LoL. This all reminds me of the 'outrage' that people had decades ago about F2P. I spent years explaining to people on this forum why for many F2P was a better choice, and how it was going to eventually be the dominant business model. My opinions were not popular, and people were upset about the changes in the market (and still are).
Crypto/NFT gaming falls in the same category. It offers something that will eventually become a dominant feature in all gaming. Just like with F2P, players will have the choice to make it work for them, or work against them (with similar results).
I'm sorry but I disagree that this is anything like F2P. Like Camel said, F2P increased accessibility. P2E shifts the burden of monetization onto the player. I have this sinking feeling that it will end up costing most player more to engage than it does while lining the pockets of a few.
I'd also like to point out that F2P turned out not be the panacea as promised. On the positive side it has increased accessibility. On the vastly negative side it has had several adverse unexpected or unintended side effects.
F2P has lowered the barrier for trolls and cheaters to engage with the game. It has allowed aggressive cash shops and loot crates. Loot Crates have also had a horrible effect on the hobby from a player perspective. Publishers and developers have cashed out at the end users' expense.
The main point in all of this is that what could have been half decent systems ended up mostly bad because of money and greed. Now we don't just have F2P, but F2P with optional (mandatory) subscriptions plus a macro transaction cash shops plus loot crates. The industry has shown time and again that it will push the revenue streams as far as possible until governments have had to intervene.
I always appreciate your well-reasoned explanations and responses, but I'm sorry this time you don't get the benefit of the doubt. The industry has shown what it will do with revenue potentials. So I don't believe it will be better and I am skeptical the industry won't abuse this to its fullest potential. I need to see proof and results before I'll believe it and that isn't going to happen is it?
Great rebuttal.
I'm sure, for a small group of people, NFTs in games is a great idea. Almost all of those people believe they can make substantial cash out of the new system. Almost all of them that fall into the consumer category will be dead wrong.
However, I bet publishers will find a way to make their buck on it. And that will be enough to make it a permanent fixture. I truly feel we're headed for a second video game crash of sorts, what with failed crowdfunded MMOs galore, digital storefronts becoming stuffed with half-baked-then-abandoned games, increasingly dishonest and aggressive monetization efforts beyond crowdfunding, etc...
LoL. This all reminds me of the 'outrage' that people had decades ago about F2P. I spent years explaining to people on this forum why for many F2P was a better choice, and how it was going to eventually be the dominant business model. My opinions were not popular, and people were upset about the changes in the market (and still are).
Crypto/NFT gaming falls in the same category. It offers something that will eventually become a dominant feature in all gaming. Just like with F2P, players will have the choice to make it work for them, or work against them (with similar results).
I'm sorry but I disagree that this is anything like F2P. Like Camel said, F2P increased accessibility. P2E shifts the burden of monetization onto the player. I have this sinking feeling that it will end up costing most player more to engage than it does while lining the pockets of a few.
I'd also like to point out that F2P turned out not be the panacea as promised. On the positive side it has increased accessibility. On the vastly negative side it has had several adverse unexpected or unintended side effects.
F2P has lowered the barrier for trolls and cheaters to engage with the game. It has allowed aggressive cash shops and loot crates. Loot Crates have also had a horrible effect on the hobby from a player perspective. Publishers and developers have cashed out at the end users' expense.
The main point in all of this is that what could have been half decent systems ended up mostly bad because of money and greed. Now we don't just have F2P, but F2P with optional (mandatory) subscriptions plus a macro transaction cash shops plus loot crates. The industry has shown time and again that it will push the revenue streams as far as possible until governments have had to intervene.
I always appreciate your well-reasoned explanations and responses, but I'm sorry this time you don't get the benefit of the doubt. The industry has shown what it will do with revenue potentials. So I don't believe it will be better and I am skeptical the industry won't abuse this to its fullest potential. I need to see proof and results before I'll believe it and that isn't going to happen is it?
Great rebuttal.
I'm sure, for a small group of people, NFTs in games is a great idea. Almost all of those people believe they can make substantial cash out of the new system. Almost all of them that fall into the consumer category will be dead wrong.
However, I bet publishers will find a way to make their buck on it. And that will be enough to make it a permanent fixture. I truly feel we're headed for a second video game crash of sorts, what with failed crowdfunded MMOs galore, digital storefronts becoming stuffed with half-baked-then-abandoned games, increasingly dishonest and aggressive monetization efforts beyond crowdfunding, etc...
Lets make no mistake no matter how much or how little individual players in a P2E game make, the studio will rake it in. The big names are not adopting this because they want the players to make money guys.
