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.
It funny that you do the exact thing I called out you were doing, and you still don't even realize it.
It's also odd that you lie about a separate thread here too, conflating two separate elements from the NMS thread into one completely nonsensical claim. The fact that PC player on the galactic hub monetized using mods to sell services based on them to console players is separate from the point that a mod for currency could be made for the PC. The one caveat to that provided in the thread itself was that it would be to the exclusion of console players for a currency mod integrated directly into the game to be used.
The amount of eyeroll is indeed excessive, especially when you for some reason feel the need to devolve you argument to blatant lies.
EDIT: Also dunno what thread you were reading, but the guy who started the hub actually confirmed that hub users were using mods, they even said it was one of the few stable components of the hub coin ecosystem (coupling it under skill-systems for some reason) and espoused it as a good thing for sharing content console users don't have access too.
Seems you missed that fact in the posts you hearted. Little ironic to be wrong at the same time as trying to claim someone else is bad at explaining how things work.
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?
Simple, some F2P games are a rip off, much like the game you mentioned. Other F2P games are fair and worth playing. If a Crypto game was as fair with their business model as say G2W. Would you play? Or does the word Crypto just makes you auto say no, no matter how fair the game could be.
When F2P games showed up, everyone here on the forum said nope, wont play them and wont use cash shops. If this is where things are going, I will just stop gaming. So many here that put their foot down, have played F2P games that were even P2W because as they put it. Had fun for a month or two. I just dont think Crypto always will = ripping gamers off.
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.
I not sure if they understand the concept of "tangible", "physical", and "real world", nor the way things are related in a stepwise manner from one to the next.
Not to mention they seemed to skip the part where getting free pulls doesn't really change any of the arguments. They pretty clearly haven't been reading the arguments in favor of just making arguments, or else the simple counterpoint of "Even taking that out of the equation, yes gacha games often gift pulls. Guess who could do the same by gifting mints?" would have led off them running that rant further.
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?
Simple, some F2P games are a rip off, much like the game you mentioned. Other F2P games are fair and worth playing. If a Crypto game was as fair with their business model as say G2W. Would you play? Or does the word Crypto just makes you auto say no, no matter how fair the game could be.
When F2P games showed up, everyone here on the forum said nope, wont play them and wont use cash shops. If this is where things are going, I will just stop gaming. So many here that put their foot down, have played F2P games that were even P2W because as they put it. Had fun for a month or two. I just dont think Crypto always will = ripping gamers off.
It depends on how they handle it for sure; but so far from what I've seen the game experience is a secondary to selling the cryoto. Maybe if I didn't have to create a wallet just to play as a start.
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?
Simple, some F2P games are a rip off, much like the game you mentioned. Other F2P games are fair and worth playing. If a Crypto game was as fair with their business model as say G2W. Would you play? Or does the word Crypto just makes you auto say no, no matter how fair the game could be.
When F2P games showed up, everyone here on the forum said nope, wont play them and wont use cash shops. If this is where things are going, I will just stop gaming. So many here that put their foot down, have played F2P games that were even P2W because as they put it. Had fun for a month or two. I just dont think Crypto always will = ripping gamers off.
You keep talking about crypto games as if they were something separate from NFT games. You even used one example of single-game crypto monopoly-like money.
NOT ONE SINGLE DEVELOPER is using blockchains that way. It's all about NFTs which they are hyping as being transferable from one game to another so that takes care of your imaginary unique cryptocurrency in one game.
NFTs by definition are tradeable so to accept any game with NFT you need to accept real money trading as part of the game.
At best that would be RMT for cosmetics only but most (all?) NFT games in development or released have cash shop or player-made NFTs (as in selling their whole leveled-up character turned into an NFT just like some gold-selling outfits currently do) that have power so you would need to accept pay-to-win if you want to play that mythical great "crypto" game you're fantasizing about.
Entropia Universe as @tiller said is in fact the best current example of what all these developers are developing
The fact that you think that this resembles the switch from subs to F2P and gamer resistance to that just tells me that you actually know very little about what is actually happening.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
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?
Simple, some F2P games are a rip off, much like the game you mentioned. Other F2P games are fair and worth playing. If a Crypto game was as fair with their business model as say G2W. Would you play? Or does the word Crypto just makes you auto say no, no matter how fair the game could be.
When F2P games showed up, everyone here on the forum said nope, wont play them and wont use cash shops. If this is where things are going, I will just stop gaming. So many here that put their foot down, have played F2P games that were even P2W because as they put it. Had fun for a month or two. I just dont think Crypto always will = ripping gamers off.
You keep talking about crypto games as if they were something separate from NFT games. You even used one example of single-game crypto monopoly-like money.
NOT ONE SINGLE DEVELOPER is using blockchains that way. It's all about NFTs which they are hyping as being transferable from one game to another so that takes care of your imaginary unique cryptocurrency in one game.
NFTs by definition are tradeable so to accept any game with NFT you need to accept real money trading as part of the game.
At best that would be RMT for cosmetics only but most (all?) NFT games in development or released have cash shop or player-made NFTs (as in selling their whole leveled-up character turned into an NFT just like some gold-selling outfits currently do) that have power so you would need to accept pay-to-win if you want to play that mythical great "crypto" game you're fantasizing about.
