none of the above is why I mentioned the game, I mentioned it because the game is really good and has NFT’s, not the other way around. And if I get a really rare edition of a card? Damn right I will sell l it
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I don't disagree with you, but many seem to be ignoring the fact that NFTs minted for use only in one specific game doesn't resolve the fact that, if God's Unchained pulls the plug on the servers, you're left with a useless NFT that you can't even access in any useful way, much less sell.
That is another important difference between the online TCGs and physical TCGs, and it's a huge one with heavy potential implications.
If you think market manipulation is bad, expect more of it from streamers and such when you add in NFTs.
Nope, even if Gods Unchained did pull the plug players would still posses their cards. They will still be able to trade/sell them on any NFT market place, pretty much forever.
What good is it to have cards if you can't play the card game?
I dunno know about you, but I used them to cover the floor.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Samething with NFT cards. They will always exist independent of any game system. The creator cannot deny access to said card once purchased. Even if the manufacture sinks, the NFT card still exist in the possesion of the buyer.
If Gods Unchained shut down the owner of the cards would still have and be able to view, trade and sell their cards.
Is that necessarily true? I'm not sure. From what I understand, it would be too expensive to have art assets or large amounts of data on a blockchain. Instead, the NFT contains or points to some data that can be interpreted by the game server to give you access to the card/item.
So, you have access to the NFT, which contains some data, but you won't necessarily have access to the game server that would interpret that data in the correct or same way as when you bought/earned the NFT.
Although, the data in the NFT is immutable, it can be interpreted in any way. For example, an mmorpg can change the formula used to calculate the damage done by an NFT sword. The data on the NFT would be the same (e.g. "attackPower = 4"), but how that data is interpreted by the game server can change at any time.
And If the game servers shutdown, you would need a third party to step in with servers that would interpret the NFT data correctly with the right text, art assets, etc. or else you wouldn't be able to see your card/item again. But then that could become an IP rights issue. For example, Marvel may not give third parties the rights to interpret my Spiderman NFT using the right assets, etc. So I couldn't use my Spiderman NFT in a DC NFT game.
Moreover, if the NFT does not actually contain the data, but instead simply contains a URL pointing to the location where the data is actually stored, then once that storage server goes down your NFT will no longer provide you with access to the data rendering it worthless.
I read some articles that bring up some good points.
Samething with NFT cards. They will always exist independent of any game system. The creator cannot deny access to said card once purchased. Even if the manufacture sinks, the NFT card still exist in the possesion of the buyer.
If Gods Unchained shut down the owner of the cards would still have and be able to view, trade and sell their cards.
Is that necessarily true? I'm not sure. From what I understand, it would be too expensive to have art assets or large amounts of data on a blockchain. Instead, the NFT contains or points to some data that can be interpreted by the game server to give you access to the card/item.
So, you have access to the NFT, which contains some data, but you won't necessarily have access to the game server that would interpret that data in the correct or same way as when you bought/earned the NFT.
Although, the data in the NFT is immutable, it can be interpreted in any way. For example, an mmorpg can change the formula used to calculate the damage done by an NFT sword. The data on the NFT would be the same (e.g. "attackPower = 4"), but how that data is interpreted by the game server can change at any time.
And If the game servers shutdown, you would need a third party to step in with servers that would interpret the NFT data correctly with the right text, art assets, etc. or else you wouldn't be able to see your card/item again. But then that could become an IP rights issue. For example, Marvel may not give third parties the rights to interpret my Spiderman NFT using the right assets, etc. So I couldn't use my Spiderman NFT in a DC NFT game.
Moreover, if the NFT does not actually contain the data, but instead simply contains a URL pointing to the location where the data is actually stored, then once that storage server goes down your NFT will no longer provide you with access to the data rendering it worthless.
I read some articles that bring up some good points.
That's partially true. Most NFT are not stored on centralized servers, ie a game studio. They are stored using IPFS.
If any NFT you purchase is stored in the former Everything you said is true, and should be avoided. This is where those huge blunders and rug pulls come from.
If stored in the later, there is no safer method of storing immutable information. The "link" points to the IFPS location, nft data, which is secured by your private key.
At high level play, Gods Unchained no doubt requires a healthy set of very rare cards, that is exactly the same for pretty much every TCG under the sun. With my slightly modified Nature starter deck I am now halfway through the ranks, I do have TCG experience so that probably helped when building it. It required zero money.
All cards are available through packs gained by playing or buying. Series get introduced and will be discontinued after a certain time. This does add an incentive to play an awful lot while a series is available or buy a couple of these packs.