LoL. This all reminds me of the 'outrage' that people had decades ago about F2P. I spent years explaining to people on this forum why for many F2P was a better choice, and how it was going to eventually be the dominant business model. My opinions were not popular, and people were upset about the changes in the market (and still are).
Crypto/NFT gaming falls in the same category. It offers something that will eventually become a dominant feature in all gaming. Just like with F2P, players will have the choice to make it work for them, or work against them (with similar results).
I'm sorry but I disagree that this is anything like F2P. Like Camel said, F2P increased accessibility. P2E shifts the burden of monetization onto the player. I have this sinking feeling that it will end up costing most player more to engage than it does while lining the pockets of a few.
I'd also like to point out that F2P turned out not be the panacea as promised. On the positive side it has increased accessibility. On the vastly negative side it has had several adverse unexpected or unintended side effects.
F2P has lowered the barrier for trolls and cheaters to engage with the game. It has allowed aggressive cash shops and loot crates. Loot Crates have also had a horrible effect on the hobby from a player perspective. Publishers and developers have cashed out at the end users' expense.
The main point in all of this is that what could have been half decent systems ended up mostly bad because of money and greed. Now we don't just have F2P, but F2P with optional (mandatory) subscriptions plus a macro transaction cash shops plus loot crates. The industry has shown time and again that it will push the revenue streams as far as possible until governments have had to intervene.
I always appreciate your well-reasoned explanations and responses, but I'm sorry this time you don't get the benefit of the doubt. The industry has shown what it will do with revenue potentials. So I don't believe it will be better and I am skeptical the industry won't abuse this to its fullest potential. I need to see proof and results before I'll believe it and that isn't going to happen is it?
Great rebuttal.
I'm sure, for a small group of people, NFTs in games is a great idea. Almost all of those people believe they can make substantial cash out of the new system. Almost all of them that fall into the consumer category will be dead wrong.
However, I bet publishers will find a way to make their buck on it. And that will be enough to make it a permanent fixture. I truly feel we're headed for a second video game crash of sorts, what with failed crowdfunded MMOs galore, digital storefronts becoming stuffed with half-baked-then-abandoned games, increasingly dishonest and aggressive monetization efforts beyond crowdfunding, etc...
We've been going through it. Check console numbers things fell off a cliff at the end of 2020.
We are headed into another golden age. The next 10 years are going to be mindblowing and it will be fueled by nfts.
LoL. This all reminds me of the 'outrage' that people had decades ago about F2P. I spent years explaining to people on this forum why for many F2P was a better choice, and how it was going to eventually be the dominant business model. My opinions were not popular, and people were upset about the changes in the market (and still are).
Crypto/NFT gaming falls in the same category. It offers something that will eventually become a dominant feature in all gaming. Just like with F2P, players will have the choice to make it work for them, or work against them (with similar results).
I'm sorry but I disagree that this is anything like F2P. Like Camel said, F2P increased accessibility. P2E shifts the burden of monetization onto the player. I have this sinking feeling that it will end up costing most player more to engage than it does while lining the pockets of a few.
I'd also like to point out that F2P turned out not be the panacea as promised. On the positive side it has increased accessibility. On the vastly negative side it has had several adverse unexpected or unintended side effects.
F2P has lowered the barrier for trolls and cheaters to engage with the game. It has allowed aggressive cash shops and loot crates. Loot Crates have also had a horrible effect on the hobby from a player perspective. Publishers and developers have cashed out at the end users' expense.
The main point in all of this is that what could have been half decent systems ended up mostly bad because of money and greed. Now we don't just have F2P, but F2P with optional (mandatory) subscriptions plus a macro transaction cash shops plus loot crates. The industry has shown time and again that it will push the revenue streams as far as possible until governments have had to intervene.
I always appreciate your well-reasoned explanations and responses, but I'm sorry this time you don't get the benefit of the doubt. The industry has shown what it will do with revenue potentials. So I don't believe it will be better and I am skeptical the industry won't abuse this to its fullest potential. I need to see proof and results before I'll believe it and that isn't going to happen is it?
Great rebuttal.
I'm sure, for a small group of people, NFTs in games is a great idea. Almost all of those people believe they can make substantial cash out of the new system. Almost all of them that fall into the consumer category will be dead wrong.
However, I bet publishers will find a way to make their buck on it. And that will be enough to make it a permanent fixture. I truly feel we're headed for a second video game crash of sorts, what with failed crowdfunded MMOs galore, digital storefronts becoming stuffed with half-baked-then-abandoned games, increasingly dishonest and aggressive monetization efforts beyond crowdfunding, etc...