Entropia Universe as @tiller said is in fact the best current example of what all these developers are developing
The fact that you think that this resembles the switch from subs to F2P and gamer resistance to that just tells me you that actually know very little about what is actually happening.
You give one example of what a NFT can do but but all games that use NFT's will have their NFTs always stay in just their game. Blockchain is just a ledger. You could trade items between games without a blockchain if companies wanted too. No all NFTs will be unique as well.
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?
Simple, some F2P games are a rip off, much like the game you mentioned. Other F2P games are fair and worth playing. If a Crypto game was as fair with their business model as say G2W. Would you play? Or does the word Crypto just makes you auto say no, no matter how fair the game could be.
When F2P games showed up, everyone here on the forum said nope, wont play them and wont use cash shops. If this is where things are going, I will just stop gaming. So many here that put their foot down, have played F2P games that were even P2W because as they put it. Had fun for a month or two. I just dont think Crypto always will = ripping gamers off.
You keep talking about crypto games as if they were something separate from NFT games. You even used one example of single-game crypto monopoly-like money.
NOT ONE SINGLE DEVELOPER is using blockchains that way. It's all about NFTs which they are hyping as being transferable from one game to another so that takes care of your imaginary unique cryptocurrency in one game.
NFTs by definition are tradeable so to accept any game with NFT you need to accept real money trading as part of the game.
At best that would be RMT for cosmetics only but most (all?) NFT games in development or released have cash shop or player-made NFTs (as in selling their whole leveled-up character turned into an NFT just like some gold-selling outfits currently do) that have power so you would need to accept pay-to-win if you want to play that mythical great "crypto" game you're fantasizing about.
Entropia Universe as @tiller said is in fact the best current example of what all these developers are developing
The fact that you think that this resembles the switch from subs to F2P and gamer resistance to that just tells me you that actually know very little about what is actually happening.
You give one example of what a NFT can do but but all games that use NFT's will have their NFTs always stay in just their game. Blockchain is just a ledger. You could trade items between games without a blockchain if companies wanted too. No all NFTs will be unique as well.
"No all NFTs will be unique as well."
Huh? An NFT by definition is unique. That's what non-fungible means.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
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.
And yet, completely irrelevant.
It's clear what I was talking about, and can't bank on the type of semantics this person attempts to use to subvert the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
It's obvious the entire premise surrounding gacha in the manner in was speaking was digital. NFTs are digital.
The last thing I want is for him to attempt to equate an NFT game with a real world gacha. It can't get anymore ludicrous.
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.
To quote back the original post where the subject of tangible gacha was relevant in drawing point of parallel in NFT trading collectibles, as well as the extension into digital lootbox/gacha trade.
To claim irrelevance is to admit one has not been regarding the context of the discussion held. This was not even an argument of semantics, but of core mechanics.
Ludicrous is thinking one can extend their dishonesty to subjects just a page away.
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?
Simple, some F2P games are a rip off, much like the game you mentioned. Other F2P games are fair and worth playing. If a Crypto game was as fair with their business model as say G2W. Would you play? Or does the word Crypto just makes you auto say no, no matter how fair the game could be.
When F2P games showed up, everyone here on the forum said nope, wont play them and wont use cash shops. If this is where things are going, I will just stop gaming. So many here that put their foot down, have played F2P games that were even P2W because as they put it. Had fun for a month or two. I just dont think Crypto always will = ripping gamers off.
You keep talking about crypto games as if they were something separate from NFT games. You even used one example of single-game crypto monopoly-like money.
NOT ONE SINGLE DEVELOPER is using blockchains that way. It's all about NFTs which they are hyping as being transferable from one game to another so that takes care of your imaginary unique cryptocurrency in one game.
NFTs by definition are tradeable so to accept any game with NFT you need to accept real money trading as part of the game.
At best that would be RMT for cosmetics only but most (all?) NFT games in development or released have cash shop or player-made NFTs (as in selling their whole leveled-up character turned into an NFT just like some gold-selling outfits currently do) that have power so you would need to accept pay-to-win if you want to play that mythical great "crypto" game you're fantasizing about.
Entropia Universe as @tiller said is in fact the best current example of what all these developers are developing
The fact that you think that this resembles the switch from subs to F2P and gamer resistance to that just tells me you that actually know very little about what is actually happening.
You give one example of what a NFT can do but but all games that use NFT's will have their NFTs always stay in just their game. Blockchain is just a ledger. You could trade items between games without a blockchain if companies wanted too. No all NFTs will be unique as well.
"No all NFTs will be unique as well."
Huh? An NFT by definition is unique. That's what non-fungible means.
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.
From the publisher side, one of the challenges is to authenticate an account holder/owner. Using an NFT as an additional way to verify an account would only increase account security. No security system is perfect, and there will always be some edge case where measures fail. However, a public blockchain provides a neutral record that all parties can agree is correct, which can help to resolve many of the current issues.
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.
