It all depends on how the game is structured. Suppose that a game has both an NFT server and a no-NFTs server, and that the latter requires a subscription or some such in place of NFTs. Would the existence of the NFT server mean that you refuse to play on a subscription server?
Suppose that a game made it so that the only way that NFTs got created is that if you had two of the same item, you could pay $10 to make the two items into a single NFT that was tradeable--effectively destroying one of the items in the process. Would that really ruin the game for you?
If the NFTs were not on the server I wouldn't care what they did on the other server, but the challenge would be designing a game that would work for both world types. I have significant doubts that is possible, especially since it seems almost impossible to even craft a great game that has a single world type. But I will admit, not impossible. Just highly, highly unlikely IMHO.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
"With key game systems developed on-chain, this new project will also leverage smart-contract blockchain technology, focusing on persistence, composability and truly open third-party development to create a new relationship between virtual worlds and players".
Explain to me the tech side and the NFT side. Oof!!!
That's the funny thing, they never can explain it.
Systems on chain could mean anything, from running the game completely off of blockchain in a "serverless" manner, to utilizing an in game minting system specifically created to make in-game items on chain.
Doubtful they'll be using a proprietary chain, so it's more than likely going to run off of one of the existing ones like IMX. But yeah the latter part of the quote regarding smart contracts are specifically utilized for NFTs.
While NFTs don't have to be specifically for RMT that's the most likely scenario. Guess we'll wait and see though.
It all depends on how the game is structured. Suppose that a game has both an NFT server and a no-NFTs server, and that the latter requires a subscription or some such in place of NFTs. Would the existence of the NFT server mean that you refuse to play on a subscription server?
Suppose that a game made it so that the only way that NFTs got created is that if you had two of the same item, you could pay $10 to make the two items into a single NFT that was tradeable--effectively destroying one of the items in the process. Would that really ruin the game for you?
If the NFTs were not on the server I wouldn't care what they did on the other server, but the challenge would be designing a game that would work for both world types. I have significant doubts that is possible, especially since it seems almost impossible to even craft a great game that has a single world type. But I will admit, not impossible. Just highly, highly unlikely IMHO.
NFT's are just a gateway for the game to bring in a cryptocurrency, not saying they won't be looking to make money from NFT's but a blockchain does the groundwork for crypto.
NFT's and Crypto are a cash shop idea not a gameplay idea and I have yet to see a blockchain game bringing anything to the MMORPG table gameplay wise.
That idea about separate servers for blockchain and non-blockchain (or just not using the blockchain to rake it in) is as likely to get of the ground as releasing a game with servers that do and do not have a cash shop. The second idea about paying to destroy an item to get an item leads to a rather obvious question, how is that making the gameplay and content better?
I'll never understand anyone's desire to play a game based around blockchain, because it's the same as building a game around a cash shop.
Diablo ditched the real money auction house for a reason. The only gamers that want this crap are the same minuscule % of players that invest in scams like Star Citizen ships. For everyone else it is a negative.
"With key game systems developed on-chain, this new project will also leverage smart-contract blockchain technology, focusing on persistence, composability and truly open third-party development to create a new relationship between virtual worlds and players".
Explain to me the tech side and the NFT side. Oof!!!
Block-chain is not necessarily NFT. Placing a NFT on a digital asset is a way to make something that is easily copy writable have ownership, and the cost varies on the demand.
Block-chain, a de-centralised way of passing secure message and leaving a digital paper trial.
Systems could leverage block-chain for more secure transactions, but what the transactions are will determine the success of this.
The problem we face is with young gamers; they are unaware of the systems they are using and the cost, if this slips in as "the norm" in a couple of decades the market will be consumed with NFT style marketting.
Funding? Isn't that why they have a pay model... to fund themselves.
Right, but why risk your own money when you can get some venture capitalists with delusions of grandeur risk their money in exchange for private shares of the company which may or may not be worth the paper they are written on?
"With key game systems developed on-chain, this new project will also leverage smart-contract blockchain technology, focusing on persistence, composability and truly open third-party development to create a new relationship between virtual worlds and players".
Explain to me the tech side and the NFT side. Oof!!!
Block-chain is not necessarily NFT. Placing a NFT on a digital asset is a way to make something that is easily copy writable have ownership, and the cost varies on the demand.
Block-chain, a de-centralised way of passing secure message and leaving a digital paper trial.
Systems could leverage block-chain for more secure transactions, but what the transactions are will determine the success of this.