Cards come in different rarities (common, rare, legendary etc.) and different editions (glossy ed.) All former cards can be gained by playing and the latter are only different cosmetically and can also be gained by playing but have an increased chance of dropping if you buy, as seen in the more expensive packs you can buy. This is a collector’s thing and not a gameplay thing. This is where the real money goes around.
Gods Unchained has pretty much all the traits of a physical TCG, except that you can also earn packs by playing. If that is fair or not depends on how much you can tolerate the genre in general, not the blockchain. However, none of the above is why I mentioned the game, I mentioned it because the game is really good and has NFT’s, not the other way around. And if I get a really rare edition of a card? Damn right I will sell l it
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I don't disagree with you, but many seem to be ignoring the fact that NFTs minted for use only in one specific game doesn't resolve the fact that, if God's Unchained pulls the plug on the servers, you're left with a useless NFT that you can't even access in any useful way, much less sell.
That is another important difference between the online TCGs and physical TCGs, and it's a huge one with heavy potential implications.
If you think market manipulation is bad, expect more of it from streamers and such when you add in NFTs.
Nope, even if Gods Unchained did pull the plug players would still posses their cards. They will still be able to trade/sell them on any NFT market place, pretty much forever.
What good is it to have cards if you can't play the card game?
I dunno know about you, but I used them to cover the floor.
I cant imagine walking into that house. Wonder if there are any rare cards in there
I was in a WaWa here in Philly last week with my 10 year old son. They had Pokemon packs sitting at the cashier counter , and he asked if he could get a couple , I let him grab 2 , we get home and hes yelling all excited he got a special card , I looked it up for him. Its valued at 1563.00$ .. Pretty happy kid as he put it in his book ..
Joining this thread way too late. Hopefully someone still follows it to enlighten me.
I am confused as to who "pays" in a system where everyone makes money by playing.
Either it would be paid for by the advertising and tech companies in exchange for user data / advertising. This would probably take way too long to generate any meaningful income, or the experience would be absolutely horrific with an overflow of ads. This doesn't seem feasible?
Or is there some implied hype train where people get in early, and the in-game currency grows in value as new people create more demand for it, therefore paying out those who are currently playing? That does not seem sustainable.
The only other system I can think of is akin to the existing PLEX/Wow-Token system, where players play to generate items, and others then decide to buy those virtual goods with real money, because they see value in the digital stuff. I'm not sure how well that works at scale. Can you see that working and would it be good game design? Perhaps someone would be happy to spend their in-game time doing tasks other people don't want to do, and people with above-average real world incomes would then be happy to pay others for virtual goods.
Joining this thread way too late. Hopefully someone still follows it to enlighten me.
I am confused as to who "pays" in a system where everyone makes money by playing.
Either it would be paid for by the advertising and tech companies in exchange for user data / advertising. This would probably take way too long to generate any meaningful income, or the experience would be absolutely horrific with an overflow of ads. This doesn't seem feasible?
Or is there some implied hype train where people get in early, and the in-game currency grows in value as new people create more demand for it, therefore paying out those who are currently playing? That does not seem sustainable.
The only other system I can think of is akin to the existing PLEX/Wow-Token system, where players play to generate items, and others then decide to buy those virtual goods with real money, because they see value in the digital stuff. I'm not sure how well that works at scale. Can you see that working and would it be good game design? Perhaps someone would be happy to spend their in-game time doing tasks other people don't want to do, and people with above-average real world incomes would then be happy to pay others for virtual goods.
Different games have different models. The model that bcbully seems to favor is everyone trying to make money off of everyone else, and most of them failing at it. It's not really a new idea. See Entropia for a much older example.
There are also some games where you could make a little money but can't really make a lot. For example, if Blizzard were to pay the top 100 WoW players (by some arbitrary metric) $50 each month, that wouldn't really disrupt their business model.
The most prominent games that are heavily promote "play to earn" are basically your option (2). It's not sustainable, but it doesn't need to be. So long as the company that made the game gets their money before the model collapses, the game is a success. The suckers who bought high and now have to either sell low or never get any money back aren't their problem.
Joining this thread way too late. Hopefully someone still follows it to enlighten me.
I am confused as to who "pays" in a system where everyone makes money by playing.
Either it would be paid for by the advertising and tech companies in exchange for user data / advertising. This would probably take way too long to generate any meaningful income, or the experience would be absolutely horrific with an overflow of ads. This doesn't seem feasible?