From the publisher side, one of the challenges is to authenticate an account holder/owner. Using an NFT as an additional way to verify an account would only increase account security. No security system is perfect, and there will always be some edge case where measures fail.However, a public blockchain provides a neutral record that all parties can agree is correct, which can help to resolve many of the current issues.
That's nonsense: There are no issues authenticating account owner in situations where all parties agree.
There's only problem in situations where forgotten password, getting hacked, someone getting scammed in trades, or something similar causes parties to disagree. If the devs want to reduce those problems there are ways to reduce them like mandatory identification upon account registration and mandatory two-factor authentication to decrease hacks. Whereas making a neutral public record about the accounts only helps if you're paranoid and think the company would otherwise steal accounts to their own game.
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.
From the publisher side, one of the challenges is to authenticate an account holder/owner. Using an NFT as an additional way to verify an account would only increase account security. No security system is perfect, and there will always be some edge case where measures fail.However, a public blockchain provides a neutral record that all parties can agree is correct, which can help to resolve many of the current issues.
That's nonsense: There are no issues authenticating account owner in situations where all parties agree.
There's only problem in situations where forgotten password, getting hacked, someone getting scammed in trades, or something similar causes parties to disagree. If the devs want to reduce those problems there are ways to reduce them like mandatory identification upon account registration and mandatory two-factor authentication to decrease hacks. Whereas making a neutral public record about the accounts only helps if you're paranoid and think the company would otherwise steal accounts to their own game.
You are correct that authenticating an account (outside of the usual method) only comes into play if there is an issue of some sort. However, this happens a LOT more than people realize. Once it does happen, it is often difficult to authenticate the account holder. An addition of an NFT into this process provides the same opportunity as the addition of a phone number, secondary email, or some other means of authentication. The reason that this works better than either of these is that ownership of this can be authenticated easily and securely, and that any change in status of this can also be seen publicly.
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.
To quote back the original post where the subject of tangible gacha was relevant in drawing point of parallel in NFT trading collectibles, as well as the extension into digital lootbox/gacha trade.
To claim irrelevance is to admit one has not been regarding the context of the discussion held. This was not even an argument of semantics, but of core mechanics.
Ludicrous is thinking one can extend their dishonesty to subjects just a page away.
What a joke.
YOU said I was describing "gacha collectibles" with that. I wasn't. It was pretty clear what I was describing. YOU make up your arguments that have no basis on reality.
Just like how YOU said that the mods in NMS were based on skills and abilities. You even quoted it, he said: "Mods aren't really a major component of the Galactic Hub economy at all. I'm not sure what business you're referring to. There may be one or two but certainly no major players."
"Mods don't work on XBox or Playstation. No Man's Sky is a crossplay game, we aren't PC-exclusive. We need a solution that works for all platforms."
He even goes on to say that 70% of the hub prefers to play vanilla meaning that they don't want to use save edits or mods of any kind.
"There's also the "Certified Vanilla" aspect of our economy, our version of "Certified Organic." Something like 70% of respondents indicated they would prefer to shop at businesses which use no save edits or mods or exploits of any kind.... the areas of the economy for which CV is applicable, CV businesses are pretty universally preferred."
This is the part where you say "just b-b-b-because he says they d-d-d-don't prefer mods doesn't mean they d-d-d-don't use them" eh... no. It's not the main function of their system or economy, or even the function of the system. You were wrong plain and simple. Hubcoinc doesn't rely on mods. Reread what he wrote and not what you wrote that he wrote.
If there's one little tidbit that you're referring to where he specifically states that hubcoin ran off of mods, provide the exact quote, because what I read is completely different.
"YOU said I was describing "gacha collectibles" with that. I wasn't. It was pretty clear what I was describing. YOU make up your arguments that have no basis on reality. "
You can make a semantic s argument that you were describing NFTs, and you would miss the point of that statement entirely in doing so. By me saying you were describing Gacha collectibles, I was drawing a point to the direct parallel in fundamental mechanics NFTs have to to Gacha as an ecosystem. And as noted there, even bridged the point from physical to digital.
And taking a dive into your massively tangential semantics of the NMS thread;
"Just like how YOU said that the mods in NMS were based on skills and abilities."
Actually that was the guy you're trying to make these false arguments about. He stated this right after the part you quoted from him;
"I disagree entirely that save editing isn't a skill."
This statement followed directly after your quoted segment;
"Mods aren't really a major component of the Galactic Hub economy at all. I'm not sure what business you're referring to. There may be one or two but certainly no major players."
Which I had already found and called out this element as the galactic hub's own wiki begs to differ. I referenced it in the thread before they ever made that claim. I can go down the market list and call out every service that is based on a PC player using a mod the offerings of "Certified Vanilla" resources is limited to only a couple stores compared to a large array of mod-based services.
What's being done there, and in the majority of your subsequent argument, is the mincing of words.
Much like how you lied about what response was made to their comment;
The convenience aspect gets muddles since you can poll how much people would prefer something, but what's the numbers for who they're exchanging with most? Granted that even is rendered somewhat moot given what we both already know regarding the ease of access to materials even without modding/edits/etc. Certainly less if being super strict about game mode, but still not hard overall with established farms either."
As people can read, there was one element of asking "how does that polling reflect actual use rate" to which the person never responded.