The problem we face is with young gamers; they are unaware of the systems they are using and the cost, if this slips in as "the norm" in a couple of decades the market will be consumed with NFT style marketting.
I understand that blockchain and NFTs are not the same. I just don't see how this can be something I want in a game. I cannot imagine anything I want to be secured by blockchain technology. I'm more afraid of what it will cost me to have that blockchain in a game and how much will the focus be on the game instead of the making money with this system. The overwhelming goal will be how to leverage that blockchain as a money making tool. Don't even kid yourself that it is not that. The game will simply be a conduit for this scheme.
I want to see some single-player, buy to play game announce that they're using blockchain for something or other but won't have NFTs, just to see the reaction it gets.
I want to see some single-player, buy to play game announce that they're using blockchain for something or other but won't have NFTs, just to see the reaction it gets.
The correct reaction would be: what exactly are they including them for, then? Most other uses can be done more efficiently using more traditional methods.
I want to see some single-player, buy to play game announce that they're using blockchain for something or other but won't have NFTs, just to see the reaction it gets.
The correct reaction would be: what exactly are they including them for, then? Most other uses can be done more efficiently using more traditional methods.
It would really only make sense with an online component. Like a single player game that uses servers, or allows for trade, but wants to be serverless. Everything necessary for the game to function properly would be housed on chain. There's no "better way" to do that if you don't want players to cheat, and you don't want to run your own servers. You could argue that player hosts make sense, but it's not better, because that would require hosts to have their PC on to host the data.
That's one of the things blockchain does to really well. You can query data publicly. Writing and changing data would also be extremely difficult in comparison to doing it to a local single player game. Depending on the protocol, you would have to have numerous nodes agree that the change was authorized. Depending on how thorough you want to be, changes could be required by a centralized node only. You can get very complex with it if you wanted.
We knew it had to be addressed by the IRS. A rate higher than conventional long-term investments (28% vs 20%) should put a damper on the desirability of NFTs. The prospect for NFT collectibles now seem less favorable than comic books and baseball cards.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
We knew it had to be addressed by the IRS. A rate higher than conventional long-term investments (28% vs 20%) should put a damper on the desirability of NFTs. The prospect for NFT collectibles now seem less favorable than comic books and baseball cards.
But it stated that NFTs like land plots don't fall into the category, which means gaming NFTs fall outside of that category.
I want to see some single-player, buy to play game announce that they're using blockchain for something or other but won't have NFTs, just to see the reaction it gets.
The correct reaction would be: what exactly are they including them for, then? Most other uses can be done more efficiently using more traditional methods.
It would really only make sense with an online component. Like a single player game that uses servers, or allows for trade, but wants to be serverless. Everything necessary for the game to function properly would be housed on chain. There's no "better way" to do that if you don't want players to cheat, and you don't want to run your own servers. You could argue that player hosts make sense, but it's not better, because that would require hosts to have their PC on to host the data.
That's one of the things blockchain does to really well. You can query data publicly. Writing and changing data would also be extremely difficult in comparison to doing it to a local single player game. Depending on the protocol, you would have to have numerous nodes agree that the change was authorized. Depending on how thorough you want to be, changes could be required by a centralized node only. You can get very complex with it if you wanted.
Since when does a blockchain implementation have to make sense? You could use it for something perfectly legitimate where a more conventional database would get the job done just as well, as a way to tell investors, "Hey, you should give us money because we're using blockchain".
I just want to see if players freak out and declare the game pay to win or whatever.
We knew it had to be addressed by the IRS. A rate higher than conventional long-term investments (28% vs 20%) should put a damper on the desirability of NFTs. The prospect for NFT collectibles now seem less favorable than comic books and baseball cards.
But it stated that NFTs like land plots don't fall into the category, which means gaming NFTs fall outside of that category.
Not exactly.
Its said that since a right to DEVELOP or USE a virtual land plot isn't currently taxable, then neither would be an NFT that records the right to DEVELOP and USE a virtual land plot.
That is different from OWNING it. Which is what the NFT ideas I see bandied about in games would be. That you would OWN your +5 sword of Vorpal Slaying. And that virtual item has value. And that would then be considered a collectible. That's my understanding.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I want to see some single-player, buy to play game announce that they're using blockchain for something or other but won't have NFTs, just to see the reaction it gets.
The correct reaction would be: what exactly are they including them for, then? Most other uses can be done more efficiently using more traditional methods.
