That's even before you get into that gacha is way worse than Blockchain and even NFTs. Gacha is 100% gambling, NFTs are supply and demand.
Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts. With titles like TRV using randomized stats and generation to make people hunt for the prefect draw, not much of a line being drawn there. NFT's are the delivery method for gacha there.
The line that may be drawn, is that now the gacha has been coupled directly with RMT trade value thanks to NFTs.
That's actually true as some Blockchain games mint NFTs based on gacha rolls but in most cases the premise of an NFT is counterintuitive to gacha in that anyone can sell items they earn, which negates the necessity for gambling.
It does unfortunately put the supply in short order of demand in most cases which means that the rarer items would potentially sell for more.
So you're not wrong, but there's a little bit of a nuanced difference when your items can be sold.
Not specifically relegated to Blockchain either but you don't see any gacha games apart from Blockchain doing it.
I disagree. Ability to sell NFTs gained through gacha means you can hope to win real money, as opposite to most games where no matter how good in-game stuff you win you can never get your money back.
Yeah, I'm sure they'll tune the RNG so you can get rich. You might even have enough for a Happy Meal after a month or two if you're lucky.
The usual way that that is done is to have very low odds of making a very large profit. That's the principle that lotteries operate on, for example.
Blockchains have their uses, but at least in gaming it seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
The current trend by developers/publishers is to incorporate blockchain as a marketing tool. They are looking to avoid making any changes in how the games work, or how they do business, while trying to capture the 'hot' or 'new' aspect of blockchain games. Currently, this is all about using keywords and catch phrases to convince people that they are providing something that they are not.
It is very reminiscent to the F2P explosion 25 years ago. In a few years it will end in the same way, with blockchain becoming a default feature of most new games, but with changes to developers/publishers to make actual use of the functions. I, personally, have advocated for ACCOUNT ownership tied to NFT's, as they can be used to authenticate an account safely, and can be easily shared across developers/publishers.
What happens if someone's account gets stolen? One usual problem with NFTs is that if it gets stolen, it's gone and unrecoverable.
What do you do with mmo you love and you lose your account to a hacker? You leave the game or you start a new account if you can't get your account back. How has this changed?
Blockchains have their uses, but at least in gaming it seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
The current trend by developers/publishers is to incorporate blockchain as a marketing tool. They are looking to avoid making any changes in how the games work, or how they do business, while trying to capture the 'hot' or 'new' aspect of blockchain games. Currently, this is all about using keywords and catch phrases to convince people that they are providing something that they are not.
It is very reminiscent to the F2P explosion 25 years ago. In a few years it will end in the same way, with blockchain becoming a default feature of most new games, but with changes to developers/publishers to make actual use of the functions. I, personally, have advocated for ACCOUNT ownership tied to NFT's, as they can be used to authenticate an account safely, and can be easily shared across developers/publishers.
What happens if someone's account gets stolen? One usual problem with NFTs is that if it gets stolen, it's gone and unrecoverable.
What do you do with mmo you love and you lose your account to a hacker? You leave the game or you start a new account if you can't get your account back. How has this changed?
You contact the company and claim that your account was hacked. If you have sufficient evidence that you're the rightful owner, they can transfer it back. Could they do that if it were tied to an NFT?
Blockchains have their uses, but at least in gaming it seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
The current trend by developers/publishers is to incorporate blockchain as a marketing tool. They are looking to avoid making any changes in how the games work, or how they do business, while trying to capture the 'hot' or 'new' aspect of blockchain games. Currently, this is all about using keywords and catch phrases to convince people that they are providing something that they are not.
It is very reminiscent to the F2P explosion 25 years ago. In a few years it will end in the same way, with blockchain becoming a default feature of most new games, but with changes to developers/publishers to make actual use of the functions. I, personally, have advocated for ACCOUNT ownership tied to NFT's, as they can be used to authenticate an account safely, and can be easily shared across developers/publishers.
What happens if someone's account gets stolen? One usual problem with NFTs is that if it gets stolen, it's gone and unrecoverable.
What do you do with mmo you love and you lose your account to a hacker? You leave the game or you start a new account if you can't get your account back. How has this changed?
You contact the company and claim that your account was hacked. If you have sufficient evidence that you're the rightful owner, they can transfer it back. Could they do that if it were tied to an NFT?
Blockchains have their uses, but at least in gaming it seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
The current trend by developers/publishers is to incorporate blockchain as a marketing tool. They are looking to avoid making any changes in how the games work, or how they do business, while trying to capture the 'hot' or 'new' aspect of blockchain games. Currently, this is all about using keywords and catch phrases to convince people that they are providing something that they are not.
It is very reminiscent to the F2P explosion 25 years ago. In a few years it will end in the same way, with blockchain becoming a default feature of most new games, but with changes to developers/publishers to make actual use of the functions. I, personally, have advocated for ACCOUNT ownership tied to NFT's, as they can be used to authenticate an account safely, and can be easily shared across developers/publishers.
What happens if someone's account gets stolen? One usual problem with NFTs is that if it gets stolen, it's gone and unrecoverable.
What do you do with mmo you love and you lose your account to a hacker? You leave the game or you start a new account if you can't get your account back. How has this changed?
You contact the company and claim that your account was hacked. If you have sufficient evidence that you're the rightful owner, they can transfer it back. Could they do that if it were tied to an NFT?
Blockchains have their uses, but at least in gaming it seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
The current trend by developers/publishers is to incorporate blockchain as a marketing tool. They are looking to avoid making any changes in how the games work, or how they do business, while trying to capture the 'hot' or 'new' aspect of blockchain games. Currently, this is all about using keywords and catch phrases to convince people that they are providing something that they are not.
It is very reminiscent to the F2P explosion 25 years ago. In a few years it will end in the same way, with blockchain becoming a default feature of most new games, but with changes to developers/publishers to make actual use of the functions. I, personally, have advocated for ACCOUNT ownership tied to NFT's, as they can be used to authenticate an account safely, and can be easily shared across developers/publishers.
What happens if someone's account gets stolen? One usual problem with NFTs is that if it gets stolen, it's gone and unrecoverable.
What do you do with mmo you love and you lose your account to a hacker? You leave the game or you start a new account if you can't get your account back. How has this changed?
