NFT's are just another in a long line of fake things we have seen the past decade.....For some reason, people like fake more than real now...Thats where the world is headed....
For example, NFTs of COURSE can be brought from one game to the next. It actually has nothing to do with what the NFT is to begin with, or its representation from one game to the next.
Super funny that people think it's some sort of trick that this is possible, it just goes to show you how little they actually know. The image connected to the token doesn't have to be the representation of the item in game, it only needs to read the hash to translate to an in game asset.
Yes and no. If you have an NFT from one game, you can't take it to another game and force that other game to accept it. However, that other game could point toward the database where the NFT lives, see that you own the NFT, and interpret that as granting you some particular thing in that other game.
The big question is whether games will do that. Blockchain games where NFTs are the point of the game and gameplay really isn't probably will to some degree. Apart from that, I expect that it will be limited to effectively cosmetic cross-promotional deals.
Exactly right. There aren't many games interested in collaborating like that right now because everybody is rushing to build their own "metaverse", but maybe one day? Only time will tell.
For example, NFTs of COURSE can be brought from one game to the next. It actually has nothing to do with what the NFT is to begin with, or its representation from one game to the next.
Super funny that people think it's some sort of trick that this is possible, it just goes to show you how little they actually know. The image connected to the token doesn't have to be the representation of the item in game, it only needs to read the hash to translate to an in game asset.
Yes and no. If you have an NFT from one game, you can't take it to another game and force that other game to accept it. However, that other game could point toward the database where the NFT lives, see that you own the NFT, and interpret that as granting you some particular thing in that other game.
The big question is whether games will do that. Blockchain games where NFTs are the point of the game and gameplay really isn't probably will to some degree. Apart from that, I expect that it will be limited to effectively cosmetic cross-promotional deals.
Exactly right. There aren't many games interested in collaborating like that right now because everybody is rushing to build their own "metaverse", but maybe one day? Only time will tell.
I don’t know about other people, but if someone is coming into a new game with an advantage that they received from another game?
I don’t have much interest in games like that, zero in fact.
I like to start my new games fresh and I certainly don’t want any kind of competitive game play featuring this style of model.
I see nothing of positive value gameplay wise when it comes to NFT’s. I see plenty to the negative.
Just a big waste of development time imho, that is if your interested in making a good game.
For example, NFTs of COURSE can be brought from one game to the next. It actually has nothing to do with what the NFT is to begin with, or its representation from one game to the next.
Super funny that people think it's some sort of trick that this is possible, it just goes to show you how little they actually know. The image connected to the token doesn't have to be the representation of the item in game, it only needs to read the hash to translate to an in game asset.
Yes and no. If you have an NFT from one game, you can't take it to another game and force that other game to accept it. However, that other game could point toward the database where the NFT lives, see that you own the NFT, and interpret that as granting you some particular thing in that other game.
The big question is whether games will do that. Blockchain games where NFTs are the point of the game and gameplay really isn't probably will to some degree. Apart from that, I expect that it will be limited to effectively cosmetic cross-promotional deals.
Exactly right. There aren't many games interested in collaborating like that right now because everybody is rushing to build their own "metaverse", but maybe one day? Only time will tell.
I don’t know about other people, but if someone is coming into a new game with an advantage that they received from another game?
I don’t have much interest in games like that, zero in fact.
I like to start my new games fresh and I certainly don’t want any kind of competitive game play featuring this style of model.
I see nothing of positive value gameplay wise when it comes to NFT’s. I see plenty to the negative.
Just a big waste of development time imho, that is if your interested in making a good game.
Their best bet in this case is pure horizontal progression.
For example, NFTs of COURSE can be brought from one game to the next. It actually has nothing to do with what the NFT is to begin with, or its representation from one game to the next.
Super funny that people think it's some sort of trick that this is possible, it just goes to show you how little they actually know. The image connected to the token doesn't have to be the representation of the item in game, it only needs to read the hash to translate to an in game asset.