There was also the address of the nature of the game and fact that the economy is so inflated in the game itself, that those resource serviced have all experienced devaluation. So the argument of "this part of our economy prefers vanilla in polling" was itself a moot point speaking to the least valuable part of their economy.
As for your last request;
"Things like save edited ships and save edited fauna aren't provided by the Galactic Hub directly; they provide major value to HubCoin, but they're provided just by regular old individual interlopers."
"I imagine even your average explorer-who-doesn't-care-about-construction could enjoy things like save-edited fauna companions, special save-edited ships, or physical Hub merch."
"Prices of skill-based resources, like save edited ships or save edited fauna, have remained pretty constant since their introduction."
He even talks about it more in the post you quoted, which is where I mention him espousing the value of using mods to help console players gain access to content they otherwise couldn't;
"I personally view it as only a positive thing to give people access to content they would otherwise have no access to."
SO not only are you wrong on all accounts, you have attempted to cherry-pick quotes and reframe them out of context. Why are you trying to lie? What argument are you trying to so vehemently defend that you are willing to become this dishonest?
"YOU said I was describing "gacha collectibles" with that. I wasn't. It was pretty clear what I was describing. YOU make up your arguments that have no basis on reality. "
You can make a semantic s argument that you were describing NFTs, and you would miss the point of that statement entirely in doing so. By me saying you were describing Gacha collectibles, I was drawing a point to the direct parallel in fundamental mechanics NFTs have to to Gacha as an ecosystem. And as noted there, even bridged the point from physical to digital.
No this is you trying to change the topic from digital to physical because you can't refute an argument based on digital. "Lets talk about physical Gacha when he clearly is talking about virtual goods and NFTs." That's what you did, and tried to tell me what I MEAN. No it doesn't work that way. "You're describing gacha collectibles" was literally your first line. Virtual gacha, everyone could see that. Who is being dishonest here? Your "parallel" to physical goods makes no sense here. Sorry. Nice try bro.
And taking a dive into your massively tangential semantics of the NMS thread;
"Just like how YOU said that the mods in NMS were based on skills and abilities."
Actually that was the guy you're trying to make these false arguments about. He stated this right after the part you quoted from him;
"I disagree entirely that save editing isn't a skill."
Again this is you dismissing everything else he said in favor of the fact that save editing is somehow the representation that the hub is run on mods? I totally called that you would do that too in my previous post. Hubcoin DOESN'T RELY ON MODS AT ALL. Instead you're trying to say that the users who SELL hubcoin items that choose to use mods, completely dismissing that the guy who created it said that 70% of people don't want that, and that those that don't cheat the system are preferred. THE SYSTEM OF HUBCOIN DOESN'T REQUIRE MODS AT ALL. FACT. One that you are lying when you try to claim it does. You call me dishonest all the time, as that's your major claim, but seriously, everyone can read it for themselves. You're wrong.
This statement followed directly after your quoted segment;
"Mods aren't really a major component of the Galactic Hub economy at all. I'm not sure what business you're referring to. There may be one or two but certainly no major players."
Which I had already found and called out this element as the galactic hub's own wiki begs to differ. I referenced it in the thread before they ever made that claim. I can go down the market list and call out every service that is based on a PC player using a mod the offerings of "Certified Vanilla" resources is limited to only a couple stores compared to a large array of mod-based services.
What's being done there, and in the majority of your subsequent argument, is the mincing of words.
It's not mincing of words, and linking a list of companies in the galactic hub marketplace does not make it true. If you can prove that these companies selling exploited and save edited goods somehow changes that fact that hubcoin DOESN'T RELY ON IT TO RUN. DO IT. Name every single one on the list that "uses mods" and refute the guy who created the galactic hub. Seriously, stop talking about what you can do and just do it.
It won't change the fact that he stated the hub doesn't use mods and DOESN'T NEED THEM TO RUN. You're straight up trolling if you're stating that it does.
Much like how you lied about what response was made to their comment;
The convenience aspect gets muddles since you can poll how much people would prefer something, but what's the numbers for who they're exchanging with most? Granted that even is rendered somewhat moot given what we both already know regarding the ease of access to materials even without modding/edits/etc. Certainly less if being super strict about game mode, but still not hard overall with established farms either."
As people can read, there was one element of asking "how does that polling reflect actual use rate" to which the person never responded.
because it's irrelevant. Even if people bought 90% of items that were exploited and modded it would change that hubcoin doesn't require it to run. Console players utilize the hub, as he stated. You're working very hard to prove yourself wrong every time. Just get over it. You're wrong.
There was also the address of the nature of the game and fact that the economy is so inflated in the game itself, that those resource serviced have all experienced devaluation. So the argument of "this part of our economy prefers vanilla in polling" was itself a moot point speaking to the least valuable part of their economy.
As for your last request;
"Things like save edited ships and save edited fauna aren't provided by the Galactic Hub directly; they provide major value to HubCoin, but they're provided just by regular old individual interlopers."
"I imagine even your average explorer-who-doesn't-care-about-construction could enjoy things like save-edited fauna companions, special save-edited ships, or physical Hub merch."