You contact the company and claim that your account was hacked. If you have sufficient evidence that you're the rightful owner, they can transfer it back. Could they do that if it were tied to an NFT?
It's completely possible for them to transfer it back, if the blockchain is centralized and they control it.
But many companies are on decentralized blockchains.
That doesn't mean that you can't get your item back, the process would be to revoke the token related to the asset, then attach it to a separate token.
It's not impossible to do, but you run into some issues when developers limit their mints, and "lock" the number of tokens available.
It makes it more difficult because the available tokens are supposed to be locked to assets already, and when you lock the limited mint you're supposedly "unable" to unlock it again to add more tokens. That's not entirely true though, and you can reopen the mint if you were the one to originally lock it. But by doing that you also devalue the assets, which matters to GameFI developers who expect their NFT sales to accrue value when sold due to rarity of the mint.
But that means that even when some blockchain protocols state there is a limited supply, there is a way to increase that limit, but it all depends on the protocol itself.
All that said, there are ways to resolve issues if they come up. That doesn't mean that all developers can or would go through the trouble to do it, but if they want to be a more mainstream game they're going to need to be able to address these kinds of issues.
The bigger problems arise not when you legitimately have claim to an NFT, but when people with legitimate NFTs buy assets but claim they were hacked and sold on a gray market.
That's where you really start to get into the territory of whether developers should even attempt to address these issues at all. It wouldn't be the first time players have tried to scam something extra out of a game.
That's even before you get into that gacha is way worse than Blockchain and even NFTs. Gacha is 100% gambling, NFTs are supply and demand.
Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts. With titles like TRV using randomized stats and generation to make people hunt for the prefect draw, not much of a line being drawn there. NFT's are the delivery method for gacha there.
The line that may be drawn, is that now the gacha has been coupled directly with RMT trade value thanks to NFTs.
That's actually true as some Blockchain games mint NFTs based on gacha rolls but in most cases the premise of an NFT is counterintuitive to gacha in that anyone can sell items they earn, which negates the necessity for gambling.
It does unfortunately put the supply in short order of demand in most cases which means that the rarer items would potentially sell for more.
So you're not wrong, but there's a little bit of a nuanced difference when your items can be sold.
Not specifically relegated to Blockchain either but you don't see any gacha games apart from Blockchain doing it.
You're describing gacha collectibles with that.
When gacha machines are served on physical goods, it's with random rewards and feeds an aftermarket for trade.
I would not call that completely separate from the use of gacha as digital loot boxes ether. Burning NFTs as a method of feeding and boosting others is entirely viable, and tying that into an aftermarket would just set it up for a whale-feeding user experience.
So rather than picking between the two types there, it's stacking them. First, gambling to sift through bad rolls until you get a good one, and second the after market to boost the good one by feeding as many duds as one can accrue or even trading the final boosted one.
There is already a microcosm of this done with many gacha games, using the combining mechanic to feed your rolls into favored or higher tier versions of a character.
I like to think of these MMONFT articles as being cautionary warnings for the unwary...you know like.. coffee may be hot, water might be wet, etc..
Or as found on cigarettes for many years now, "May" be hazardous to one's health.
The same people that fall for these fall for other get rich quick schemes too.....
It's the whales that do, and some are successful. Most look at these games now not as a long term investment, but a pump and dump scheme. If that's your idea of get rich quick, than yeah, some are getting rich; just not the average person. That's why I won't bother with these games unless it's giving free stuff. It's not to play the game for sure because most suck. Look at Archeworld, that game is perfect example. Get in and get out.
They really remind me of those early 2000s internet casinos. Before they outlawed most of them they used to give you $25-$100 of free money to play, you just had to bet 2x the gift to cash out. Needless to say most went belly up fast or were shut down by the feds.
Fact: Great game comes out that has NFTs at a reasonable fair price, people will play it, even you.
Fact, there hasn't been a game created since 2003 that I consider great, so the odds of it happening again plus having NFTs worked into it's design is so close to zero it might as well be.
You'd be surprised at how well I can resist paying for utterly useless things...which NFTs totally are.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
That's even before you get into that gacha is way worse than Blockchain and even NFTs. Gacha is 100% gambling, NFTs are supply and demand.
Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts. With titles like TRV using randomized stats and generation to make people hunt for the prefect draw, not much of a line being drawn there. NFT's are the delivery method for gacha there.
The line that may be drawn, is that now the gacha has been coupled directly with RMT trade value thanks to NFTs.
That's actually true as some Blockchain games mint NFTs based on gacha rolls but in most cases the premise of an NFT is counterintuitive to gacha in that anyone can sell items they earn, which negates the necessity for gambling.
It does unfortunately put the supply in short order of demand in most cases which means that the rarer items would potentially sell for more.
So you're not wrong, but there's a little bit of a nuanced difference when your items can be sold.
Not specifically relegated to Blockchain either but you don't see any gacha games apart from Blockchain doing it.
You're describing gacha collectibles with that.
When gacha machines are served on physical goods, it's with random rewards and feeds an aftermarket for trade.
I would not call that completely separate from the use of gacha as digital loot boxes ether. Burning NFTs as a method of feeding and boosting others is entirely viable, and tying that into an aftermarket would just set it up for a whale-feeding user experience.
So rather than picking between the two types there, it's stacking them. First, gambling to sift through bad rolls until you get a good one, and second the after market to boost the good one by feeding as many duds as one can accrue or even trading the final boosted one.
There is already a microcosm of this done with many gacha games, using the combining mechanic to feed your rolls into favored or higher tier versions of a character.
What you're describing has nothing to do with what I said and does not have anything to do with collectibles. NFTs in general are built around supply and demand even when they utilize burn methods of assets as a means of enhancement.
It's a cultivation technique that is meant to incentivize burning assets to reduce the pool of tokens.
It's basic tokenomics. You see this with cryptotokens too.
But it still relies on rarity and supply and demand to drive prices. What you said doesn't change that, it only proves that point.
If cultivating a 5star asset has more value than a 1star and sales dictate that, then prices reflect the demand.
Gacha games in general don't have a need to burn prior assets to cultivate characters or gear. "Aftermarket" sales are against their TOS. Because it decreases the need to roll, and therefore negates gambling altogether.