Yes and no. If you have an NFT from one game, you can't take it to another game and force that other game to accept it. However, that other game could point toward the database where the NFT lives, see that you own the NFT, and interpret that as granting you some particular thing in that other game.
The big question is whether games will do that. Blockchain games where NFTs are the point of the game and gameplay really isn't probably will to some degree. Apart from that, I expect that it will be limited to effectively cosmetic cross-promotional deals.
Exactly right. There aren't many games interested in collaborating like that right now because everybody is rushing to build their own "metaverse", but maybe one day? Only time will tell.
I don’t know about other people, but if someone is coming into a new game with an advantage that they received from another game?
I don’t have much interest in games like that, zero in fact.
I like to start my new games fresh and I certainly don’t want any kind of competitive game play featuring this style of model.
I see nothing of positive value gameplay wise when it comes to NFT’s. I see plenty to the negative.
Just a big waste of development time imho, that is if your interested in making a good game.
Their best bet in this case is pure horizontal progression.
Can you give me some examples on how one might make that meaningful?
Yes, nothing new here... Basically change the type of gameplay and try to avoid the power creep. It is hard to achieve, but you can see a good attempt at it in shooter and MOBA games.
In MMORPGs the trend since D&D is to level and to acquire gear.
But in GW1, there was no crazy gears and level max was 20 (everybody was quickly 20), so the gameplay was to get skills and make builds, knowing that these skills were all the same for everybody. However you could select only 8 skills among hundreds of them.
That worked. Best PvP experience I had in MMOs (even if some people do not classify GW1 as a MMO).
Now imagine a set of games sharing these skills. And they would be more or less rare but not more powerful. And you would get them through a Gacha system. That could be a NFT success.
But gaming NFTs do have utility. Never believe anyone, even me, on face value. Do your research.
Raph Koster is building a blockchain game right now. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with...
But what will people do when more blockchain games are doing collaborations? Right now people say you can't bring an NFT from one thing to the next, but collaborations are already in the works, even if they aren't mainstream. But what happens when they are?
Maybe each NFT isn't going to be unique within a game. Then again, maybe it will. Maybe collaborations will be deemed "not worth it" by the majority of blockchain game companies. But it doesn't stop the technology from being able to actually DO it. That's what people need to realize. Even Raph Koster understands that.
The question of whether a game NFT has utility is effectively the same as whether any other item in a game has utility. That is completely dependent on the developer of the game to provide the utility. Furthermore, it can and likely will change after you acquire the item, most commonly by making it far less useful as other, better items are released.
Yes, nothing new here... Basically change the type of gameplay and try to avoid the power creep. It is hard to achieve, but you can see a good attempt at it in shooter and MOBA games.
In MMORPGs the trend since D&D is to level and to acquire gear.
But in GW1, there was no crazy gears and level max was 20 (everybody was quickly 20), so the gameplay was to get skills and make builds, knowing that these skills were all the same for everybody. However you could select only 8 skills among hundreds of them.
That worked. Best PvP experience I had in MMOs (even if some people do not classify GW1 as a MMO).
Now imagine a set of games sharing these skills. And they would be more or less rare but not more powerful. And you would get them through a Gacha system. That could be a NFT success.
But gaming NFTs do have utility. Never believe anyone, even me, on face value. Do your research.
Raph Koster is building a blockchain game right now. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with...
But what will people do when more blockchain games are doing collaborations? Right now people say you can't bring an NFT from one thing to the next, but collaborations are already in the works, even if they aren't mainstream. But what happens when they are?
Maybe each NFT isn't going to be unique within a game. Then again, maybe it will. Maybe collaborations will be deemed "not worth it" by the majority of blockchain game companies. But it doesn't stop the technology from being able to actually DO it. That's what people need to realize. Even Raph Koster understands that.
The question of whether a game NFT has utility is effectively the same as whether any other item in a game has utility. That is completely dependent on the developer of the game to provide the utility. Furthermore, it can and likely will change after you acquire the item, most commonly by making it far less useful as other, better items are released.