"Prices of skill-based resources, like save edited ships or save edited fauna, have remained pretty constant since their introduction."
He even talks about it more in the post you quoted, which is where I mention him espousing the value of using mods to help console players gain access to content they otherwise couldn't;
"I personally view it as only a positive thing to give people access to content they would otherwise have no access to."
SO not only are you wrong on all accounts, you have attempted to cherry-pick quotes and reframe them out of context. Why are you trying to lie? What argument are you trying to so vehemently defend that you are willing to become this dishonest?
And lastly, you show off how you completely missed the point. The galactic hub never ran on mods. Even if people use them to cheat in the game and sell items for coins, it doesn't mean it requires mods to run. You know this, you just want so badly to be right.
You couldn't figure out what proof of stake meant, you can't understand the scope of how hubcoin works, you fight simply to battle against me because I provide accurate responses, even if they are distasteful. Truth is truth. If that means that blockchain games like Life Beyond ends up being popular and makes a lot of money, I'm not going to pretend it doesn't. If that means that hubcoin doesn't require mods to run even if they community sells items that have been exploited and modded (despite the fact that this isn't a necessity or required) that's what I'm going to say. These are simple facts. Nothing I've said is dishonest. Not a single thing, and everyone and their mom can look back through what I've said and do their own research. Your best bet is to try and change the conversation which you tried to do with "Real world Gacha" but sorry, it's not going to work this time. You know what the argument is. We're talking about virtual goods, virtual gacha, and you knew it the whole time. With that, I'm done with you. I can't waste anymore time fact checking your nonsense.
"No this is you trying to change the topic from digital to physical because you can't refute an argument based on digital."
Incorrect, it was literally two short sentences about physical Gacha before tying it back to digital;
"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."
We can see in my statement I am literally cycling back to digital gacha right there with the third sentence. I used the point on physical gacha and NFTs being direct parallels as a bridging element to demonstrate how gacha evolved into it's digital version, and how it can still draw upon those same mechanics within the context of digital gaming.
You have chosen with this argument to ignore everything past those first two sentences to pretend that was all the argument was about. It was such a minor part of the argument that you didn't even notice until it got called out bluntly to you, and now you're the one obsessing over it.
As for the NMS tangent;
I'm still uncertain where your tangent and conclusion that anyone claimed "the hub is run on mods" even comes from, as it seems to be you continuing to conflate several topics to draw a false conclusion.
You seem to greatly mix up that opening argument. That segment you quote was on the subject of services being rendered on the platform, and my point to the creator of Hub that modding a game is odd to place as a "skill" service. It was itself a pretty minor topic made in passing, and save editing was used as one example by the Hub creator to be demonstrated as a service on the platform and their defense of it being a "skill".
Where and why you conflate that minor topic as being about Hubcoin and the platform itself, is a mystery.
Your argument about "hubcoin doesn't run on mods" ends up being rather odd as nobody made that claim.
In that thread I posited once as a separate argument that they could make a mod to integrate a currency directly into the game, and within that context I even acknowledged the same point the Hub creator noted that it would be a PC-only solution. That whole subject was done in comparing the point that Exiles had a game-integrated currency mechanic and comparing it to NMS and how that could be integrated there as a hypothetical.
Itself being a response too your claim;
"You can create a mod where you're able... But you aren't able to in NMS."
To which I addressed that NMS cand and does indeed use and offer a variety of mods;
"I'd also correct, due to the way NMS is made it actually could support an integrated currency mod similar to Pippi's. A lot of the communication done in the game is not authoritative to central server and much of the game runs client sided or peer to peer, you could add a currency to the game as a new item and let the mod flag other players with the mod over the current connected network so you know who you could trade with. You could even make it more authoritative than the game itself by having an external server issuing and tracking/validating it."
"This is also an additional reason why trying to leverage a currency as a mechanic with some form of traditional market rules doesn't work. Because mods exist that can alter just about any facet of the game (can even gain), on top of the base game itself already being easy to accrue just about any resource by default."
For some reason you are conflating that with the separate subject from the thread of the Hub's economy leaning on mod users for it's economy. I see you handwave it entirely here, but given that was the subject discussed with the other person in the thread, and the very context for them bringing up their 70% polling argument, to claim it's irrelevant after you brought it up here as a topic of argument is poor form.
The one tie-over that segment has is the point made about mods impacting the economy. Which, well... they did.
Your present argument about "THE SYSTEM OF HUBCOIN DOESN'T REQUIRE MODS AT ALL." seems to be a backpedal away from this, splitting yourself away from your own introduction of the subject of the Hub's economy and services. Problem is that you are not just reframing your argument, but also trying to reframe what those original arguments presented were even about.
And on your last segment you repeat this conflation and misunderstanding. Sure, the Hub doesn't run on a mod. Nobody ever claimed it did. I only ever provided one potential mod based alternative to it's currency within the context of addressing game integration and the availability of modding as a resource.
This entire rant of yours just now was based on a fictitious argument YOU made up.