NFTs make more sense for gray market sales, due to smart contracts and the lack of circumventing those sales as a means of monetary gain by developers. Current gacha games have to be sold by account sales, NFT games lose substantial value as an account sale because assets don't necessarily have to reside on an account. Plus all assets are already for sale, you don't gain any value by selling an account even if it's above board and you don't migrate the assets to an external wallet.
NFTs make sure the developers always get paid, the trick is that they convince players that it will also be a financial gain to perpetuate those sales themselves, and the higher the sale the more everyone makes.
Which feeds back into the need of rarity for supply and demand.
Blockchains have their uses, but at least in gaming it seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
The current trend by developers/publishers is to incorporate blockchain as a marketing tool. They are looking to avoid making any changes in how the games work, or how they do business, while trying to capture the 'hot' or 'new' aspect of blockchain games. Currently, this is all about using keywords and catch phrases to convince people that they are providing something that they are not.
It is very reminiscent to the F2P explosion 25 years ago. In a few years it will end in the same way, with blockchain becoming a default feature of most new games, but with changes to developers/publishers to make actual use of the functions. I, personally, have advocated for ACCOUNT ownership tied to NFT's, as they can be used to authenticate an account safely, and can be easily shared across developers/publishers.
What happens if someone's account gets stolen? One usual problem with NFTs is that if it gets stolen, it's gone and unrecoverable.
What do you do with mmo you love and you lose your account to a hacker? You leave the game or you start a new account if you can't get your account back. How has this changed?
You contact the company and claim that your account was hacked. If you have sufficient evidence that you're the rightful owner, they can transfer it back. Could they do that if it were tied to an NFT?
It's completely possible for them to transfer it back, if the blockchain is centralized and they control it.
But many companies are on decentralized blockchains.
That doesn't mean that you can't get your item back, the process would be to revoke the token related to the asset, then attach it to a separate token.
It's not impossible to do, but you run into some issues when developers limit their mints, and "lock" the number of tokens available.
It makes it more difficult because the available tokens are supposed to be locked to assets already, and when you lock the limited mint you're supposedly "unable" to unlock it again to add more tokens. That's not entirely true though, and you can reopen the mint if you were the one to originally lock it. But by doing that you also devalue the assets, which matters to GameFI developers who expect their NFT sales to accrue value when sold due to rarity of the mint.
But that means that even when some blockchain protocols state there is a limited supply, there is a way to increase that limit, but it all depends on the protocol itself.
All that said, there are ways to resolve issues if they come up. That doesn't mean that all developers can or would go through the trouble to do it, but if they want to be a more mainstream game they're going to need to be able to address these kinds of issues.
The bigger problems arise not when you legitimately have claim to an NFT, but when people with legitimate NFTs buy assets but claim they were hacked and sold on a gray market.
That's where you really start to get into the territory of whether developers should even attempt to address these issues at all. It wouldn't be the first time players have tried to scam something extra out of a game.
This is very convoluted from the normal way of getting your account back.
I have to ask though what is the purpose overall of NFTs in a game though. What is it that they do in your opinion better than what we already have?
That's even before you get into that gacha is way worse than Blockchain and even NFTs. Gacha is 100% gambling, NFTs are supply and demand.
Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts. With titles like TRV using randomized stats and generation to make people hunt for the prefect draw, not much of a line being drawn there. NFT's are the delivery method for gacha there.
The line that may be drawn, is that now the gacha has been coupled directly with RMT trade value thanks to NFTs.
That's actually true as some Blockchain games mint NFTs based on gacha rolls but in most cases the premise of an NFT is counterintuitive to gacha in that anyone can sell items they earn, which negates the necessity for gambling.
It does unfortunately put the supply in short order of demand in most cases which means that the rarer items would potentially sell for more.
So you're not wrong, but there's a little bit of a nuanced difference when your items can be sold.
Not specifically relegated to Blockchain either but you don't see any gacha games apart from Blockchain doing it.
You're describing gacha collectibles with that.
When gacha machines are served on physical goods, it's with random rewards and feeds an aftermarket for trade.
I would not call that completely separate from the use of gacha as digital loot boxes ether. Burning NFTs as a method of feeding and boosting others is entirely viable, and tying that into an aftermarket would just set it up for a whale-feeding user experience.
So rather than picking between the two types there, it's stacking them. First, gambling to sift through bad rolls until you get a good one, and second the after market to boost the good one by feeding as many duds as one can accrue or even trading the final boosted one.
There is already a microcosm of this done with many gacha games, using the combining mechanic to feed your rolls into favored or higher tier versions of a character.
What you're describing has nothing to do with what I said and does not have anything to do with collectibles. NFTs in general are built around supply and demand even when they utilize burn methods of assets as a means of enhancement.
It's a cultivation technique that is meant to incentivize burning assets to reduce the pool of tokens.
It's basic tokenomics. You see this with cryptotokens too.
But it still relies on rarity and supply and demand to drive prices. What you said doesn't change that, it only proves that point.
If cultivating a 5star asset has more value than a 1star and sales dictate that, then prices reflect the demand.
Gacha games in general don't have a need to burn prior assets to cultivate characters or gear. "Aftermarket" sales are against their TOS. Because it decreases the need to roll, and therefore negates gambling altogether.
NFTs make more sense for gray market sales, due to smart contracts and the lack of circumventing those sales as a means of monetary gain by developers. Current gacha games have to be sold by account sales, NFT games lose substantial value as an account sale because assets don't necessarily have to reside on an account. Plus all assets are already for sale, you don't gain any value by selling an account even if it's above board and you don't migrate the assets to an external wallet.
NFTs make sure the developers always get paid, the trick is that they convince players that it will also be a financial gain to perpetuate those sales themselves, and the higher the sale the more everyone makes.
Which feeds back into the need of rarity for supply and demand.
Several points wrong there.
Firstly, the point stated was that your claim that NFT's were counterintuitive to gacha wasn't really an accurate sentiment.
The demonstrative point that traditional gacha as a tangible model is a direct comparison to NFTs and the grey market.
The extension of that was the point that even with your statement trying to make a distinction, that distinction does not render the concepts at odds with each other or mutually exclusive.
Given you already admitted "That's actually true as some Blockchain games mint NFTs based on gacha rolls", you already acknowledged the fact that fundamentally NFT are not disparate to gacha, as they are serving a different element of the system than whether or not things are being randomly assigned.
I would also address the misnomer that aftermarket trading somehow negates gambling.