We talked about this before. NFT games tend to preserve the old.
The older the better. here's perfect example. Red Village Blood Portals and the new token Mystic Bones. Mystic Bones will have utility but never will it be more than the Blood Portals.
If ever this order was broken it would collapse the game near instantly. There is a real paradigm shift happening.
Yes, nothing new here... Basically change the type of gameplay and try to avoid the power creep. It is hard to achieve, but you can see a good attempt at it in shooter and MOBA games.
In MMORPGs the trend since D&D is to level and to acquire gear.
But in GW1, there was no crazy gears and level max was 20 (everybody was quickly 20), so the gameplay was to get skills and make builds, knowing that these skills were all the same for everybody. However you could select only 8 skills among hundreds of them.
That worked. Best PvP experience I had in MMOs (even if some people do not classify GW1 as a MMO).
Now imagine a set of games sharing these skills. And they would be more or less rare but not more powerful. And you would get them through a Gacha system. That could be a NFT success.
Imho people like all kinds of different things.
I could personally maybe see some appeal if the items were linked to a number of sequels.
But that is charging money for something that used to be free as a motivator.
I personally have zero interest in carrying that model and sharing it between different games.
I just see that as tying your hands creatively if your a developer.
Monetizing it destroys any positive value unless your trying to make money imho.
No Man's Sky and Mass Effect did a crossover where players could earn the Normandy as an S-Class frigate for their fleet. There are no NFTs and no need to own anything. It was unlocked for the account and I can claim that frigate on any save I start. That doesn't even touch on all the mods that offer skins and changes.
I'm not convinced there is any research for me to do. I already understand what blockchain, immutability, and file hashes (and immutable links to them) are and ascribing arbitrary value to them so I can play "cross game" doesn't interest me.
Both BTC and ETH are tanking right now as the stock market contracts a little. Losing 30 - 45% value in a week because international markets are contracting reinforces the notion that these are not as independent as they're being billed and are purely speculative much like stocks and such.
If people are interested then they're free to engage in crypto speculation and gamify that. I'm not and that's okay too. Just stop trying to sell me on it with a bunch of empty rhetoric because I've yet to see compelling arguments and points.
The market tanking *shouldn't* matter when it comes to gaming NFTs. That's the point of utility, there shouldn't BE speculation if there's an actual use for the items.
You don't NEED blockchain to do anything. There is very rarely a singular case where only one thing will ever work in a situation. There are many different ways to do similar things, but when it comes to gaming blockchain is of particular interest because it (in the best possible sense) encompasses a lot of different aspects without having to build it from scratch.
I mean blockchain isn't the first distributed database. It didn't reinvent the wheel. It just became a tool that a lot of developers see the value in.
It's not all bad. I couldn't care less about the speculative investing. I think it's a big part of why the tech has taken such a turn. It never had the chance to develop organically. Once scammers found out they could exploit it, suddenly that's all people think it is.
The people pushing for NFTs have generally done so with the argument that you should want NFTs because then you'll be able to sell stuff and make money. But that only works if you can actually make money selling your NFTs, which you can't if the market collapses. To argue that that shouldn't matter is arguing that making money off of NFTs doesn't matter. In that case, what is the point of NFTs?
For example, NFTs of COURSE can be brought from one game to the next. It actually has nothing to do with what the NFT is to begin with, or its representation from one game to the next.
Super funny that people think it's some sort of trick that this is possible, it just goes to show you how little they actually know. The image connected to the token doesn't have to be the representation of the item in game, it only needs to read the hash to translate to an in game asset.
Yes and no. If you have an NFT from one game, you can't take it to another game and force that other game to accept it. However, that other game could point toward the database where the NFT lives, see that you own the NFT, and interpret that as granting you some particular thing in that other game.
The big question is whether games will do that. Blockchain games where NFTs are the point of the game and gameplay really isn't probably will to some degree. Apart from that, I expect that it will be limited to effectively cosmetic cross-promotional deals.