Or is there some implied hype train where people get in early, and the in-game currency grows in value as new people create more demand for it, therefore paying out those who are currently playing? That does not seem sustainable.
The only other system I can think of is akin to the existing PLEX/Wow-Token system, where players play to generate items, and others then decide to buy those virtual goods with real money, because they see value in the digital stuff. I'm not sure how well that works at scale. Can you see that working and would it be good game design? Perhaps someone would be happy to spend their in-game time doing tasks other people don't want to do, and people with above-average real world incomes would then be happy to pay others for virtual goods.
Different games have different models. The model that bcbully seems to favor is everyone trying to make money off of everyone else, and most of them failing at it. It's not really a new idea. See Entropia for a much older example.
There are also some games where you could make a little money but can't really make a lot. For example, if Blizzard were to pay the top 100 WoW players (by some arbitrary metric) $50 each month, that wouldn't really disrupt their business model.
The most prominent games that are heavily promote "play to earn" are basically your option (2). It's not sustainable, but it doesn't need to be. So long as the company that made the game gets their money before the model collapses, the game is a success. The suckers who bought high and now have to either sell low or never get any money back aren't their problem.
At high level play, Gods Unchained no doubt requires a healthy set of very rare cards, that is exactly the same for pretty much every TCG under the sun. With my slightly modified Nature starter deck I am now halfway through the ranks, I do have TCG experience so that probably helped when building it. It required zero money.
All cards are available through packs gained by playing or buying. Series get introduced and will be discontinued after a certain time. This does add an incentive to play an awful lot while a series is available or buy a couple of these packs.
Cards come in different rarities (common, rare, legendary etc.) and different editions (glossy ed.) All former cards can be gained by playing and the latter are only different cosmetically and can also be gained by playing but have an increased chance of dropping if you buy, as seen in the more expensive packs you can buy. This is a collector’s thing and not a gameplay thing. This is where the real money goes around.
Gods Unchained has pretty much all the traits of a physical TCG, except that you can also earn packs by playing. If that is fair or not depends on how much you can tolerate the genre in general, not the blockchain. However, none of the above is why I mentioned the game, I mentioned it because the game is really good and has NFT’s, not the other way around. And if I get a really rare edition of a card? Damn right I will sell l it
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I don't disagree with you, but many seem to be ignoring the fact that NFTs minted for use only in one specific game doesn't resolve the fact that, if God's Unchained pulls the plug on the servers, you're left with a useless NFT that you can't even access in any useful way, much less sell.
That is another important difference between the online TCGs and physical TCGs, and it's a huge one with heavy potential implications.
If you think market manipulation is bad, expect more of it from streamers and such when you add in NFTs.
Nope, even if Gods Unchained did pull the plug players would still posses their cards. They will still be able to trade/sell them on any NFT market place, pretty much forever.
What good is it to have cards if you can't play the card game?
I dunno know about you, but I used them to cover the floor.
I cant imagine walking into that house. Wonder if there are any rare cards in there
I’m thinking it would make a hell of a game of Twister
The most prominent games that are heavily promote "play to earn" are basically your option (2). It's not sustainable, but it doesn't need to be. So long as the company that made the game gets their money before the model collapses, the game is a success. The suckers who bought high and now have to either sell low or never get any money back aren't their problem.
Why are you so bitter?
Well I am very skeptical of P2E games, for the same reason why I don't do door to door sales, pyramid schemes, or play the slots at the local casino.
Not saying you can't make the money.. just saying.. only a few.. very.. very.. few.. ever really make the big money at it.
The problem with these systems, regardless if it is a game or something else, is that it preys upon the idea that the people coming in are millionaires waiting to happen.. and they don't happen.
They end up with a pile of Tupperware bowls in their cabinets and all their lids are Stanly.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
The most prominent games that are heavily promote "play to earn" are basically your option (2). It's not sustainable, but it doesn't need to be. So long as the company that made the game gets their money before the model collapses, the game is a success. The suckers who bought high and now have to either sell low or never get any money back aren't their problem.
Why are you so bitter?
Well I am very skeptical of P2E games, for the same reason why I don't do door to door sales, pyramid schemes, or play the slots at the local casino.
Not saying you can't make the money.. just saying.. only a few.. very.. very.. few.. ever really make the big money at it.
The problem with these systems, regardless if it is a game or something else, is that it preys upon the idea that the people coming in are millionaires waiting to happen.. and they don't happen.
They end up with a pile of Tupperware bowls in their cabinets and all their lids are Stanly.