It is only capable of "negating gambling" in the context of one person with sufficient funds buying something from another person who has themselves already invested into the gambling. Someone is still rolling in order to put those things on the market, and the market valuation is going to reflect the rarity presented by drop rate.
Meaning it's not actually negating gambling.
Games like STO actually live directly off this kind of deferred gambling economy with paying users feeding bought keys into the marketplace for others to buy, only for them to then post back the rare drops found from gambling using those keys. The entire loop requires people to be paying in to gamble, but it distributes the steps across the user base so that lower paying users can be effectively used to feed whales in multiple ways (by allowing a means to exchange RMT currency into a proxy that can be traded for strictly in game currency, as well as to distribute the act of gambling across individuals for the whale to then buy the specific desired reward after others have done the gambling for them). The hyper-inflation of the strictly in game currency additionally helps to feed the cycle by demanding more RMT transactions to feed more keys in order to then afford the hyper-inflated value of the rare goods posted back to auction.
Hence too the demonstrative point about feeding low gacha to high gacha, and the point that an after market does not remove value from random loot rolls. This is the same context to burning the NFTs as direct component of cultivation which you seemed to make an additional unnecessary division in (as people still have to gamble and roll those duds they would be selling to others for cultivation). Semantically they could make rare rolls even more rare with the expectation of the aftermarket pricing, and play harder into long grinds feeding lower tiers to higher tiers. This would functionally mean the game can be double-dipping with the gamble sales and the aftermarket.
IE, gambling and aftermarket are stacked together with gambling still playing a major role and still has plenty to do with collectibles.
That's actually true as some Blockchain games mint NFTs based on gacha rolls but in most cases the premise of an NFT is counterintuitive to gacha in that anyone can sell items they earn, which negates the necessity for gambling.
I disagree. Ability to sell NFTs gained through gacha means you can hope to win real money, as opposite to most games where no matter how good in-game stuff you win you can never get your money back.
Yeah, I'm sure they'll tune the RNG so you can get rich. You might even have enough for a Happy Meal after a month or two if you're lucky.
I didn't mean that you would get rich.
I meant that after spending $100 to gambling and getting bad rolls, people have mistaken tendency to think "If I play more my next rolls will have good luck to offset the bad luck I've been having up till now". NFT gacha expands from that into situation "...and with the money I earn I'll pay for some of my earlier gambling".
Intellectually most of us know that it won't work that way. But knowledge doesn't mean we'd necessarily make the rational decision.
Firstly, the point stated was that your claim that NFT's were counterintuitive to gacha wasn't really an accurate sentiment.
The demonstrative point that traditional gacha as a tangible model is a direct comparison to NFTs and the grey market.
The extension of that was the point that even with your statement trying to make a distinction, that distinction does not render the concepts at odds with each other or mutually exclusive.
Given you already admitted "That's actually true as some Blockchain games mint NFTs based on gacha rolls", you already acknowledged the fact that fundamentally NFT are not disparate to gacha, as they are serving a different element of the system than whether or not things are being randomly assigned.
I would also address the misnomer that aftermarket trading somehow negates gambling.
It is only capable of "negating gambling" in the context of one person with sufficient funds buying something from another person who has themselves already invested into the gambling. Someone is still rolling in order to put those things on the market, and the market valuation is going to reflect the rarity presented by drop rate.
Meaning it's not actually negating gambling.
Games like STO actually live directly off this kind of deferred gambling economy with paying users feeding bought keys into the marketplace for others to buy, only for them to then post back the rare drops found from gambling using those keys. The entire loop requires people to be paying in to gamble, but it distributes the steps across the user base so that lower paying users can be effectively used to feed whales in multiple ways (by allowing a means to exchange RMT currency into a proxy that can be traded for strictly in game currency, as well as to distribute the act of gambling across individuals for the whale to then buy the specific desired reward after others have done the gambling for them). The hyper-inflation of the strictly in game currency additionally helps to feed the cycle by demanding more RMT transactions to feed more keys in order to then afford the hyper-inflated value of the rare goods posted back to auction.
Hence too the demonstrative point about feeding low gacha to high gacha, and the point that an after market does not remove value from random loot rolls. This is the same context to burning the NFTs as direct component of cultivation which you seemed to make an additional unnecessary division in (as people still have to gamble and roll those duds they would be selling to others for cultivation). Semantically they could make rare rolls even more rare with the expectation of the aftermarket pricing, and play harder into long grinds feeding lower tiers to higher tiers. This would functionally mean the game can be double-dipping with the gamble sales and the aftermarket.
IE, gambling and aftermarket are stacked together with gambling still playing a major role and still has plenty to do with collectibles.
Let's just cut to the quick.
Use a real world blockchain game example, since you "know so much"
Gacha doesn't always have to be monetarily exclusive, for example you can get a rare item your first roll without paying anything.
Equally so you can buy anything at any stage of cultivation. That means that "gambling" as a monetary expense outside of a specific game mechanic such as zed run is the choice of how they choose to spend money. If they choose to at all.
Gambling on gacha doesn't play as big of a role in NFT games, because it doesn't have to. That's not the primary monetization model. Does it mean that games with NFTs can't have gambling? Of course they can, but your arguing just to argue. Pick an NFT game in comparison to any other Gacha game and I can show you in 2 seconds how it's different.
It's exhausting having to prove you wrong time and again. Just use real world examples.
You contact the company and claim that your account was hacked. If you have sufficient evidence that you're the rightful owner, they can transfer it back. Could they do that if it were tied to an NFT?
It's completely possible for them to transfer it back, if the blockchain is centralized and they control it.
But many companies are on decentralized blockchains.
That doesn't mean that you can't get your item back, the process would be to revoke the token related to the asset, then attach it to a separate token.
It's not impossible to do, but you run into some issues when developers limit their mints, and "lock" the number of tokens available.
It makes it more difficult because the available tokens are supposed to be locked to assets already, and when you lock the limited mint you're supposedly "unable" to unlock it again to add more tokens. That's not entirely true though, and you can reopen the mint if you were the one to originally lock it. But by doing that you also devalue the assets, which matters to GameFI developers who expect their NFT sales to accrue value when sold due to rarity of the mint.
But that means that even when some blockchain protocols state there is a limited supply, there is a way to increase that limit, but it all depends on the protocol itself.