Unfortunately no you have not provided "accurate" responses. You've quite literally chosen to fabricate an entire tangent. The same thing you did previously with proof of stake, handwaving even when your link described the very point I'd been making ad caught you mixing up stakeholders and users, along with mixing up Sybil and Eclipse. Tagging LOLs on posts and lying about their content is not the act of an honest person. The fact you're dragging these unrelated tangents into the subject is also demonstrative that you are not trying to argue the subject, but to attack me, which is itself rather dishonest behavior.
This is a mistake of your doing even highlighted in the NMS thread where you kept turning every argument into the topic of Crypto, when the criticism of the thread and from me was over the use of a currency of any form;
""You don't need Blockchain you say? Well you don't need anything." was perhaps the closest you've gotten so far to understanding the point. Yes, they don't need anything, and again in fact not using anything would have likely been the better solution.
Have I not repeated this multiple times now;
"They likely would have been better served leaving it an entirely roleplay level construct instead of tangible, as many roleplay communities do."
They created a currency that they tied to a broad range of social interactions and tied it to earning methods that could be gamed, on top of player made markets that can exploit the game and mods for drawing profit into a specific subsection of the community."
This crusade of yours to move from thread to thread changing arguments into this blockchain bash when that's often not even the focal point is simply baffling.
Be it intentional or not, you are putting out a lot of misinformation here Masked, and it seems you've gotten way too far into your own head on the subject to make the difference between what's being put down in the actual threads, versus what you are making things about. Turning your posts into personal attacks is not the right way to be behaving.
Comments
It's also odd that you lie about a separate thread here too, conflating two separate elements from the NMS thread into one completely nonsensical claim. The fact that PC player on the galactic hub monetized using mods to sell services based on them to console players is separate from the point that a mod for currency could be made for the PC. The one caveat to that provided in the thread itself was that it would be to the exclusion of console players for a currency mod integrated directly into the game to be used.
The amount of eyeroll is indeed excessive, especially when you for some reason feel the need to devolve you argument to blatant lies.
EDIT: Also dunno what thread you were reading, but the guy who started the hub actually confirmed that hub users were using mods, they even said it was one of the few stable components of the hub coin ecosystem (coupling it under skill-systems for some reason) and espoused it as a good thing for sharing content console users don't have access too.
Seems you missed that fact in the posts you hearted. Little ironic to be wrong at the same time as trying to claim someone else is bad at explaining how things work.
When F2P games showed up, everyone here on the forum said nope, wont play them and wont use cash shops. If this is where things are going, I will just stop gaming. So many here that put their foot down, have played F2P games that were even P2W because as they put it. Had fun for a month or two. I just dont think Crypto always will = ripping gamers off.
Not to mention they seemed to skip the part where getting free pulls doesn't really change any of the arguments. They pretty clearly haven't been reading the arguments in favor of just making arguments, or else the simple counterpoint of "Even taking that out of the equation, yes gacha games often gift pulls. Guess who could do the same by gifting mints?" would have led off them running that rant further.
It depends on how they handle it for sure; but so far from what I've seen the game experience is a secondary to selling the cryoto. Maybe if I didn't have to create a wallet just to play as a start.
NOT ONE SINGLE DEVELOPER is using blockchains that way. It's all about NFTs which they are hyping as being transferable from one game to another so that takes care of your imaginary unique cryptocurrency in one game.
NFTs by definition are tradeable so to accept any game with NFT you need to accept real money trading as part of the game.
At best that would be RMT for cosmetics only but most (all?) NFT games in development or released have cash shop or player-made NFTs (as in selling their whole leveled-up character turned into an NFT just like some gold-selling outfits currently do) that have power so you would need to accept pay-to-win if you want to play that mythical great "crypto" game you're fantasizing about.
Entropia Universe as @tiller said is in fact the best current example of what all these developers are developing
The fact that you think that this resembles the switch from subs to F2P and gamer resistance to that just tells me that you actually know very little about what is actually happening.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Huh? An NFT by definition is unique. That's what non-fungible means.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
It's clear what I was talking about, and can't bank on the type of semantics this person attempts to use to subvert the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
It's obvious the entire premise surrounding gacha in the manner in was speaking was digital. NFTs are digital.
The last thing I want is for him to attempt to equate an NFT game with a real world gacha. It can't get anymore ludicrous.
To claim irrelevance is to admit one has not been regarding the context of the discussion held. This was not even an argument of semantics, but of core mechanics.
Ludicrous is thinking one can extend their dishonesty to subjects just a page away.
There's only problem in situations where forgotten password, getting hacked, someone getting scammed in trades, or something similar causes parties to disagree. If the devs want to reduce those problems there are ways to reduce them like mandatory identification upon account registration and mandatory two-factor authentication to decrease hacks. Whereas making a neutral public record about the accounts only helps if you're paranoid and think the company would otherwise steal accounts to their own game.
YOU said I was describing "gacha collectibles" with that. I wasn't. It was pretty clear what I was describing. YOU make up your arguments that have no basis on reality.
Just like how YOU said that the mods in NMS were based on skills and abilities. You even quoted it, he said: "Mods aren't really a major component of the Galactic Hub economy at all. I'm not sure what business you're referring to. There may be one or two but certainly no major players."
"Mods don't work on XBox or Playstation. No Man's Sky is a crossplay game, we aren't PC-exclusive. We need a solution that works for all platforms."