It would really only make sense with an online component. Like a single player game that uses servers, or allows for trade, but wants to be serverless. Everything necessary for the game to function properly would be housed on chain. There's no "better way" to do that if you don't want players to cheat, and you don't want to run your own servers. You could argue that player hosts make sense, but it's not better, because that would require hosts to have their PC on to host the data.
That's one of the things blockchain does to really well. You can query data publicly. Writing and changing data would also be extremely difficult in comparison to doing it to a local single player game. Depending on the protocol, you would have to have numerous nodes agree that the change was authorized. Depending on how thorough you want to be, changes could be required by a centralized node only. You can get very complex with it if you wanted.
Since when does a blockchain implementation have to make sense? You could use it for something perfectly legitimate where a more conventional database would get the job done just as well, as a way to tell investors, "Hey, you should give us money because we're using blockchain".
I just want to see if players freak out and declare the game pay to win or whatever.
Well, I mean, maybe.... Who's publishing this hypothetical game? xD
We knew it had to be addressed by the IRS. A rate higher than conventional long-term investments (28% vs 20%) should put a damper on the desirability of NFTs. The prospect for NFT collectibles now seem less favorable than comic books and baseball cards.
But it stated that NFTs like land plots don't fall into the category, which means gaming NFTs fall outside of that category.
Not exactly.
Its said that since a right to DEVELOP or USE a virtual land plot isn't currently taxable, then neither would be an NFT that records the right to DEVELOP and USE a virtual land plot.
That is different from OWNING it. Which is what the NFT ideas I see bandied about in games would be. That you would OWN your +5 sword of Vorpal Slaying. And that virtual item has value. And that would then be considered a collectible. That's my understanding.
You can't develop the land without owning it. Owning it isn't a collectible, but it actually makes more sense to tax the landowner rather than the players that built NFTs from the land, which also would be outside of the purview of taxation as a collectible and only taxation of revenue upon sale.
It has value as an in game item that gets sold or traded, usually for a currency that corresponds to a crypto currency that then corresponds to a fiat currency. It's not a collectible.
It would be like asking someone to pay tax on a pokemon card because of its rarity.
But the sale of the item especially in excess of a particular amount of fiat would still be taxable. But because the crypto market is volatile, subjecting people to a particular number based on a perceptual value isn't possible.
For example, minting a sword that someone buys for 2000 monkey bucks which translates to let's say 100 IMX which translates to 120USD could be correct, or, tomorrow that could be 90USD when they cash out. Or 20 USD next week.
That means there's no real perceptible price of an asset unless sold, or unless a price has been provided, and attempting to base it as a collectible isn't possible, you would base everything off of GFE's and there would be no way to prove it otherwise.
We knew it had to be addressed by the IRS. A rate higher than conventional long-term investments (28% vs 20%) should put a damper on the desirability of NFTs. The prospect for NFT collectibles now seem less favorable than comic books and baseball cards.
But it stated that NFTs like land plots don't fall into the category, which means gaming NFTs fall outside of that category.
Not exactly.
Its said that since a right to DEVELOP or USE a virtual land plot isn't currently taxable, then neither would be an NFT that records the right to DEVELOP and USE a virtual land plot.
That is different from OWNING it. Which is what the NFT ideas I see bandied about in games would be. That you would OWN your +5 sword of Vorpal Slaying. And that virtual item has value. And that would then be considered a collectible. That's my understanding.
You can't develop the land without owning it. Owning it isn't a collectible, but it actually makes more sense to tax the landowner rather than the players that built NFTs from the land, which also would be outside of the purview of taxation as a collectible and only taxation of revenue upon sale.
It has value as an in game item that gets sold or traded, usually for a currency that corresponds to a crypto currency that then corresponds to a fiat currency. It's not a collectible.
It would be like asking someone to pay tax on a pokemon card because of its rarity.
But the sale of the item especially in excess of a particular amount of fiat would still be taxable. But because the crypto market is volatile, subjecting people to a particular number based on a perceptual value isn't possible.
For example, minting a sword that someone buys for 2000 monkey bucks which translates to let's say 100 IMX which translates to 120USD could be correct, or, tomorrow that could be 90USD when they cash out. Or 20 USD next week.
That means there's no real perceptible price of an asset unless sold, or unless a price has been provided, and attempting to base it as a collectible isn't possible, you would base everything off of GFE's and there would be no way to prove it otherwise.
Of course you can develop the land without owning it. Thats what all (or most) so called housing is in an MMO.