Exactly right. There aren't many games interested in collaborating like that right now because everybody is rushing to build their own "metaverse", but maybe one day? Only time will tell.
I don’t know about other people, but if someone is coming into a new game with an advantage that they received from another game?
I don’t have much interest in games like that, zero in fact.
I like to start my new games fresh and I certainly don’t want any kind of competitive game play featuring this style of model.
I see nothing of positive value gameplay wise when it comes to NFT’s. I see plenty to the negative.
Just a big waste of development time imho, that is if your interested in making a good game.
That's exactly why I say that cross-game NFTs for real games (as opposed to blockchain "games") will be limited to things that are purely cosmetic or nearly so. Developers need for players to believe that the best way to advance in game X is by playing game X, not by playing some other game and then transferring NFTs over.
No Man's Sky and Mass Effect did a crossover where players could earn the Normandy as an S-Class frigate for their fleet. There are no NFTs and no need to own anything. It was unlocked for the account and I can claim that frigate on any save I start. That doesn't even touch on all the mods that offer skins and changes.
I'm not convinced there is any research for me to do. I already understand what blockchain, immutability, and file hashes (and immutable links to them) are and ascribing arbitrary value to them so I can play "cross game" doesn't interest me.
Both BTC and ETH are tanking right now as the stock market contracts a little. Losing 30 - 45% value in a week because international markets are contracting reinforces the notion that these are not as independent as they're being billed and are purely speculative much like stocks and such.
If people are interested then they're free to engage in crypto speculation and gamify that. I'm not and that's okay too. Just stop trying to sell me on it with a bunch of empty rhetoric because I've yet to see compelling arguments and points.
The market tanking *shouldn't* matter when it comes to gaming NFTs. That's the point of utility, there shouldn't BE speculation if there's an actual use for the items.
You don't NEED blockchain to do anything. There is very rarely a singular case where only one thing will ever work in a situation. There are many different ways to do similar things, but when it comes to gaming blockchain is of particular interest because it (in the best possible sense) encompasses a lot of different aspects without having to build it from scratch.
I mean blockchain isn't the first distributed database. It didn't reinvent the wheel. It just became a tool that a lot of developers see the value in.
It's not all bad. I couldn't care less about the speculative investing. I think it's a big part of why the tech has taken such a turn. It never had the chance to develop organically. Once scammers found out they could exploit it, suddenly that's all people think it is.
The people pushing for NFTs have generally done so with the argument that you should want NFTs because then you'll be able to sell stuff and make money. But that only works if you can actually make money selling your NFTs, which you can't if the market collapses. To argue that that shouldn't matter is arguing that making money off of NFTs doesn't matter. In that case, what is the point of NFTs?
Nope gaming NFTs make money. Red Village Champs earn eth through tournaments. That's out side of their secondary market value.
For example, NFTs of COURSE can be brought from one game to the next. It actually has nothing to do with what the NFT is to begin with, or its representation from one game to the next.
Super funny that people think it's some sort of trick that this is possible, it just goes to show you how little they actually know. The image connected to the token doesn't have to be the representation of the item in game, it only needs to read the hash to translate to an in game asset.
Yes and no. If you have an NFT from one game, you can't take it to another game and force that other game to accept it. However, that other game could point toward the database where the NFT lives, see that you own the NFT, and interpret that as granting you some particular thing in that other game.
The big question is whether games will do that. Blockchain games where NFTs are the point of the game and gameplay really isn't probably will to some degree. Apart from that, I expect that it will be limited to effectively cosmetic cross-promotional deals.
Exactly right. There aren't many games interested in collaborating like that right now because everybody is rushing to build their own "metaverse", but maybe one day? Only time will tell.
I don’t know about other people, but if someone is coming into a new game with an advantage that they received from another game?
I don’t have much interest in games like that, zero in fact.
I like to start my new games fresh and I certainly don’t want any kind of competitive game play featuring this style of model.