He even goes on to say that 70% of the hub prefers to play vanilla meaning that they don't want to use save edits or mods of any kind.
"There's also the "Certified Vanilla" aspect of our economy, our version of "Certified Organic." Something like 70% of respondents indicated they would prefer to shop at businesses which use no save edits or mods or exploits of any kind.... the areas of the economy for which CV is applicable, CV businesses are pretty universally preferred."
This is the part where you say "just b-b-b-because he says they d-d-d-don't prefer mods doesn't mean they d-d-d-don't use them" eh... no. It's not the main function of their system or economy, or even the function of the system. You were wrong plain and simple. Hubcoinc doesn't rely on mods. Reread what he wrote and not what you wrote that he wrote.
If there's one little tidbit that you're referring to where he specifically states that hubcoin ran off of mods, provide the exact quote, because what I read is completely different.
"YOU said I was describing "gacha collectibles" with that. I wasn't. It was pretty clear what I was describing. YOU make up your arguments that have no basis on reality. "
You can make a semantic s argument that you were describing NFTs, and you would miss the point of that statement entirely in doing so. By me saying you were describing Gacha collectibles, I was drawing a point to the direct parallel in fundamental mechanics NFTs have to to Gacha as an ecosystem. And as noted there, even bridged the point from physical to digital.
And taking a dive into your massively tangential semantics of the NMS thread;
"Just like how YOU said that the mods in NMS were based on skills and abilities."
Actually that was the guy you're trying to make these false arguments about. He stated this right after the part you quoted from him;
"I disagree entirely that save editing isn't a skill."
This statement followed directly after your quoted segment;
"Mods aren't really a major component of the Galactic Hub economy at all. I'm not sure what business you're referring to. There may be one or two but certainly no major players."
Which I had already found and called out this element as the galactic hub's own wiki begs to differ. I referenced it in the thread before they ever made that claim. I can go down the market list and call out every service that is based on a PC player using a mod the offerings of "Certified Vanilla" resources is limited to only a couple stores compared to a large array of mod-based services.
What's being done there, and in the majority of your subsequent argument, is the mincing of words.
Much like how you lied about what response was made to their comment;
The convenience aspect gets muddles since you can poll how much people would prefer something, but what's the numbers for who they're exchanging with most? Granted that even is rendered somewhat moot given what we both already know regarding the ease of access to materials even without modding/edits/etc. Certainly less if being super strict about game mode, but still not hard overall with established farms either."
As people can read, there was one element of asking "how does that polling reflect actual use rate" to which the person never responded.
There was also the address of the nature of the game and fact that the economy is so inflated in the game itself, that those resource serviced have all experienced devaluation. So the argument of "this part of our economy prefers vanilla in polling" was itself a moot point speaking to the least valuable part of their economy.
As for your last request;
"Things like save edited ships and save edited fauna aren't provided by the Galactic Hub directly; they provide major value to HubCoin, but they're provided just by regular old individual interlopers."
"I imagine even your average explorer-who-doesn't-care-about-construction could enjoy things like save-edited fauna companions, special save-edited ships, or physical Hub merch."
"Prices of skill-based resources, like save edited ships or save edited fauna, have remained pretty constant since their introduction."
He even talks about it more in the post you quoted, which is where I mention him espousing the value of using mods to help console players gain access to content they otherwise couldn't;
"I personally view it as only a positive thing to give people access to content they would otherwise have no access to."
SO not only are you wrong on all accounts, you have attempted to cherry-pick quotes and reframe them out of context. Why are you trying to lie? What argument are you trying to so vehemently defend that you are willing to become this dishonest?
No this is you trying to change the topic from digital to physical because you can't refute an argument based on digital. "Lets talk about physical Gacha when he clearly is talking about virtual goods and NFTs." That's what you did, and tried to tell me what I MEAN. No it doesn't work that way. "You're describing gacha collectibles" was literally your first line. Virtual gacha, everyone could see that. Who is being dishonest here? Your "parallel" to physical goods makes no sense here. Sorry. Nice try bro.
Again this is you dismissing everything else he said in favor of the fact that save editing is somehow the representation that the hub is run on mods? I totally called that you would do that too in my previous post. Hubcoin DOESN'T RELY ON MODS AT ALL. Instead you're trying to say that the users who SELL hubcoin items that choose to use mods, completely dismissing that the guy who created it said that 70% of people don't want that, and that those that don't cheat the system are preferred. THE SYSTEM OF HUBCOIN DOESN'T REQUIRE MODS AT ALL. FACT. One that you are lying when you try to claim it does. You call me dishonest all the time, as that's your major claim, but seriously, everyone can read it for themselves. You're wrong. It's not mincing of words, and linking a list of companies in the galactic hub marketplace does not make it true. If you can prove that these companies selling exploited and save edited goods somehow changes that fact that hubcoin DOESN'T RELY ON IT TO RUN. DO IT. Name every single one on the list that "uses mods" and refute the guy who created the galactic hub. Seriously, stop talking about what you can do and just do it. It won't change the fact that he stated the hub doesn't use mods and DOESN'T NEED THEM TO RUN. You're straight up trolling if you're stating that it does.
because it's irrelevant. Even if people bought 90% of items that were exploited and modded it would change that hubcoin doesn't require it to run. Console players utilize the hub, as he stated. You're working very hard to prove yourself wrong every time. Just get over it. You're wrong. And lastly, you show off how you completely missed the point. The galactic hub never ran on mods. Even if people use them to cheat in the game and sell items for coins, it doesn't mean it requires mods to run. You know this, you just want so badly to be right.
