Laserit can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think that his point is this.
There's nothing wrong with having a job that consists of playing some tiny role in creating tremendously complex goods and services. Indeed, the ability of capitalism to provide the proper incentives for people to organize themselves into ways that produce novel goods and services while benefiting everyone involved is the primary reason why the standard of living in much of the world is massively higher than it was centuries ago.
In order for it to work efficiently, however, everyone who is getting paid needs to add real value somewhere along the way. Everyone has to play a meaningful role in making the final goods or services a reality. What you're getting paid for at your job is your role in creating things that people want. That's true even if you don't fully understand your role in producing the final goods or services, or even if you don't know what the final goods or services are, as is common in a modern economy.
When choosing a job, most people don't put that much weight on how useful the final goods or services produced by their job is. Many people could not do so even if they wanted to because they don't know what the final products are. The copper miner does not understand all of the things that are done with copper, for example. At every step along the way, the companies involved use prices and purchasing decisions to communicate what they want and don't want.
Rather, people choosing a job look at the hours, whether they like the nature of the work, and especially the wages and benefits. If a job that is useless pays more than one that produces useful goods and services, then most people will do something useless. If a large fraction of society's labor is consumed by useless things that benefit no one, then that leaves much less labor available to produce the important goods and services that people actually want.
NFTs in games don't add value anywhere. They aren't part of building goods or services that people want. They don't contribute to the creation of public goods, and they don't do anything to reduce externalities. At a societal level, any labor used to create them is simply wasted.
Wasted labor like that is fine if you're doing something just for fun. This isn't an argument against playing computer games for fun. But if paid employment mostly consists of doing useless things, then the goods and services that people want won't get created. No one gets to use products that don't exist because they don't get built, and siphoning off labor for things that don't add value anywhere makes the world poorer. If cryptocurrencies drive large numbers of people to abandon jobs that pay well in favor of doing things that are useless, then that will be catastrophic for society.
Earlier this year around the time of the gamestop amc phenomenon I was looking at the market and it dawned on me.
How wonderful is it be producing something that no one needs. You need a car. You need medicine. You need oil, tires, a phone.
No one needs movies. No one needs games. You don't have to go out and buy a movie. You don't have to go buy a game. We choose to go watch a movie. We choose to play games.
These producers aren't taking our money. We give to them freely, because we enjoy them. These types of business, I believe are the holy grail.
There's nothing wrong with jobs creating things that people want but don't truly need. People won't buy them if their basic needs aren't already met, but most people in wealthy countries have a lot more disposable income than they realize. Even if you need food, clothing, and housing, you could probably get it much more cheaply than you do if you needed to.
The problem is when people expect to make income from a job doing useless things that don't benefit anyone. If you're creating goods or services that people want and are willing to pay for, then money is flowing into the system and you can reasonably expect to get some share of it for doing your job. If you're doing something useless that is merely shuffling money around between people, then money isn't flowing into the system, and one person's gain necessarily has to be another's loss.
Ok. So why did they then allow the launch of Mir4 (which is actually hitting the top 10 games played occasionally). This is a game that is now promoting its P2E approach.
I've heard of people making good money on some games, but most will just sink money in. I don't get the hate for Blockchain. I haven't seen a game that I want to play with blockchain, but if something interesting comes along, I'll give it a shot. Not to make money, but because the game is interesting. However, I know how I am and I enjoy crafting/farming, so I'll get competitive with it, I'm sure.
DigDuggy said: I don't get the hate for Blockchain.
Because in the olden days a game was advertised via features, not the database technology. Do you know what database/storage tech is used in ESO, Ultima Online, or any other game?
Buzzwords that mean nothing for player experience are the product of glassy-eyed marketing bozos.
Comments
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The problem is when people expect to make income from a job doing useless things that don't benefit anyone. If you're creating goods or services that people want and are willing to pay for, then money is flowing into the system and you can reasonably expect to get some share of it for doing your job. If you're doing something useless that is merely shuffling money around between people, then money isn't flowing into the system, and one person's gain necessarily has to be another's loss.
Buzzwords that mean nothing for player experience are the product of glassy-eyed marketing bozos.