I see nothing of positive value gameplay wise when it comes to NFT’s. I see plenty to the negative.
Just a big waste of development time imho, that is if your interested in making a good game.
That's exactly why I say that cross-game NFTs for real games (as opposed to blockchain "games") will be limited to things that are purely cosmetic or nearly so. Developers need for players to believe that the best way to advance in game X is by playing game X, not by playing some other game and then transferring NFTs over.
Unless if a set of games are made by the same company: look! whether you play x, y or z you can use the thing you got in x!
I personally believe NFTs are a cash grab for wanna-be capitalists. I also understand why people who are making big bags from this space are excited about it.
Nothing wrong with that but let's call it what it is.
It's not going to change anything or add anything of value to the world. It's just a different way to be a capitalist.
Dont get me wrong. I am not against them. I just don't think they add much value to the world. Im waiting to see what value is added. I also don't think it adds anything at all of value to gaming. Publishers are going to turn NFTs into more expensive cash shops. Again however they think they need to make money..more power to em, but let's not lie and pretend this is improving the current system. It doesn't.
Im all for the system changing. Decentralize banks? Maybe It should. But this isn't the way IMO.
I also don't like the comparison to the "Gold Rush" of the Internet in the late 90s. It's not the same because the internet actually changed communication. I don't understand what the Gold Rush of NFTs is actually changing or improving for the world. A decentralized internet doesn't change much. It just changes who owns the internet.
This would only matter if the world was 100% digital which it's not and won't be for another 50-100 years. Fully digital to me means, you can wake up and live your entire life digitally. It's Virtually impossible currently.
Here is a recent excerpt from the Legendary British Producer Brian Eno on NFTs
" NFTs seems to me just a way for artists to get a little piece of the action from global capitalism, our own cute little version of financialization. How sweet – now artists can become little capitalist assholes as well.
Can NFTs be a contemporary form of Robin Hood-ism? Is it possible that artists can use these tools to divert some of the global trillions off into some more productive and humane directions? This is what I would like to understand, though it presents the interesting moral question as to whether clean things can be done with murky money.
All the foregoing doesn’t mention the biggest issue: that in a warming world a new technology that uses vast amounts of energy as ‘proof of work’ – that’s to say, simply to establish a certain badge of exclusivity – really is quite insane. All that energy is making nothing that we need. I know there’s ‘proof of stake’ but I don’t know if that can actually work unless everybody changes over to it. And even if it did, it doesn’t address the other issues that bother me. "
My sentiments exactly.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
No Man's Sky and Mass Effect did a crossover where players could earn the Normandy as an S-Class frigate for their fleet. There are no NFTs and no need to own anything. It was unlocked for the account and I can claim that frigate on any save I start. That doesn't even touch on all the mods that offer skins and changes.
I'm not convinced there is any research for me to do. I already understand what blockchain, immutability, and file hashes (and immutable links to them) are and ascribing arbitrary value to them so I can play "cross game" doesn't interest me.
Both BTC and ETH are tanking right now as the stock market contracts a little. Losing 30 - 45% value in a week because international markets are contracting reinforces the notion that these are not as independent as they're being billed and are purely speculative much like stocks and such.
If people are interested then they're free to engage in crypto speculation and gamify that. I'm not and that's okay too. Just stop trying to sell me on it with a bunch of empty rhetoric because I've yet to see compelling arguments and points.
The market tanking *shouldn't* matter when it comes to gaming NFTs. That's the point of utility, there shouldn't BE speculation if there's an actual use for the items.
You don't NEED blockchain to do anything. There is very rarely a singular case where only one thing will ever work in a situation. There are many different ways to do similar things, but when it comes to gaming blockchain is of particular interest because it (in the best possible sense) encompasses a lot of different aspects without having to build it from scratch.
I mean blockchain isn't the first distributed database. It didn't reinvent the wheel. It just became a tool that a lot of developers see the value in.