All that said, there are ways to resolve issues if they come up. That doesn't mean that all developers can or would go through the trouble to do it, but if they want to be a more mainstream game they're going to need to be able to address these kinds of issues.
The bigger problems arise not when you legitimately have claim to an NFT, but when people with legitimate NFTs buy assets but claim they were hacked and sold on a gray market.
That's where you really start to get into the territory of whether developers should even attempt to address these issues at all. It wouldn't be the first time players have tried to scam something extra out of a game.
This is very convoluted from the normal way of getting your account back.
I have to ask though what is the purpose overall of NFTs in a game though. What is it that they do in your opinion better than what we already have?
NFT's have a few different "purposes" but whether they are better than what we have is all dependent on what you like.
Developers like NFTs for several reasons. Most notably they like the premise of NFTs as monetization models. NFTs are very good for monetization because any transaction utilizing them can kick off a smart contract so that the developers can get paid.
This is broken down into not only developer minted creations (like something you buy in a cash shop) but also player created mints, such as the creation of a character they later want to sell, or weapons and armor they craft. No matter how you sell these items, the developers will get a cut.
Even taking those items out of the internal game market won't stop they developers from getting paid.
Another thing NFTs do really well is limited unique items, because the tokens are all unique.
The reason that matters is because, how often do we hear that games get dupes of items over and over. Even if you could duplicate an item in game, you can't duplicate the tokens. Especially where limited mints reduce the number of items available.
And finally, NFTs already can connect to large networks outside of games through these tokens, often built on various blockchains.
That means that it's possible that if a developer chooses to utilize that item in other games, you can move the asset. (You can also trade those items outside of the games you're playing) But because the token system is built into the blockchain, it's easy to have your unique tokens utilized in other games, if they see fit. The Bitverse is one game that currently has this available.
But... are those really "benefits" to what we currently have? For the developers yes. For gamers... I guess it depends on if the monetization aspects really excite them.
That's why so many of these games talk about making money as their defining features. NFTs don't inherently add anything more to a game.
Blockchain can. NFT's specifically, not so much outside of monetization.
That's even before you get into that gacha is way worse than Blockchain and even NFTs. Gacha is 100% gambling, NFTs are supply and demand.
Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts. With titles like TRV using randomized stats and generation to make people hunt for the prefect draw, not much of a line being drawn there. NFT's are the delivery method for gacha there.
The line that may be drawn, is that now the gacha has been coupled directly with RMT trade value thanks to NFTs.
That's actually true as some Blockchain games mint NFTs based on gacha rolls but in most cases the premise of an NFT is counterintuitive to gacha in that anyone can sell items they earn, which negates the necessity for gambling
Firstly, the point stated was that your claim that NFT's were counterintuitive to gacha wasn't really an accurate sentiment.
The demonstrative point that traditional gacha as a tangible model is a direct comparison to NFTs and the grey market.
The extension of that was the point that even with your statement trying to make a distinction, that distinction does not render the concepts at odds with each other or mutually exclusive.
Given you already admitted "That's actually true as some Blockchain games mint NFTs based on gacha rolls", you already acknowledged the fact that fundamentally NFT are not disparate to gacha, as they are serving a different element of the system than whether or not things are being randomly assigned.
I would also address the misnomer that aftermarket trading somehow negates gambling.
It is only capable of "negating gambling" in the context of one person with sufficient funds buying something from another person who has themselves already invested into the gambling. Someone is still rolling in order to put those things on the market, and the market valuation is going to reflect the rarity presented by drop rate.
Meaning it's not actually negating gambling.
Games like STO actually live directly off this kind of deferred gambling economy with paying users feeding bought keys into the marketplace for others to buy, only for them to then post back the rare drops found from gambling using those keys. The entire loop requires people to be paying in to gamble, but it distributes the steps across the user base so that lower paying users can be effectively used to feed whales in multiple ways (by allowing a means to exchange RMT currency into a proxy that can be traded for strictly in game currency, as well as to distribute the act of gambling across individuals for the whale to then buy the specific desired reward after others have done the gambling for them). The hyper-inflation of the strictly in game currency additionally helps to feed the cycle by demanding more RMT transactions to feed more keys in order to then afford the hyper-inflated value of the rare goods posted back to auction.
Hence too the demonstrative point about feeding low gacha to high gacha, and the point that an after market does not remove value from random loot rolls. This is the same context to burning the NFTs as direct component of cultivation which you seemed to make an additional unnecessary division in (as people still have to gamble and roll those duds they would be selling to others for cultivation). Semantically they could make rare rolls even more rare with the expectation of the aftermarket pricing, and play harder into long grinds feeding lower tiers to higher tiers. This would functionally mean the game can be double-dipping with the gamble sales and the aftermarket.
IE, gambling and aftermarket are stacked together with gambling still playing a major role and still has plenty to do with collectibles.
Let's just cut to the quick.
Feel free to show a real world gacha that gives you a free pull, since I know you're mistaking real and video game there.
Even taking that out of the equation, yes gacha games often gift pulls. Guess who could do the same by gifting mints?
Not having to play a role wasn't the subject. The concept that "gambling/gacha was way worse than NFT and blockchain" was, and in the counterpart the point was that those are not diametrically related systems.
Arguing just to argue would be you when you went "yeah, but..." And started looking for any exception you could to the original statement. Everything since is you looking for a case of "but this setup doesn't do it that way", your argument here bluntly demonstrates that with your question.
All I did was rebuke your change in argument.
What's exhausting is you being wrong and trying to prove otherwise with a stretch of any context possible there.
No amount of LoLing will change that.
Perhaps next time just cut it off at "That's actually true as some Blockchain games mint NFTs based on gacha rolls." Next time. This dishonesty that's been cropping up in your comments more is not a good change.
That's even before you get into that gacha is way worse than Blockchain and even NFTs. Gacha is 100% gambling, NFTs are supply and demand.
Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts. With titles like TRV using randomized stats and generation to make people hunt for the prefect draw, not much of a line being drawn there. NFT's are the delivery method for gacha there.
The line that may be drawn, is that now the gacha has been coupled directly with RMT trade value thanks to NFTs.