Lets make no mistake no matter how much or how little individual players in a P2E game make, the studio will rake it in. The big names are not adopting this because they want the players to make money guys.
Far past time we stop suppoorting those big names. Giving you the same tasting crap, just less of it every year and for more. I stopped almost 5 years ago.
You have a choice now and many more are on the way. It'll be up to you to make that choice.
LoL. This all reminds me of the 'outrage' that people had decades ago about F2P. I spent years explaining to people on this forum why for many F2P was a better choice, and how it was going to eventually be the dominant business model. My opinions were not popular, and people were upset about the changes in the market (and still are).
Crypto/NFT gaming falls in the same category. It offers something that will eventually become a dominant feature in all gaming. Just like with F2P, players will have the choice to make it work for them, or work against them (with similar results).
There is a big difference in this and F2P...this is trying to integrate a defacto currency that is still in its infancy....
I highly doubt the powers that be are just going to sit on their asses and let their own money be devalued by such and we are already seeing government start to turn an eye on these so....just take a look at China's war on crypto.
Another thing is that games would have to what give up their intellectual property rights on things they make in game that can be traded with crypto/NFT's... dunno don't see that happening anything soon.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
LoL. This all reminds me of the 'outrage' that people had decades ago about F2P. I spent years explaining to people on this forum why for many F2P was a better choice, and how it was going to eventually be the dominant business model. My opinions were not popular, and people were upset about the changes in the market (and still are).
Crypto/NFT gaming falls in the same category. It offers something that will eventually become a dominant feature in all gaming. Just like with F2P, players will have the choice to make it work for them, or work against them (with similar results).
I highly doubt the powers that be are just going to sit on their asses and let their own money be devalued by such and we are already seeing government start to turn an eye on these so....just take a look at China's war on crypto.
The government is doing a pretty good job of devaluing money all on their.
The move into decentralized currencies is because of this devaluation of fiat, not the other way around.
LoL. This all reminds me of the 'outrage' that people had decades ago about F2P. I spent years explaining to people on this forum why for many F2P was a better choice, and how it was going to eventually be the dominant business model. My opinions were not popular, and people were upset about the changes in the market (and still are).
Crypto/NFT gaming falls in the same category. It offers something that will eventually become a dominant feature in all gaming. Just like with F2P, players will have the choice to make it work for them, or work against them (with similar results).
I highly doubt the powers that be are just going to sit on their asses and let their own money be devalued by such and we are already seeing government start to turn an eye on these so....just take a look at China's war on crypto.
The government is doing a pretty good job of devaluing money all on their.
The move into decentralized currencies is because of this devaluation of fiat, not the other way around.
Fiat is criticized because it backed by only one thing: a government. Even at that, fiat currency has one more backer than crypto.
Not really. It depends on the crypto. Some are backed by government currency too.
LoL. This all reminds me of the 'outrage' that people had decades ago about F2P. I spent years explaining to people on this forum why for many F2P was a better choice, and how it was going to eventually be the dominant business model. My opinions were not popular, and people were upset about the changes in the market (and still are).
Crypto/NFT gaming falls in the same category. It offers something that will eventually become a dominant feature in all gaming. Just like with F2P, players will have the choice to make it work for them, or work against them (with similar results).
I highly doubt the powers that be are just going to sit on their asses and let their own money be devalued by such and we are already seeing government start to turn an eye on these so....just take a look at China's war on crypto.
The government is doing a pretty good job of devaluing money all on their.
The move into decentralized currencies is because of this devaluation of fiat, not the other way around.
Fiat is criticized because it backed by only one thing: a government. Even at that, fiat currency has one more backer than crypto.
Decentralized crypto currencies are backed by people, varified by math and secured by code.
The type of backing by govenments that produce that chart above are not better than anything imho. That type of backing has caused beef and chicken to rise 80% of the course of a year. That type of backing has caused gamers to be priced out games. It's shameful.
Word on the street is banks are now gearing up to support crypto as a more secure international transaction option. Not sure if this is good or bad yet.
LoL. This all reminds me of the 'outrage' that people had decades ago about F2P. I spent years explaining to people on this forum why for many F2P was a better choice, and how it was going to eventually be the dominant business model. My opinions were not popular, and people were upset about the changes in the market (and still are).
Crypto/NFT gaming falls in the same category. It offers something that will eventually become a dominant feature in all gaming. Just like with F2P, players will have the choice to make it work for them, or work against them (with similar results).
I highly doubt the powers that be are just going to sit on their asses and let their own money be devalued by such and we are already seeing government start to turn an eye on these so....just take a look at China's war on crypto.