It's not all bad. I couldn't care less about the speculative investing. I think it's a big part of why the tech has taken such a turn. It never had the chance to develop organically. Once scammers found out they could exploit it, suddenly that's all people think it is.
The people pushing for NFTs have generally done so with the argument that you should want NFTs because then you'll be able to sell stuff and make money. But that only works if you can actually make money selling your NFTs, which you can't if the market collapses. To argue that that shouldn't matter is arguing that making money off of NFTs doesn't matter. In that case, what is the point of NFTs?
Nope gaming NFTs make money. Red Village Champs earn eth through tournaments. That's out side of their secondary market value.
Is that guaranteed money, or merely transferring money from one player to another? Because the latter is called gambling, not profit.
No Man's Sky and Mass Effect did a crossover where players could earn the Normandy as an S-Class frigate for their fleet. There are no NFTs and no need to own anything. It was unlocked for the account and I can claim that frigate on any save I start. That doesn't even touch on all the mods that offer skins and changes.
I'm not convinced there is any research for me to do. I already understand what blockchain, immutability, and file hashes (and immutable links to them) are and ascribing arbitrary value to them so I can play "cross game" doesn't interest me.
Both BTC and ETH are tanking right now as the stock market contracts a little. Losing 30 - 45% value in a week because international markets are contracting reinforces the notion that these are not as independent as they're being billed and are purely speculative much like stocks and such.
If people are interested then they're free to engage in crypto speculation and gamify that. I'm not and that's okay too. Just stop trying to sell me on it with a bunch of empty rhetoric because I've yet to see compelling arguments and points.
The market tanking *shouldn't* matter when it comes to gaming NFTs. That's the point of utility, there shouldn't BE speculation if there's an actual use for the items.
You don't NEED blockchain to do anything. There is very rarely a singular case where only one thing will ever work in a situation. There are many different ways to do similar things, but when it comes to gaming blockchain is of particular interest because it (in the best possible sense) encompasses a lot of different aspects without having to build it from scratch.
I mean blockchain isn't the first distributed database. It didn't reinvent the wheel. It just became a tool that a lot of developers see the value in.
It's not all bad. I couldn't care less about the speculative investing. I think it's a big part of why the tech has taken such a turn. It never had the chance to develop organically. Once scammers found out they could exploit it, suddenly that's all people think it is.
The people pushing for NFTs have generally done so with the argument that you should want NFTs because then you'll be able to sell stuff and make money. But that only works if you can actually make money selling your NFTs, which you can't if the market collapses. To argue that that shouldn't matter is arguing that making money off of NFTs doesn't matter. In that case, what is the point of NFTs?
Nope gaming NFTs make money. Red Village Champs earn eth through tournaments. That's out side of their secondary market value.
Is that guaranteed money, or merely transferring money from one player to another? Because the latter is called gambling, not profit.
No Man's Sky and Mass Effect did a crossover where players could earn the Normandy as an S-Class frigate for their fleet. There are no NFTs and no need to own anything. It was unlocked for the account and I can claim that frigate on any save I start. That doesn't even touch on all the mods that offer skins and changes.
I'm not convinced there is any research for me to do. I already understand what blockchain, immutability, and file hashes (and immutable links to them) are and ascribing arbitrary value to them so I can play "cross game" doesn't interest me.
Both BTC and ETH are tanking right now as the stock market contracts a little. Losing 30 - 45% value in a week because international markets are contracting reinforces the notion that these are not as independent as they're being billed and are purely speculative much like stocks and such.
If people are interested then they're free to engage in crypto speculation and gamify that. I'm not and that's okay too. Just stop trying to sell me on it with a bunch of empty rhetoric because I've yet to see compelling arguments and points.
The market tanking *shouldn't* matter when it comes to gaming NFTs. That's the point of utility, there shouldn't BE speculation if there's an actual use for the items.
You don't NEED blockchain to do anything. There is very rarely a singular case where only one thing will ever work in a situation. There are many different ways to do similar things, but when it comes to gaming blockchain is of particular interest because it (in the best possible sense) encompasses a lot of different aspects without having to build it from scratch.