There is a good chance that the Pareto Principle apply to this as well. Which is fine. About 20% will make money, and about 1% will make the big bucks.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
The most prominent games that are heavily promote "play to earn" are basically your option (2). It's not sustainable, but it doesn't need to be. So long as the company that made the game gets their money before the model collapses, the game is a success. The suckers who bought high and now have to either sell low or never get any money back aren't their problem.
Why are you so bitter?
Well I am very skeptical of P2E games, for the same reason why I don't do door to door sales, pyramid schemes, or play the slots at the local casino.
Not saying you can't make the money.. just saying.. only a few.. very.. very.. few.. ever really make the big money at it.
The problem with these systems, regardless if it is a game or something else, is that it preys upon the idea that the people coming in are millionaires waiting to happen.. and they don't happen.
They end up with a pile of Tupperware bowls in their cabinets and all their lids are Stanly.
The EVE guys comment was over the top.
I'm not sure where the get rich quick narrative has come from on these forums outside of that.
The most prominent games that are heavily promote "play to earn" are basically your option (2). It's not sustainable, but it doesn't need to be. So long as the company that made the game gets their money before the model collapses, the game is a success. The suckers who bought high and now have to either sell low or never get any money back aren't their problem.
Why are you so bitter?
Well I am very skeptical of P2E games, for the same reason why I don't do door to door sales, pyramid schemes, or play the slots at the local casino.
Not saying you can't make the money.. just saying.. only a few.. very.. very.. few.. ever really make the big money at it.
The problem with these systems, regardless if it is a game or something else, is that it preys upon the idea that the people coming in are millionaires waiting to happen.. and they don't happen.
They end up with a pile of Tupperware bowls in their cabinets and all their lids are Stanly.
The EVE guys comment was over the top.
I'm not sure where the get rich quick narrative has come from on these forums outside of that.
Lets be honest, because that is what is being sold.
I mean, no one is selling and marketing "Become a Gold Farmer, and make just over min wage grinding a game to the point that you hate it, and feel like you would rather just go to work and stock shelves in a grocery store, then farm the same 20 mobs for 10 hours a day for the same amount of money, maybe a bit less"
They are selling a pipe dream of "Play the games you love and get rich in the process"
Just like people sell many things, showing how fantastic they can be, and they are often.. shall we say.. Not Fantastic.
It reminds me a joke I used to tell my family, when we were all around the BBQ, drinking, smoking and the like, and a few of them would talk about quitting smoking, and they would be like "One day, I'll just stop"
I would tell them "Roughly only 10% of all the people that actually quit smoking, did it cold turkey, the thing is, everyone wants to be in that 10%, but it's 10% for a reason, and you ain't gonna be in it"
I feel this same way about these games were you can make money. Sure, I could make money, but ideally, only a few will, and everyone will rush in with the idea they will be that 1% or whatever, when in reality, they will be the people, 10 years later, still sucking down a pack a day of Marlboro reds, thinking "Any day now.. and Poof, I'll quit.. Any day Now"
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
The most prominent games that are heavily promote "play to earn" are basically your option (2). It's not sustainable, but it doesn't need to be. So long as the company that made the game gets their money before the model collapses, the game is a success. The suckers who bought high and now have to either sell low or never get any money back aren't their problem.
Why are you so bitter?
Well I am very skeptical of P2E games, for the same reason why I don't do door to door sales, pyramid schemes, or play the slots at the local casino.
Not saying you can't make the money.. just saying.. only a few.. very.. very.. few.. ever really make the big money at it.
The problem with these systems, regardless if it is a game or something else, is that it preys upon the idea that the people coming in are millionaires waiting to happen.. and they don't happen.
They end up with a pile of Tupperware bowls in their cabinets and all their lids are Stanly.
The EVE guys comment was over the top.
I'm not sure where the get rich quick narrative has come from on these forums outside of that.
Lets be honest, because that is what is being sold.
I mean, no one is selling and marketing "Become a Gold Farmer, and make just over min wage grinding a game to the point that you hate it, and feel like you would rather just go to work and stock shelves in a grocery store, then farm the same 20 mobs for 10 hours a day for the same amount of money, maybe a bit less"
They are selling a pipe dream of "Play the games you love and get rich in the process"
Just like people sell many things, showing how fantastic they can be, and they are often.. shall we say.. Not Fantastic.