That's actually true as some Blockchain games mint NFTs based on gacha rolls but in most cases the premise of an NFT is counterintuitive to gacha in that anyone can sell items they earn, which negates the necessity for gambling
Firstly, the point stated was that your claim that NFT's were counterintuitive to gacha wasn't really an accurate sentiment.
The demonstrative point that traditional gacha as a tangible model is a direct comparison to NFTs and the grey market.
The extension of that was the point that even with your statement trying to make a distinction, that distinction does not render the concepts at odds with each other or mutually exclusive.
Given you already admitted "That's actually true as some Blockchain games mint NFTs based on gacha rolls", you already acknowledged the fact that fundamentally NFT are not disparate to gacha, as they are serving a different element of the system than whether or not things are being randomly assigned.
I would also address the misnomer that aftermarket trading somehow negates gambling.
It is only capable of "negating gambling" in the context of one person with sufficient funds buying something from another person who has themselves already invested into the gambling. Someone is still rolling in order to put those things on the market, and the market valuation is going to reflect the rarity presented by drop rate.
Meaning it's not actually negating gambling.
Games like STO actually live directly off this kind of deferred gambling economy with paying users feeding bought keys into the marketplace for others to buy, only for them to then post back the rare drops found from gambling using those keys. The entire loop requires people to be paying in to gamble, but it distributes the steps across the user base so that lower paying users can be effectively used to feed whales in multiple ways (by allowing a means to exchange RMT currency into a proxy that can be traded for strictly in game currency, as well as to distribute the act of gambling across individuals for the whale to then buy the specific desired reward after others have done the gambling for them). The hyper-inflation of the strictly in game currency additionally helps to feed the cycle by demanding more RMT transactions to feed more keys in order to then afford the hyper-inflated value of the rare goods posted back to auction.
Hence too the demonstrative point about feeding low gacha to high gacha, and the point that an after market does not remove value from random loot rolls. This is the same context to burning the NFTs as direct component of cultivation which you seemed to make an additional unnecessary division in (as people still have to gamble and roll those duds they would be selling to others for cultivation). Semantically they could make rare rolls even more rare with the expectation of the aftermarket pricing, and play harder into long grinds feeding lower tiers to higher tiers. This would functionally mean the game can be double-dipping with the gamble sales and the aftermarket.
IE, gambling and aftermarket are stacked together with gambling still playing a major role and still has plenty to do with collectibles.
Let's just cut to the quick.
Feel free to show a real world gacha that gives you a free pull, since I know you're mistaking real and video game there. *blah blah more things I dunno about*
Literally every gacha game. Genshin Impact. Honkai Impact. Marvel Future Fight. Tower of Fantasy. The list goes on and on. They all give you numerous free pulls where you don't spend any money.
This is just like the other threads... you argue because you don't know, but you pretend that you do. Even in the No Man's Sky thread when you stated that everybody was using mods in the galactic hub after I told you that nobody could create mods in NMS to do what the crypto currency was doing, and even the guy who started the hub came in and told you straight up they weren't using mods... you just have to argue for the sake of arguing.
The amount of eyeroll when I read some of these is a lot. You're great at explaining how you think things work, very bad at understanding what's actually going on.
Fact: Great game comes out that has NFTs at a reasonable fair price, people will play it, even you.
Fact, there hasn't been a game created since 2003 that I consider great, so the odds of it happening again plus having NFTs worked into it's design is so close to zero it might as well be.
You'd be surprised at how well I can resist paying for utterly useless things...which NFTs totally are.
Ok I will bite. No great games, dont agree but ok. So a MMO as ground breaking as WoW back in 2004 drops today. You need to buy $10-15 USD of the games crypto a month to play. You walk away? Honestly?
Fact: Great game comes out that has NFTs at a reasonable fair price, people will play it, even you.
Fact, there hasn't been a game created since 2003 that I consider great, so the odds of it happening again plus having NFTs worked into it's design is so close to zero it might as well be.
You'd be surprised at how well I can resist paying for utterly useless things...which NFTs totally are.
Ok I will bite. No great games, dont agree but ok. So a MMO as ground breaking as WoW back in 2004 drops today. You need to buy $10-15 USD of the games crypto a month to play. You walk away? Honestly?
Yeah, they would likely insist I create or provide a wallet which I can't see ever doing just to play a game.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Fact: Great game comes out that has NFTs at a reasonable fair price, people will play it, even you.
Fact, there hasn't been a game created since 2003 that I consider great, so the odds of it happening again plus having NFTs worked into it's design is so close to zero it might as well be.
You'd be surprised at how well I can resist paying for utterly useless things...which NFTs totally are.
Ok I will bite. No great games, dont agree but ok. So a MMO as ground breaking as WoW back in 2004 drops today. You need to buy $10-15 USD of the games crypto a month to play. You walk away? Honestly?
Yeah, they would likely insist I create or provide a wallet which I can't see ever doing just to play a game.
BTW, note the cutoff year I mentioned.
I love how people see Crypto in one box. A competing type of RL wanna be currency. Crypto can also be a closed system that can only be used with one vendor? Like a single game company. Much like buying tokens to play at your local arcade. I for one will judge a Crypto game no differently then any B2P, F2P or Sub game. Is the price they asking me to play fair? Is the game worth playing?
That's even before you get into that gacha is way worse than Blockchain and even NFTs. Gacha is 100% gambling, NFTs are supply and demand.
Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts. With titles like TRV using randomized stats and generation to make people hunt for the prefect draw, not much of a line being drawn there. NFT's are the delivery method for gacha there.
The line that may be drawn, is that now the gacha has been coupled directly with RMT trade value thanks to NFTs.
That's actually true as some Blockchain games mint NFTs based on gacha rolls but in most cases the premise of an NFT is counterintuitive to gacha in that anyone can sell items they earn, which negates the necessity for gambling
Firstly, the point stated was that your claim that NFT's were counterintuitive to gacha wasn't really an accurate sentiment.
The demonstrative point that traditional gacha as a tangible model is a direct comparison to NFTs and the grey market.
The extension of that was the point that even with your statement trying to make a distinction, that distinction does not render the concepts at odds with each other or mutually exclusive.
Given you already admitted "That's actually true as some Blockchain games mint NFTs based on gacha rolls", you already acknowledged the fact that fundamentally NFT are not disparate to gacha, as they are serving a different element of the system than whether or not things are being randomly assigned.
I would also address the misnomer that aftermarket trading somehow negates gambling.