I mean blockchain isn't the first distributed database. It didn't reinvent the wheel. It just became a tool that a lot of developers see the value in.
It's not all bad. I couldn't care less about the speculative investing. I think it's a big part of why the tech has taken such a turn. It never had the chance to develop organically. Once scammers found out they could exploit it, suddenly that's all people think it is.
The people pushing for NFTs have generally done so with the argument that you should want NFTs because then you'll be able to sell stuff and make money. But that only works if you can actually make money selling your NFTs, which you can't if the market collapses. To argue that that shouldn't matter is arguing that making money off of NFTs doesn't matter. In that case, what is the point of NFTs?
That's not entirely true. You don't need a mainnet to increasingly gain to make a product that you make money on.
Making money is RELATIVE. If you spend 0 dollars obtaining and NFT and sell it for 1 dollar, you technically made money.
And that's the interesting thing about in game economies. It depends on the utility and its worth to the game and not the market to determine a price. That's what should make ANY virtual good valuable.
The chain that it's built on is secondary (when it comes to value, not when it comes to features, costs to run it, environmental impact, etc). Unless you're a speculative investor.
A lot of gamers don't like NFTs not because you pay real money for them (you do that already with cash shops) and not even really because you can sell them (because gamers already do that even when they're not supposed to) but they hate the sales pitch, because it seems very scammy, especially when the big name NFT's are pretty much useless, or end up overpriced due to the very same speculative investors we need to push out of the gaming crypto space.
More than anything the "crash" is more like a correction, and hopefully it scares off people trying to play manipulate the markets.
NFT's are just another in a long line of fake things we have seen the past decade.....For some reason, people like fake more than real now...Thats where the world is headed....
This is a video game community. If there is one thing we love it is “fake” things
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
To me this just feels like FOMO in the sense that people dont want to miss out on something that could potentially be big. The likelihood of this or crypto not performing as some people might want it will just draw in more people wanting to get in on the boom more-so than the actual stability. To translate it to a more gamer friendly way of looking at it, it feels like a lot of people are treating this as a 'market flip' (where some people make a lot of money in mmorpgs buying low and selling high). In a way, they're creating their own game out of this.
To me this just feels like FOMO in the sense that people dont want to miss out on something that could potentially be big. The likelihood of this or crypto not performing as some people might want it will just draw in more people wanting to get in on the boom more-so than the actual stability. To translate it to a more gamer friendly way of looking at it, it feels like a lot of people are treating this as a 'market flip' (where some people make a lot of money in mmorpgs buying low and selling high). In a way, they're creating their own game out of this.
You're not wrong. For me the acquiring of the assets I want feels something like a game. Like creating a build. This is the approach I took to building out my TRV barracks. Early on I decided to go all in on one class. The idea was to build the biggest gene pool I could for summoning down the line vs trying to grab pairs of each class.
To the flippers I imagine they get some of the same feel. Different motives though. They tend hop from mint to mint trying to find the best projects and acquiring the rarest things. Then they try to time the market and sell.
In this game Opensea is the global auction house, for real.
My daughter is an artist. Her and her husband contacted an NFT wholesaler.
They want her to create some base images that can be recombined, say a dragon, then a series of hats the dragons can wear, then other interchangeable items (just as you described) so that from a handful of options up to 10,000 combinations can be created and sold for $80 each. In the process they'll mark some as 'rare'.
There is no value to these NFT images beyond the hype.
They don't get "marked" as rare they are statistically due to the combinations. 1% have x hair 2% have x background etc. The value is the quality of the art.
Tell her to do it man. and make sure she gets paid. Right now people in the space are able to take advantage of others who are not like artist. They don't know the worth. She should even try to ink a royalty deal.
Real talk if she does decide to do it, and you guys have any questions I'd be happy to help or even point you to the right people.
Comments
Get off of my cloud
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I don’t have much interest in games like that, zero in fact.
