Support NeoGAF

[rofif]

Lol they had to know there will be a vocal disagreement with this. … so why would they put it on and then backpedal.
just makes them look like fools

 

[RafterXL]

See all the people who are trying desperately to defend NFTs? Don't ever listen to a word they say. Don't trust them as they are easily duped, gullible, or just maliciously ignorant.

Yep. These people parrot the same dumb arguments, word for word, that have gotten gaming to the point we are today. Only these NFTs are actually worse because, not only are they going to be yet another way publishers and nickel and dime us for content, but they are fucking terrible for the environment.

MTX started from an irrelevant $2 skin that had zero impact on gameplay, and look at the state of MTX today.

These people can't see past their faces, they have zero vision of what's coming. They're useful idiots.

They're selling a way to become an NPC in the game. I don't see it as shady. Many Kickstarter games have done the same (or something similar).

The only major company so far to announce anything is Ubisoft, and they are doing these as rewards for gameplay.. basically just your typical cosmetics with an NFT element.. and all they really care to make money on, is likely by making deals with the 3rd party marketplaces so they get a cut of the sales, which are sales that make the players money.

I don't see any evidence games are going to start actually selling high priced NFTs to access better weapons or anything like that.

This auction for "becoming an NPC" is maybe slightly suss, but all of these things are getting absolutely shat on via Twitter. I wouldn't be shocked if Ubisoft Quartz dies a terrible death before the end of 2022 lol

It's like you two don't even remember Horse Armor. This is the equilivant of dipping their toes in the water. Eventually, uncontested, or even promoted like some here are doing, this shit will get progressively worse. If this garbage gets a foothold we'll be looking back wishing for the days of NPC NFTs.

I guess it's fun pretending we have standards again after we've completely given in to horse armour DLC, on-disc DLC, paid for online, season passes, loot boxes, subscription services et al.

So because we let MTX get out of control we should just sit back and allow everything and let companies invent new ways to screw their customers?

What's your point exactly? Other than you're perfectly happy just bending over and taking it on command?

 

[TheDreadLord]

This is great news as it allows the developers to pursue an avenue of revenue that does not conflict with gameplay.

But of course, weak-minded reactionary gamers who know little to nothing will automatically get angry.

Personally, I'm wondering if this will affect the GamePass release as Phil Spencer hasn't had favorable comments in the past:

Xbox boss Phil Spencer is a bit worried about 'exploitative' NFTs

We probably won't see any "EvilApes" or "Lazy Lions" on Game Pass.

www.pcgamer.com

No. I don’t think it makes sense that someone technically owns a piece of the game I have bought. Also, isn’t it enough to milk money from dumb people with mtx and dlcs? We shouldn’t forget that most of the games also have a cost of admission (+60USD).

 

[Spukc]

I hope this was worth it fucking idiots

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

I think the litmus strip in regards to NFTs in gaming, will be whether or not Nintendo adopts them. Because of all the companies right now, they're the only ones with an existing product line making use of interoperability of assets. I.e., Amiibos. Digital Amiibos make the most sense as NFTs, as they can easily be unique, already have unique content created for them used in a variety of games, and would follow the concept of the original physical toys fairly well.

If Nintendo doesn't see it worthwhile to adopt NFTs for a digital Amiibo store, then the tech is dead as far as adoption in gaming goes.

 

[TransTrender]

They deleted the Tweet but here's the image anyway (Please don't right-click and Save-As cuz NFT or something)

 

[Vae_Victis]

How you ensure that the character or something what they pitched would be completely unique, that no one else have. Technically you can do some online service, but you know when the Sony, MS, Valve all of them have different service, which in some cases cannot speak to themselves how to do that? Now if it would have some cutdown fork of some crypto coin, this solution is actually pretty neat...from a technical standpoint.

Sadly people think that NFT means some stupid monkeys for millions, it poisoned the well, I get it, but from technical standpoint, this would ease up the solution quite a lot. And for how would then devs make money, when there wouldn't be any middle man. Well every crypto in existence have the fees and portion of that is send to devs, id by the crypto address. If it really need to be with monetary value.

The NFT is a receipt, not a digital asset. Don't mix up the two. An item handed through NFT is NOT unique, the receipt it came with is. That item is copied in the code of everybody's copy of the game, otherwise other people would not even be able to see it in-game at all, even when used by another player. The NFT is just the equivalent of a server check to tell the game "yes, this player is allowed to turn this option on in its settings".

How do you make an item "unique", in the sense that only one single person can use it in the game at any given time? If the game uses a server, the server has a database of every item every player has in their inventory. You control and can change all of them at any moment. So, just make sure only one person had the item corresponding to that ID in their inventory, don't allow for duplicates. You can easily do that, even across different platform, because you control the database for all your players, regrardless of the hardware through which their local client runs.

The NFT does the same exact thing, it just bypasses the part where the developer manually controls the database of everybody, and instead which items are in whose accounts is regulated by a shared algorithm. If the game checks for your NFT as proof of ownership, it could just as well check a centralized database that does the same exact thing. And if it doesn't check to begin with, meaning there is no form of DRM over what a player can put into their inventory, an NFT won't stop it either.