You couldn't figure out what proof of stake meant, you can't understand the scope of how hubcoin works, you fight simply to battle against me because I provide accurate responses, even if they are distasteful. Truth is truth. If that means that blockchain games like Life Beyond ends up being popular and makes a lot of money, I'm not going to pretend it doesn't. If that means that hubcoin doesn't require mods to run even if they community sells items that have been exploited and modded (despite the fact that this isn't a necessity or required) that's what I'm going to say. These are simple facts. Nothing I've said is dishonest. Not a single thing, and everyone and their mom can look back through what I've said and do their own research. Your best bet is to try and change the conversation which you tried to do with "Real world Gacha" but sorry, it's not going to work this time. You know what the argument is. We're talking about virtual goods, virtual gacha, and you knew it the whole time. With that, I'm done with you. I can't waste anymore time fact checking your nonsense.
Incorrect, it was literally two short sentences about physical Gacha before tying it back to digital;
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 have chosen with this argument to ignore everything past those first two sentences to pretend that was all the argument was about. It was such a minor part of the argument that you didn't even notice until it got called out bluntly to you, and now you're the one obsessing over it.
As for the NMS tangent;
I'm still uncertain where your tangent and conclusion that anyone claimed "the hub is run on mods" even comes from, as it seems to be you continuing to conflate several topics to draw a false conclusion.
You seem to greatly mix up that opening argument. That segment you quote was on the subject of services being rendered on the platform, and my point to the creator of Hub that modding a game is odd to place as a "skill" service. It was itself a pretty minor topic made in passing, and save editing was used as one example by the Hub creator to be demonstrated as a service on the platform and their defense of it being a "skill".
Where and why you conflate that minor topic as being about Hubcoin and the platform itself, is a mystery.
Your argument about "hubcoin doesn't run on mods" ends up being rather odd as nobody made that claim.
In that thread I posited once as a separate argument that they could make a mod to integrate a currency directly into the game, and within that context I even acknowledged the same point the Hub creator noted that it would be a PC-only solution. That whole subject was done in comparing the point that Exiles had a game-integrated currency mechanic and comparing it to NMS and how that could be integrated there as a hypothetical.
Itself being a response too your claim;
To which I addressed that NMS cand and does indeed use and offer a variety of mods;
"This is also an additional reason why trying to leverage a currency as a mechanic with some form of traditional market rules doesn't work. Because mods exist that can alter just about any facet of the game (can even gain), on top of the base game itself already being easy to accrue just about any resource by default."
For some reason you are conflating that with the separate subject from the thread of the Hub's economy leaning on mod users for it's economy. I see you handwave it entirely here, but given that was the subject discussed with the other person in the thread, and the very context for them bringing up their 70% polling argument, to claim it's irrelevant after you brought it up here as a topic of argument is poor form.
The one tie-over that segment has is the point made about mods impacting the economy. Which, well... they did.
Your present argument about "THE SYSTEM OF HUBCOIN DOESN'T REQUIRE MODS AT ALL." seems to be a backpedal away from this, splitting yourself away from your own introduction of the subject of the Hub's economy and services. Problem is that you are not just reframing your argument, but also trying to reframe what those original arguments presented were even about.
And on your last segment you repeat this conflation and misunderstanding. Sure, the Hub doesn't run on a mod. Nobody ever claimed it did. I only ever provided one potential mod based alternative to it's currency within the context of addressing game integration and the availability of modding as a resource.
This entire rant of yours just now was based on a fictitious argument YOU made up.
Unfortunately no you have not provided "accurate" responses. You've quite literally chosen to fabricate an entire tangent. The same thing you did previously with proof of stake, handwaving even when your link described the very point I'd been making ad caught you mixing up stakeholders and users, along with mixing up Sybil and Eclipse. Tagging LOLs on posts and lying about their content is not the act of an honest person. The fact you're dragging these unrelated tangents into the subject is also demonstrative that you are not trying to argue the subject, but to attack me, which is itself rather dishonest behavior.
This is a mistake of your doing even highlighted in the NMS thread where you kept turning every argument into the topic of Crypto, when the criticism of the thread and from me was over the use of a currency of any form;
Have I not repeated this multiple times now;
"They likely would have been better served leaving it an entirely roleplay level construct instead of tangible, as many roleplay communities do."
They created a currency that they tied to a broad range of social interactions and tied it to earning methods that could be gamed, on top of player made markets that can exploit the game and mods for drawing profit into a specific subsection of the community."
Be it intentional or not, you are putting out a lot of misinformation here Masked, and it seems you've gotten way too far into your own head on the subject to make the difference between what's being put down in the actual threads, versus what you are making things about. Turning your posts into personal attacks is not the right way to be behaving.