And for the second part, yes thats my issue. Especially when they talk about taxing "unrealized gains".
So if they want to tax me for the Sword of Doom on the day I find it. I pay x% tax on that. Maybe its a great time of year and the associated currency is worth 200 bucks. I don't want to pay 40 bucks for the thing simply because I found it in game. Just like if I win money at a casino, the IRS gets a tax form and wants their payment.
Its a total mess and it's literally the main reason I want nothing to do with this in my games. I want to play a game to have fun, not make money (and certainly not to pay the IRS). Ill invest directly in a cryptocurrency (and have) if I wish to do so.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Comments
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Doubtful they'll be using a proprietary chain, so it's more than likely going to run off of one of the existing ones like IMX. But yeah the latter part of the quote regarding smart contracts are specifically utilized for NFTs.
While NFTs don't have to be specifically for RMT that's the most likely scenario. Guess we'll wait and see though.
Fishing on Gilgamesh since 2013
Fishing on Bronzebeard since 2005
Fishing in RL since 1992
Born with a fishing rod in my hand in 1979
https://biturl.top/rU7bY3
Beyond the shadows there's always light
https://biturl.top/rU7bY3
Beyond the shadows there's always light
NFT's and Crypto are a cash shop idea not a gameplay idea and I have yet to see a blockchain game bringing anything to the MMORPG table gameplay wise.
That idea about separate servers for blockchain and non-blockchain (or just not using the blockchain to rake it in) is as likely to get of the ground as releasing a game with servers that do and do not have a cash shop. The second idea about paying to destroy an item to get an item leads to a rather obvious question, how is that making the gameplay and content better?
Diablo ditched the real money auction house for a reason. The only gamers that want this crap are the same minuscule % of players that invest in scams like Star Citizen ships. For everyone else it is a negative.
Block-chain is not necessarily NFT. Placing a NFT on a digital asset is a way to make something that is easily copy writable have ownership, and the cost varies on the demand.
Block-chain, a de-centralised way of passing secure message and leaving a digital paper trial.
Systems could leverage block-chain for more secure transactions, but what the transactions are will determine the success of this.
The problem we face is with young gamers; they are unaware of the systems they are using and the cost, if this slips in as "the norm" in a couple of decades the market will be consumed with NFT style marketting.
That's one of the things blockchain does to really well. You can query data publicly. Writing and changing data would also be extremely difficult in comparison to doing it to a local single player game. Depending on the protocol, you would have to have numerous nodes agree that the change was authorized. Depending on how thorough you want to be, changes could be required by a centralized node only. You can get very complex with it if you wanted.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I just want to see if players freak out and declare the game pay to win or whatever.
Its said that since a right to DEVELOP or USE a virtual land plot isn't currently taxable, then neither would be an NFT that records the right to DEVELOP and USE a virtual land plot.
That is different from OWNING it. Which is what the NFT ideas I see bandied about in games would be. That you would OWN your +5 sword of Vorpal Slaying. And that virtual item has value. And that would then be considered a collectible. That's my understanding.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
It has value as an in game item that gets sold or traded, usually for a currency that corresponds to a crypto currency that then corresponds to a fiat currency. It's not a collectible.
It would be like asking someone to pay tax on a pokemon card because of its rarity.
But the sale of the item especially in excess of a particular amount of fiat would still be taxable. But because the crypto market is volatile, subjecting people to a particular number based on a perceptual value isn't possible.
For example, minting a sword that someone buys for 2000 monkey bucks which translates to let's say 100 IMX which translates to 120USD could be correct, or, tomorrow that could be 90USD when they cash out. Or 20 USD next week.
That means there's no real perceptible price of an asset unless sold, or unless a price has been provided, and attempting to base it as a collectible isn't possible, you would base everything off of GFE's and there would be no way to prove it otherwise.
And for the second part, yes thats my issue. Especially when they talk about taxing "unrealized gains".
So if they want to tax me for the Sword of Doom on the day I find it. I pay x% tax on that. Maybe its a great time of year and the associated currency is worth 200 bucks. I don't want to pay 40 bucks for the thing simply because I found it in game. Just like if I win money at a casino, the IRS gets a tax form and wants their payment.
Its a total mess and it's literally the main reason I want nothing to do with this in my games. I want to play a game to have fun, not make money (and certainly not to pay the IRS). Ill invest directly in a cryptocurrency (and have) if I wish to do so.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/