The only scenario in which I can envision an NFT being a stronger enforcer than a server is if you bake into the game code itself the NFT identifiers to allow for the use of an item even without performing a real-time internet check at all. This seems kind of a moot point though, first of all because in order to move the NFT around you need to go online anyway (so this still doesn't allow for a "fully offline experience"), second because most of the games promoting them are online games to begin with (so this scenario is completely impossible by definition), and third because fuck you (not "you" you, these gaming companies) for suggesting the introduction of artificial scarcity of items in single player games. We are already at the "if you want that item you need to pay a fee to randomly draw it from a lootbox" step. NFTs are the gateway to "if you want an item you need to pay a fee to randomly draw it from a lootbox, even if our game is 100% single player and we set up no servers for it we made sure only a finite amount in the world can exist at any time - and you're paying for DRMing yourself through an inflated electricity bill".


TL;DR: NFTs are just a form of DRM that substitutes in 95% of the cases an identical DRM check now performed by a server, and in the remaining 5% of cases are a gateway to the next step in the gangrenous cancer of hyper-monetization in gaming.

This is all still pretending this stuff is being done in "good faith", and ignoring that it likely exist mainly to act as short-term pyramid schemes in the style of Earth 2, if not to flat-out attract money launderers.

 

[GeorgPrime]

Metahumans and NFT's....wtf is this shit....I'm getting so old,lol.

Metahumans are all those people identifying as "it"

 

[AV]

Thank god for that, hopefully public backlash keeps working. Twitter did a good thing for once.

Y'all can keep selling your PNGs of monkeys to other I'm-gonna-get-rich-quick idiots if you have to but keep this fucking horrible crap out of video games.

 

[Esppiral]

Isn't it similar to the stickers or whatever it's called on Steam?

 

[Drizzlehell]

Honestly, whenever I see shenanigans like these happening in the months leading up to a release of some overhyped game, then it immediately makes me believe that it's gonna be an absolute trainwreck when it finally releases.

Not that I wish such games to fail of course, but seriously, how many times does this sort of thing has to happen before people start noticing the pattern?

 

[Hypereides]

People laughed at horse armor and look what happened. There's enough out there that'll gobble it up and shift it to a new standard. Some folks will denounce it now only to later be begrudingly inclined to accept it. Pretty much what this dude said:

I guess it's fun pretending we have standards again after we've completely given in to horse armour DLC, on-disc DLC, paid for online, season passes, loot boxes, subscription services et al.

 

[Sentenza]

Thank god for that, hopefully public backlash keeps working.

If nothing else, it's a nice middle fingers to all the suckers who love to repeat over and over that "complaining is pointless and you have to suck it up" every time the industry tries to force some bullshit on its users.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

If nothing else, it's a nice middle fingers to all the suckers who love to repeat over and over that "complaining is pointless and you have to suck it up" every time the industry tries to force some bullshit on its users.

Very temporary middle finger. NFTs in gaming are inevitable.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Bernd Lauert post if you're okay

I'm fine. Small indie dev who has boomers as the target audience can't really push this against the outrage. But big publishers like EA, Ubisoft and so on absolutely can and will. It's happening.

 

[Sentenza]

Very temporary middle finger. NFTs in gaming are inevitable.

It doesn't mean I'm ever going to stop expressing my dislike for it.

 

[AV]

People laughed at horse armor and look what happened. There's enough out there that'll gobble it up and shift it to a new standard. Some folks will denounce it now only to later be begrudingly inclined to accept it. Pretty much what this dude said: "I guess it's fun pretending we have standards again after we've completely given in to horse armour DLC, on-disc DLC, paid for online, season passes, loot boxes, subscription services et al."

It's probably just a delay, but a delay is better than nothing.

People like the fellow you quoted like to use "we" as if everyone buys into item DLC, season passes and loot boxes. We don't and I imagine those of us that don't won't buy into game NFTs either. They're never going to be in every game and it will always be possible not to get involved.

 

[dispensergoinup]

Was going to buy this game on release but with the NFT shenanigans I'm gunna wait and may pick it up a later date. Congrats, ya played yourself.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

Fucking LOL.

I guess the devs were seated in their black obsidian tower saying "This is what the kids like. We're doing God's work," while a lonely receptionist stumbled backwards away from the window overlooking throngs of angry gamers with pitchforks and torches before saying "Sir, there may be a problem!"

 

[Hypereides]

It's probably just a delay, but a delay is better than nothing.

People like the fellow you quoted like to use "we" as if everyone buys into item DLC, season passes and loot boxes. We don't and I imagine those of us that don't won't buy into game NFTs either. They're never going to be in every game and it will always be possible not to get involved.

In that context, I understood "we" as in "the larger representative group" of the gaming community. You know, those who actually do buy into all that shit without a second's hesitation. Their buying power steers the course, unfortunately.

I don't like where this is headed either, but we've already passed the point of no return in terms of monetization.