It reminds me a joke I used to tell my family, when we were all around the BBQ, drinking, smoking and the like, and a few of them would talk about quitting smoking, and they would be like "One day, I'll just stop"
I would tell them "Roughly only 10% of all the people that actually quit smoking, did it cold turkey, the thing is, everyone wants to be in that 10%, but it's 10% for a reason, and you ain't gonna be in it"
I feel this same way about these games were you can make money. Sure, I could make money, but ideally, only a few will, and everyone will rush in with the idea they will be that 1% or whatever, when in reality, they will be the people, 10 years later, still sucking down a pack a day of Marlboro reds, thinking "Any day now.. and Poof, I'll quit.. Any day Now"
Those inside the crypto space don't really feel like what your saying. There is no rush in. We are in. Anyone who has been in the crypto space a year or more understands there aint nothing quick about it.
I'll say this. If you are expecting to go into p2e gaming and get rich quick, you might be disappointed. If you go in with the idea of having a good time and making some extra money, you might just be pleasantly surprised.
It reminds me a joke I used to tell my family, when we were all around the BBQ, drinking, smoking and the like, and a few of them would talk about quitting smoking, and they would be like "One day, I'll just stop"
I would tell them "Roughly only 10% of all the people that actually quit smoking, did it cold turkey, the thing is, everyone wants to be in that 10%, but it's 10% for a reason, and you ain't gonna be in it"
I feel this same way about these games were you can make money. Sure, I could make money, but ideally, only a few will, and everyone will rush in with the idea they will be that 1% or whatever, when in reality, they will be the people, 10 years later, still sucking down a pack a day of Marlboro reds, thinking "Any day now.. and Poof, I'll quit.. Any day Now"
Now that we have vaping, people who want to quit smoking generally can, and without too much difficulty, even. Vaping is very similar to smoking in most ways and works as a substitute for the things that make smoking so addictive (including but not limited to the nicotine), but does it without the tar that is most of the reason why smoking is so bad for you. Yes, vaping is also bad for you, but it's massively less bad for you than smoking. As a health issue, if you can convert smokers into vapers, then the problem is something like 90% solved.
The most prominent games that are heavily promote "play to earn" are basically your option (2). It's not sustainable, but it doesn't need to be. So long as the company that made the game gets their money before the model collapses, the game is a success. The suckers who bought high and now have to either sell low or never get any money back aren't their problem.
Why are you so bitter?
Well I am very skeptical of P2E games, for the same reason why I don't do door to door sales, pyramid schemes, or play the slots at the local casino.
Not saying you can't make the money.. just saying.. only a few.. very.. very.. few.. ever really make the big money at it.
The problem with these systems, regardless if it is a game or something else, is that it preys upon the idea that the people coming in are millionaires waiting to happen.. and they don't happen.
They end up with a pile of Tupperware bowls in their cabinets and all their lids are Stanly.
The EVE guys comment was over the top.
I'm not sure where the get rich quick narrative has come from on these forums outside of that.
Lets be honest, because that is what is being sold.
I mean, no one is selling and marketing "Become a Gold Farmer, and make just over min wage grinding a game to the point that you hate it, and feel like you would rather just go to work and stock shelves in a grocery store, then farm the same 20 mobs for 10 hours a day for the same amount of money, maybe a bit less"
They are selling a pipe dream of "Play the games you love and get rich in the process"
Just like people sell many things, showing how fantastic they can be, and they are often.. shall we say.. Not Fantastic.
It reminds me a joke I used to tell my family, when we were all around the BBQ, drinking, smoking and the like, and a few of them would talk about quitting smoking, and they would be like "One day, I'll just stop"
I would tell them "Roughly only 10% of all the people that actually quit smoking, did it cold turkey, the thing is, everyone wants to be in that 10%, but it's 10% for a reason, and you ain't gonna be in it"
I feel this same way about these games were you can make money. Sure, I could make money, but ideally, only a few will, and everyone will rush in with the idea they will be that 1% or whatever, when in reality, they will be the people, 10 years later, still sucking down a pack a day of Marlboro reds, thinking "Any day now.. and Poof, I'll quit.. Any day Now"
Those inside the crypto space don't really feel like what your saying. There is no rush in. We are in. Anyone who has been in the crypto space a year or more understands there aint nothing quick about it.
I'll say this. If you are expecting to go into p2e gaming and get rich quick, you might be disappointed. If you go in with the idea of having a good time and making some extra money, you might just be pleasantly surprised.
And how many of them put money into crypto now with the plan to just leave it there for 20 or 30 years, the way normal people do with long-term investments?
Comments
If an asset is created only for use in a game engine that is no longer available, what are you actually retaining with the NFT if the developer revokes your right to use said engine? It would seem to leave gamers in the same place as microtransactions do now.