The government is doing a pretty good job of devaluing money all on their.
The move into decentralized currencies is because of this devaluation of fiat, not the other way around.
Fiat is criticized because it backed by only one thing: a government. Even at that, fiat currency has one more backer than crypto.
Not really. It depends on the crypto. Some are backed by government currency too.
Then that crypto would be based on fiat currency, which your boys have decided is utter garbage.
Not necessarily.
The argument I hear is "crypto is made up and not backed by anything" but most stable coins are backed by a fiat currency, securities, assets or other value standards (gold).
But they aren't the currency they are valued on. So USDC isn't a US dollar. But it is backed by USD and securities. There are a lot of stable coins out there on different value standards. It's just s different kind of cryptocurrency.
So in that regard, don't lump everything crypto into one basket.
The government is doing a pretty good job of devaluing money all on their.
The move into decentralized currencies is because of this devaluation of fiat, not the other way around.
There is no move, except the one that appears to be going on in your head. This is really reaching conspiracy level, flat earther, type nonsense.
How do we determine the value of bitcoin, ether, and other cypto currencies? Only by how much someone is will to pay USD for it. Its not the other way around, and it won't ever will be, except for someone trying to live in some kind of deep fantasy techy lifestyle. But they will only exist on the fringes of society, while the rest of the world moves on with centralized governance.
The government is doing a pretty good job of devaluing money all on their.
The move into decentralized currencies is because of this devaluation of fiat, not the other way around.
There is no move, except the one that appears to be going on in your head. This is really reaching conspiracy level, flat earther, type nonsense.
How do we determine the value of bitcoin, ether, and other cypto currencies? Only by how much someone is will to pay USD for it. Its not the other way around, and it won't ever will be, except for someone trying to live in some kind of deep fantasy techy lifestyle. But they will only exist on the fringes of society, while the rest of the world moves on with centralized governance.
You're in denial man. People all around the world have switch to decentralized currencies instead of watching their money inflate away. From turkey to Nigeria to Iran and India. To the United States. The wave of South American adoption by countries for the same reason is incredible. El'Salvido, soon Panama, Argentina.
I disagree. If you are valuing you crypto currencies against the dollar instead of BTC or ETH you will fall behind. The main reason for this is that every one of the top 100 crypto currencies have out performed the dollar.
It's to the point, the question is being asked, is BTC value going up, or is Fiat going down. It's being asked rightly so as shown by the graph above.
All fiat systems have failed throughout the history of the world. The US (and consequently the worlds) experiment with fiat is just over 40 years old. It will fail aswell.
3 pounds of beef will be $15 in a couple years. Minimum wage at $15 will be actually less than it was at $5.
Imho it's best to store value in deflationary, finite, decentralized currencies rather than fiat in bank accounts because of reason above. NFA carry on as you will.
This isn't surprising. It was greedy enough that they were micro-managing their games to squeeze as much as they can from players. Now they are just pushing this greed downstream so they can benefit at the top from it.
If you look at NFT's, and their descriptions, they have nothing to do with gaming. So this transition has nothing to do with the quality of the game, only to assign a virtually increasing worth to what currently has a static worth. that 20$ skin will only increase in cost, while they sell more in the process. Bad all around for gaming in general.
Far past time we stop suppoorting those big names. Giving you the same tasting crap, just less of it every year and for more. I stopped almost 5 years ago.
You have a choice now and many more are on the way. It'll be up to you to make that choice.
Word on the street is banks are now gearing up to support crypto as a more secure international transaction option. Not sure if this is good or bad yet.
Blockchain, not crypto"currency". There is a difference.
I don't like the term hesitancy. It draws unfortunate comparisons to the ongoing vaccine hesitancy story, as if to say "this is objectively good and you don't want it because of misinformation."
No, this isn't hesitancy. We know we don't want it, because you haven't demonstrated that you can use new monetization models responsibly, ever. Nor what this technology is capable of that hasn't already been done better. We don't want our hobbies turned into second jobs, nor we don't want more monetization, and we do only want to play for fun.
I don't like the term hesitancy. It draws unfortunate comparisons to the ongoing vaccine hesitancy story, as if to say "this is objectively good and you don't want it because of misinformation."
No, this isn't hesitancy. We know we don't want it, because you haven't demonstrated that you can use new monetization models responsibly, ever. Nor what this technology is capable of that hasn't already been done better. We don't want our hobbies turned into second jobs, nor we don't want more monetization, and we do only want to play for fun.
It is hesitancy because in the end, blockchain is going to be used whether you want it to or not. Just like with anything else people rail about, once it's implemented, the players still come.