I like to start my new games fresh and I certainly don’t want any kind of competitive game play featuring this style of model.
I see nothing of positive value gameplay wise when it comes to NFT’s. I see plenty to the negative.
Just a big waste of development time imho, that is if your interested in making a good game.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Their best bet in this case is pure horizontal progression.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The older the better. here's perfect example. Red Village Blood Portals and the new token Mystic Bones. Mystic Bones will have utility but never will it be more than the Blood Portals.
If ever this order was broken it would collapse the game near instantly. There is a real paradigm shift happening.
I could personally maybe see some appeal if the items were linked to a number of sequels.
But that is charging money for something that used to be free as a motivator.
I personally have zero interest in carrying that model and sharing it between different games.
I just see that as tying your hands creatively if your a developer.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Nothing wrong with that but let's call it what it is.
It's not going to change anything or add anything of value to the world. It's just a different way to be a capitalist.
Dont get me wrong. I am not against them. I just don't think they add much value to the world. Im waiting to see what value is added. I also don't think it adds anything at all of value to gaming. Publishers are going to turn NFTs into more expensive cash shops. Again however they think they need to make money..more power to em, but let's not lie and pretend this is improving the current system. It doesn't.
Im all for the system changing. Decentralize banks? Maybe It should. But this isn't the way IMO.
I also don't like the comparison to the "Gold Rush" of the Internet in the late 90s. It's not the same because the internet actually changed communication. I don't understand what the Gold Rush of NFTs is actually changing or improving for the world. A decentralized internet doesn't change much. It just changes who owns the internet.
This would only matter if the world was 100% digital which it's not and won't be for another 50-100 years. Fully digital to me means, you can wake up and live your entire life digitally. It's Virtually impossible currently.
Here is a recent excerpt from the Legendary British Producer Brian Eno on NFTs
" NFTs seems to me just a way for artists to get a little piece of the action from global capitalism, our own cute little version of financialization. How sweet – now artists can become little capitalist assholes as well.
Can NFTs be a contemporary form of Robin Hood-ism? Is it possible that artists can use these tools to divert some of the global trillions off into some more productive and humane directions? This is what I would like to understand, though it presents the interesting moral question as to whether clean things can be done with murky money.
All the foregoing doesn’t mention the biggest issue: that in a warming world a new technology that uses vast amounts of energy as ‘proof of work’ – that’s to say, simply to establish a certain badge of exclusivity – really is quite insane. All that energy is making nothing that we need. I know there’s ‘proof of stake’ but I don’t know if that can actually work unless everybody changes over to it. And even if it did, it doesn’t address the other issues that bother me. "
My sentiments exactly.
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
Making money is RELATIVE. If you spend 0 dollars obtaining and NFT and sell it for 1 dollar, you technically made money.
And that's the interesting thing about in game economies. It depends on the utility and its worth to the game and not the market to determine a price. That's what should make ANY virtual good valuable.
The chain that it's built on is secondary (when it comes to value, not when it comes to features, costs to run it, environmental impact, etc). Unless you're a speculative investor.
A lot of gamers don't like NFTs not because you pay real money for them (you do that already with cash shops) and not even really because you can sell them (because gamers already do that even when they're not supposed to) but they hate the sales pitch, because it seems very scammy, especially when the big name NFT's are pretty much useless, or end up overpriced due to the very same speculative investors we need to push out of the gaming crypto space.
More than anything the "crash" is more like a correction, and hopefully it scares off people trying to play manipulate the markets.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
To the flippers I imagine they get some of the same feel. Different motives though. They tend hop from mint to mint trying to find the best projects and acquiring the rarest things. Then they try to time the market and sell.
In this game Opensea is the global auction house, for real.
Tell her to do it man. and make sure she gets paid. Right now people in the space are able to take advantage of others who are not like artist. They don't know the worth. She should even try to ink a royalty deal.
Real talk if she does decide to do it, and you guys have any questions I'd be happy to help or even point you to the right people.