If Gods Unchained shut down the owner of the cards would still have and be able to view, trade and sell their cards.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Physical cards cannot be so easily and freely copied and deteriorate far more easily and quickly. This difference will become important when you consider collectible resale value.
Micro transaction in terms of blockchain usually refers to streams of small transactions of less than a penny. For example a streamer being paid real time for their viewers. A song stream paying the artist realtime, all without a third party. This can't be done easily without blockchain because it's too expensive to make very small transaction on a consistant basis.
I'm not sure quite what you mean by "overseer", but your idea is solid. The foundation is being laid. If you don't build it yourself, I'm sure we will see many more iterations developer, creator, player in the near future.
So, you have access to the NFT, which contains some data, but you won't necessarily have access to the game server that would interpret that data in the correct or same way as when you bought/earned the NFT.
Although, the data in the NFT is immutable, it can be interpreted in any way. For example, an mmorpg can change the formula used to calculate the damage done by an NFT sword. The data on the NFT would be the same (e.g. "attackPower = 4"), but how that data is interpreted by the game server can change at any time.
And If the game servers shutdown, you would need a third party to step in with servers that would interpret the NFT data correctly with the right text, art assets, etc. or else you wouldn't be able to see your card/item again. But then that could become an IP rights issue. For example, Marvel may not give third parties the rights to interpret my Spiderman NFT using the right assets, etc. So I couldn't use my Spiderman NFT in a DC NFT game.
Moreover, if the NFT does not actually contain the data, but instead simply contains a URL pointing to the location where the data is actually stored, then once that storage server goes down your NFT will no longer provide you with access to the data rendering it worthless.
I read some articles that bring up some good points.
https://medium.com/@LeonhardStorm/nft-games-are-bad-d126838b3171
https://mcn.edu/mcn-insights-nfts-are-a-scam/
https://www.usenix.org/publications/loginonline/web3-fraud
If any NFT you purchase is stored in the former Everything you said is true, and should be avoided. This is where those huge blunders and rug pulls come from.
If stored in the later, there is no safer method of storing immutable information. The "link" points to the IFPS location, nft data, which is secured by your private key.
I am confused as to who "pays" in a system where everyone makes money by playing.
There are also some games where you could make a little money but can't really make a lot. For example, if Blizzard were to pay the top 100 WoW players (by some arbitrary metric) $50 each month, that wouldn't really disrupt their business model.
The most prominent games that are heavily promote "play to earn" are basically your option (2). It's not sustainable, but it doesn't need to be. So long as the company that made the game gets their money before the model collapses, the game is a success. The suckers who bought high and now have to either sell low or never get any money back aren't their problem.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Not saying you can't make the money.. just saying.. only a few.. very.. very.. few.. ever really make the big money at it.
The problem with these systems, regardless if it is a game or something else, is that it preys upon the idea that the people coming in are millionaires waiting to happen.. and they don't happen.
They end up with a pile of Tupperware bowls in their cabinets and all their lids are Stanly.
I'm not sure where the get rich quick narrative has come from on these forums outside of that.
https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/496544/axie-infinity-a-game-or-a-way-out-of-poverty#latest
I mean, no one is selling and marketing "Become a Gold Farmer, and make just over min wage grinding a game to the point that you hate it, and feel like you would rather just go to work and stock shelves in a grocery store, then farm the same 20 mobs for 10 hours a day for the same amount of money, maybe a bit less"
They are selling a pipe dream of "Play the games you love and get rich in the process"
Just like people sell many things, showing how fantastic they can be, and they are often.. shall we say.. Not Fantastic.
It reminds me a joke I used to tell my family, when we were all around the BBQ, drinking, smoking and the like, and a few of them would talk about quitting smoking, and they would be like "One day, I'll just stop"
I would tell them "Roughly only 10% of all the people that actually quit smoking, did it cold turkey, the thing is, everyone wants to be in that 10%, but it's 10% for a reason, and you ain't gonna be in it"
I feel this same way about these games were you can make money. Sure, I could make money, but ideally, only a few will, and everyone will rush in with the idea they will be that 1% or whatever, when in reality, they will be the people, 10 years later, still sucking down a pack a day of Marlboro reds, thinking "Any day now.. and Poof, I'll quit.. Any day Now"
I'll say this. If you are expecting to go into p2e gaming and get rich quick, you might be disappointed. If you go in with the idea of having a good time and making some extra money, you might just be pleasantly surprised.