There hasn't been a case yet where the technology, or even monetization changes that werw used completely prevented the market from expanding. Didn't happen with lootboxes. VR hasn't disappeared. Won't happen here.
There's going to be good usage of blockchain and bad. Chances are you're already interested in future games that plan to use it and you don't even realize it.
LoL. This all reminds me of the 'outrage' that people had decades ago about F2P. I spent years explaining to people on this forum why for many F2P was a better choice, and how it was going to eventually be the dominant business model. My opinions were not popular, and people were upset about the changes in the market (and still are).
Crypto/NFT gaming falls in the same category. It offers something that will eventually become a dominant feature in all gaming. Just like with F2P, players will have the choice to make it work for them, or work against them (with similar results).
I highly doubt the powers that be are just going to sit on their asses and let their own money be devalued by such and we are already seeing government start to turn an eye on these so....just take a look at China's war on crypto.
The government is doing a pretty good job of devaluing money all on their.
The move into decentralized currencies is because of this devaluation of fiat, not the other way around.
You are quite naive if you think the appeal of crypto or nft has anything to do with the above.....lol
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Comments
I'm sure, for a small group of people, NFTs in games is a great idea. Almost all of those people believe they can make substantial cash out of the new system. Almost all of them that fall into the consumer category will be dead wrong.
However, I bet publishers will find a way to make their buck on it. And that will be enough to make it a permanent fixture. I truly feel we're headed for a second video game crash of sorts, what with failed crowdfunded MMOs galore, digital storefronts becoming stuffed with half-baked-then-abandoned games, increasingly dishonest and aggressive monetization efforts beyond crowdfunding, etc...
We are headed into another golden age. The next 10 years are going to be mindblowing and it will be fueled by nfts.
You have a choice now and many more are on the way. It'll be up to you to make that choice.
To be extra secure with your data use brave browser along with metamask.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
The government is doing a pretty good job of devaluing money all on their.
The move into decentralized currencies is because of this devaluation of fiat, not the other way around.
The type of backing by govenments that produce that chart above are not better than anything imho. That type of backing has caused beef and chicken to rise 80% of the course of a year. That type of backing has caused gamers to be priced out games. It's shameful.
The argument I hear is "crypto is made up and not backed by anything" but most stable coins are backed by a fiat currency, securities, assets or other value standards (gold).
But they aren't the currency they are valued on. So USDC isn't a US dollar. But it is backed by USD and securities. There are a lot of stable coins out there on different value standards. It's just s different kind of cryptocurrency.
So in that regard, don't lump everything crypto into one basket.
There is no move, except the one that appears to be going on in your head. This is really reaching conspiracy level, flat earther, type nonsense.
How do we determine the value of bitcoin, ether, and other cypto currencies? Only by how much someone is will to pay USD for it. Its not the other way around, and it won't ever will be, except for someone trying to live in some kind of deep fantasy techy lifestyle. But they will only exist on the fringes of society, while the rest of the world moves on with centralized governance.
I disagree. If you are valuing you crypto currencies against the dollar instead of BTC or ETH you will fall behind. The main reason for this is that every one of the top 100 crypto currencies have out performed the dollar.
It's to the point, the question is being asked, is BTC value going up, or is Fiat going down. It's being asked rightly so as shown by the graph above.
All fiat systems have failed throughout the history of the world. The US (and consequently the worlds) experiment with fiat is just over 40 years old. It will fail aswell.
3 pounds of beef will be $15 in a couple years. Minimum wage at $15 will be actually less than it was at $5.
Imho it's best to store value in deflationary, finite, decentralized currencies rather than fiat in bank accounts because of reason above. NFA carry on as you will.
If you look at NFT's, and their descriptions, they have nothing to do with gaming. So this transition has nothing to do with the quality of the game, only to assign a virtually increasing worth to what currently has a static worth. that 20$ skin will only increase in cost, while they sell more in the process. Bad all around for gaming in general.
Blockchain, not crypto"currency". There is a difference.
No, this isn't hesitancy. We know we don't want it, because you haven't demonstrated that you can use new monetization models responsibly, ever. Nor what this technology is capable of that hasn't already been done better. We don't want our hobbies turned into second jobs, nor we don't want more monetization, and we do only want to play for fun.
There hasn't been a case yet where the technology, or even monetization changes that werw used completely prevented the market from expanding. Didn't happen with lootboxes. VR hasn't disappeared. Won't happen here.
There's going to be good usage of blockchain and bad. Chances are you're already interested in future games that plan to use it and you don't even realize it.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.