It is only capable of "negating gambling" in the context of one person with sufficient funds buying something from another person who has themselves already invested into the gambling. Someone is still rolling in order to put those things on the market, and the market valuation is going to reflect the rarity presented by drop rate.
Meaning it's not actually negating gambling.
Games like STO actually live directly off this kind of deferred gambling economy with paying users feeding bought keys into the marketplace for others to buy, only for them to then post back the rare drops found from gambling using those keys. The entire loop requires people to be paying in to gamble, but it distributes the steps across the user base so that lower paying users can be effectively used to feed whales in multiple ways (by allowing a means to exchange RMT currency into a proxy that can be traded for strictly in game currency, as well as to distribute the act of gambling across individuals for the whale to then buy the specific desired reward after others have done the gambling for them). The hyper-inflation of the strictly in game currency additionally helps to feed the cycle by demanding more RMT transactions to feed more keys in order to then afford the hyper-inflated value of the rare goods posted back to auction.
Hence too the demonstrative point about feeding low gacha to high gacha, and the point that an after market does not remove value from random loot rolls. This is the same context to burning the NFTs as direct component of cultivation which you seemed to make an additional unnecessary division in (as people still have to gamble and roll those duds they would be selling to others for cultivation). Semantically they could make rare rolls even more rare with the expectation of the aftermarket pricing, and play harder into long grinds feeding lower tiers to higher tiers. This would functionally mean the game can be double-dipping with the gamble sales and the aftermarket.
IE, gambling and aftermarket are stacked together with gambling still playing a major role and still has plenty to do with collectibles.
Let's just cut to the quick.
Feel free to show a real world gacha that gives you a free pull, since I know you're mistaking real and video game there. *blah blah more things I dunno about*
Literally every gacha game. Genshin Impact. Honkai Impact. Marvel Future Fight. Tower of Fantasy. The list goes on and on. They all give you numerous free pulls where you don't spend any money...
Gacha is a (japanese) vending machine that gives you a random toy. Uwakionna's "real world gacha" meant those gacha machines.
Fact: Great game comes out that has NFTs at a reasonable fair price, people will play it, even you.
Fact, there hasn't been a game created since 2003 that I consider great, so the odds of it happening again plus having NFTs worked into it's design is so close to zero it might as well be.
You'd be surprised at how well I can resist paying for utterly useless things...which NFTs totally are.
Ok I will bite. No great games, dont agree but ok. So a MMO as ground breaking as WoW back in 2004 drops today. You need to buy $10-15 USD of the games crypto a month to play. You walk away? Honestly?
Yeah, they would likely insist I create or provide a wallet which I can't see ever doing just to play a game.
BTW, note the cutoff year I mentioned.
I love how people see Crypto in one box. A competing type of RL wanna be currency. Crypto can also be a closed system that can only be used with one vendor? Like a single game company. Much like buying tokens to play at your local arcade. I for one will judge a Crypto game no differently then any B2P, F2P or Sub game. Is the price they asking me to play fair? Is the game worth playing?
You ever played Entropia Universe? You have to buy ammo with real world cash. First time I tried the game I immediately uninstalled it since you couldn't do anything. How is that like any other B2P F2P game?
Comments
What do you do with mmo you love and you lose your account to a hacker? You leave the game or you start a new account if you can't get your account back. How has this changed?
But many companies are on decentralized blockchains.
That doesn't mean that you can't get your item back, the process would be to revoke the token related to the asset, then attach it to a separate token.
It's not impossible to do, but you run into some issues when developers limit their mints, and "lock" the number of tokens available.
It makes it more difficult because the available tokens are supposed to be locked to assets already, and when you lock the limited mint you're supposedly "unable" to unlock it again to add more tokens. That's not entirely true though, and you can reopen the mint if you were the one to originally lock it. But by doing that you also devalue the assets, which matters to GameFI developers who expect their NFT sales to accrue value when sold due to rarity of the mint.
But that means that even when some blockchain protocols state there is a limited supply, there is a way to increase that limit, but it all depends on the protocol itself.
All that said, there are ways to resolve issues if they come up. That doesn't mean that all developers can or would go through the trouble to do it, but if they want to be a more mainstream game they're going to need to be able to address these kinds of issues.
The bigger problems arise not when you legitimately have claim to an NFT, but when people with legitimate NFTs buy assets but claim they were hacked and sold on a gray market.
That's where you really start to get into the territory of whether developers should even attempt to address these issues at all. It wouldn't be the first time players have tried to scam something extra out of a game.
The same people that fall for these fall for other get rich quick schemes too.....
When gacha machines are served on physical goods, it's with random rewards and feeds an aftermarket for trade.
I would not call that completely separate from the use of gacha as digital loot boxes ether. Burning NFTs as a method of feeding and boosting others is entirely viable, and tying that into an aftermarket would just set it up for a whale-feeding user experience.
So rather than picking between the two types there, it's stacking them. First, gambling to sift through bad rolls until you get a good one, and second the after market to boost the good one by feeding as many duds as one can accrue or even trading the final boosted one.
There is already a microcosm of this done with many gacha games, using the combining mechanic to feed your rolls into favored or higher tier versions of a character.
You'd be surprised at how well I can resist paying for utterly useless things...which NFTs totally are.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It's a cultivation technique that is meant to incentivize burning assets to reduce the pool of tokens.
It's basic tokenomics. You see this with cryptotokens too.
But it still relies on rarity and supply and demand to drive prices. What you said doesn't change that, it only proves that point.
If cultivating a 5star asset has more value than a 1star and sales dictate that, then prices reflect the demand.
Gacha games in general don't have a need to burn prior assets to cultivate characters or gear. "Aftermarket" sales are against their TOS. Because it decreases the need to roll, and therefore negates gambling altogether.
NFTs make more sense for gray market sales, due to smart contracts and the lack of circumventing those sales as a means of monetary gain by developers. Current gacha games have to be sold by account sales, NFT games lose substantial value as an account sale because assets don't necessarily have to reside on an account. Plus all assets are already for sale, you don't gain any value by selling an account even if it's above board and you don't migrate the assets to an external wallet.
NFTs make sure the developers always get paid, the trick is that they convince players that it will also be a financial gain to perpetuate those sales themselves, and the higher the sale the more everyone makes.
Which feeds back into the need of rarity for supply and demand.
I have to ask though what is the purpose overall of NFTs in a game though. What is it that they do in your opinion better than what we already have?
Firstly, the point stated was that your claim that NFT's were counterintuitive to gacha wasn't really an accurate sentiment.
The demonstrative point that traditional gacha as a tangible model is a direct comparison to NFTs and the grey market.
The extension of that was the point that even with your statement trying to make a distinction, that distinction does not render the concepts at odds with each other or mutually exclusive.
Given you already admitted "That's actually true as some Blockchain games mint NFTs based on gacha rolls", you already acknowledged the fact that fundamentally NFT are not disparate to gacha, as they are serving a different element of the system than whether or not things are being randomly assigned.
I would also address the misnomer that aftermarket trading somehow negates gambling.
It is only capable of "negating gambling" in the context of one person with sufficient funds buying something from another person who has themselves already invested into the gambling. Someone is still rolling in order to put those things on the market, and the market valuation is going to reflect the rarity presented by drop rate.
Meaning it's not actually negating gambling.
Games like STO actually live directly off this kind of deferred gambling economy with paying users feeding bought keys into the marketplace for others to buy, only for them to then post back the rare drops found from gambling using those keys. The entire loop requires people to be paying in to gamble, but it distributes the steps across the user base so that lower paying users can be effectively used to feed whales in multiple ways (by allowing a means to exchange RMT currency into a proxy that can be traded for strictly in game currency, as well as to distribute the act of gambling across individuals for the whale to then buy the specific desired reward after others have done the gambling for them). The hyper-inflation of the strictly in game currency additionally helps to feed the cycle by demanding more RMT transactions to feed more keys in order to then afford the hyper-inflated value of the rare goods posted back to auction.
Hence too the demonstrative point about feeding low gacha to high gacha, and the point that an after market does not remove value from random loot rolls. This is the same context to burning the NFTs as direct component of cultivation which you seemed to make an additional unnecessary division in (as people still have to gamble and roll those duds they would be selling to others for cultivation). Semantically they could make rare rolls even more rare with the expectation of the aftermarket pricing, and play harder into long grinds feeding lower tiers to higher tiers. This would functionally mean the game can be double-dipping with the gamble sales and the aftermarket.
IE, gambling and aftermarket are stacked together with gambling still playing a major role and still has plenty to do with collectibles.
I meant that after spending $100 to gambling and getting bad rolls, people have mistaken tendency to think "If I play more my next rolls will have good luck to offset the bad luck I've been having up till now". NFT gacha expands from that into situation "...and with the money I earn I'll pay for some of my earlier gambling".
Intellectually most of us know that it won't work that way. But knowledge doesn't mean we'd necessarily make the rational decision.
Use a real world blockchain game example, since you "know so much"
Gacha doesn't always have to be monetarily exclusive, for example you can get a rare item your first roll without paying anything.
Equally so you can buy anything at any stage of cultivation. That means that "gambling" as a monetary expense outside of a specific game mechanic such as zed run is the choice of how they choose to spend money. If they choose to at all.
Gambling on gacha doesn't play as big of a role in NFT games, because it doesn't have to. That's not the primary monetization model. Does it mean that games with NFTs can't have gambling? Of course they can, but your arguing just to argue. Pick an NFT game in comparison to any other Gacha game and I can show you in 2 seconds how it's different.
It's exhausting having to prove you wrong time and again. Just use real world examples.
NFT's have a few different "purposes" but whether they are better than what we have is all dependent on what you like.
Developers like NFTs for several reasons. Most notably they like the premise of NFTs as monetization models. NFTs are very good for monetization because any transaction utilizing them can kick off a smart contract so that the developers can get paid.
This is broken down into not only developer minted creations (like something you buy in a cash shop) but also player created mints, such as the creation of a character they later want to sell, or weapons and armor they craft. No matter how you sell these items, the developers will get a cut.
Even taking those items out of the internal game market won't stop they developers from getting paid.
Another thing NFTs do really well is limited unique items, because the tokens are all unique.
The reason that matters is because, how often do we hear that games get dupes of items over and over. Even if you could duplicate an item in game, you can't duplicate the tokens. Especially where limited mints reduce the number of items available.
And finally, NFTs already can connect to large networks outside of games through these tokens, often built on various blockchains.
That means that it's possible that if a developer chooses to utilize that item in other games, you can move the asset. (You can also trade those items outside of the games you're playing) But because the token system is built into the blockchain, it's easy to have your unique tokens utilized in other games, if they see fit. The Bitverse is one game that currently has this available.
But... are those really "benefits" to what we currently have? For the developers yes. For gamers... I guess it depends on if the monetization aspects really excite them.
That's why so many of these games talk about making money as their defining features. NFTs don't inherently add anything more to a game.
Blockchain can. NFT's specifically, not so much outside of monetization.
Even taking that out of the equation, yes gacha games often gift pulls. Guess who could do the same by gifting mints?
Not having to play a role wasn't the subject. The concept that "gambling/gacha was way worse than NFT and blockchain" was, and in the counterpart the point was that those are not diametrically related systems.
Arguing just to argue would be you when you went "yeah, but..." And started looking for any exception you could to the original statement. Everything since is you looking for a case of "but this setup doesn't do it that way", your argument here bluntly demonstrates that with your question.
All I did was rebuke your change in argument.
What's exhausting is you being wrong and trying to prove otherwise with a stretch of any context possible there.
No amount of LoLing will change that.
Perhaps next time just cut it off at "That's actually true as some Blockchain games mint NFTs based on gacha rolls." Next time. This dishonesty that's been cropping up in your comments more is not a good change.
This is just like the other threads... you argue because you don't know, but you pretend that you do. Even in the No Man's Sky thread when you stated that everybody was using mods in the galactic hub after I told you that nobody could create mods in NMS to do what the crypto currency was doing, and even the guy who started the hub came in and told you straight up they weren't using mods... you just have to argue for the sake of arguing.
The amount of eyeroll when I read some of these is a lot. You're great at explaining how you think things work, very bad at understanding what's actually going on.
BTW, note the cutoff year I mentioned.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You ever played Entropia Universe? You have to buy ammo with real world cash. First time I tried the game I immediately uninstalled it since you couldn't do anything. How is that like any other B2P F2P game?