 

[Bavarian_Sloth]

It's nice to see that an outcry in the community can sometimes actually make a difference. And by outcry, I mean constructively formulated criticism, no death threats to the developers

Halo Infinit`s multiplayer recently also underwent a significant overhaul and new playlists were added. Also because of criticism from the fans.

 

[The Cockatrice]

Honestly, whenever I see shenanigans like these happening in the months leading up to a release of some overhyped game, then it immediately makes me believe that it's gonna be an absolute trainwreck when it finally releases.

Not that I wish such games to fail of course, but seriously, how many times does this sort of thing has to happen before people start noticing the pattern?

Same thought as well. They spent all this time on doing the NFT's for a singleplayer game instead of you know..focusing on the fucking game but consumers never learn. So many idiots, on gaf as well, that keep preordering with no thought whatsoever, they get hyped from seeing some obvious bullshots and "gameplay" videos then they see the mess the game releases complain on the forums and repeat for the next game.

 

[Draugoth]

Waked up to this.

Who bets they are going to say this is cancelled and we are still getting it anyways?

 

[GeorgPrime]

Waked up to this.

Who bets they are going to say this is cancelled and we are still getting it anyways?

Lets see what happens xD they still can Add microtransactions and not NFTs

 

[AV]

Waked up to this.

Who bets they are going to say this is cancelled and we are still getting it anyways?

I think it's more likely they never really planned to have them in the first place.

1. Tell your audience you're going to do <thing> with product without intending to
2. If reception is actually positive, do it
3. If reception is negative, say "we hear you, we're listening" and scrap idea
4. Omg based company! Buying two copies!

Oldest trick in the book, really

 

[Punished Miku]

I'm fine. Small indie dev who has boomers as the target audience can't really push this against the outrage. But big publishers like EA, Ubisoft and so on absolutely can and will. It's happening.

 

[cormack12]

Whether this happens now or not, it's the future. It's a way to create scarcity and create a reseller market. We already have unique or seasonal events that grant exclusive rewards to participation etc. that once they've gone, they're no longer earnable (unless a second event in the future gives that opportunity).

Now imagine you just earn the right to purchase exclusive seasonal rewards. Let's say a skin. Let's say they are limited to only 500 stock, and the original purchase price is £10. That creates a secondary reseller market which will be driven by supply. Then the companies will make a percentage back of the resale when using a broker like Dmarket. So they will get a transaction fee every time the asset changes ownership. The Developers of the virtual item also get a commission. I'm assuming for this that there won't be any UGC, it will all be provided by the devs as the original NFT owner as in officially supported in game assets.

• So the company have already sold 500 NFTs at a total of £5000.
• Let's say they are placed on DMarket and shoot up to £100 asking.
• That means seller gets £95, £4 goes to developer and £2 to DMarket.
• One transfer of each NFT nets a further £2,000 for doing nothing and will continue to background earn until demand plateaus at an exorbitant price I'm guessing.
• In 12 months that NFT might be aspirational or in fashion and 400 might be marketed at £750, same split would earn the devs/pubs a further £30 per trade equalling £12,000.

Whole thing is a con, meanwhile we just hope we get to own a rare NFT that will be in demand or get stuck with a lame common. Real life loot drops. I'm not really against NFTs in principle but there needs to be some regulation to stop them going to this level.

 

[sircaw]

I must admit I still don't understand these nft things,

Why does everything have to have some catch, some extra bolt-on that overcomplicates things, just make games good and be done with it all.

Sometimes i feel i am getting to old for all this shit.

 

[dezzy8]

I'm thinking about making an NFT thread, but 90% of the replies would be endless babyrage so idk if it's worth it

Please make one. I’m in the same boat as the old man. I really don’t understand what makes NFTs valuable.

 

[Synless]

Cowards.

 

[SJRB]

They don't even have the spine to stand for their decisions, however poor they are.

Speaks volumes on how they're just riding the waves of NFT popularity without having any actual belief in it.

 

[iHaunter]

It's gonna come back. These cock suckers will find a way to sneak this shit back in. Or just do it without testing the waters.

Bet if this was a Sony studio GAF would go bat-shit crazy.

 

[Missingnomer]

Whether this happens now or not, it's the future. It's a way to create scarcity and create a reseller market. We already have unique or seasonal events that grant exclusive rewards to participation etc. that once they've gone, they're no longer earnable (unless a second event in the future gives that opportunity).

Now imagine you just earn the right to purchase exclusive seasonal rewards. Let's say a skin. Let's say they are limited to only 500 stock, and the original purchase price is £10. That creates a secondary reseller market which will be driven by supply. Then the companies will make a percentage back of the resale when using a broker like Dmarket. So they will get a transaction fee every time the asset changes ownership. The Developers of the virtual item also get a commission. I'm assuming for this that there won't be any UGC, it will all be provided by the devs as the original NFT owner as in officially supported in game assets.

• So the company have already sold 500 NFTs at a total of £5000.
• Let's say they are placed on DMarket and shoot up to £100 asking.
• That means seller gets £95, £4 goes to developer and £2 to DMarket.
• One transfer of each NFT nets a further £2,000 for doing nothing and will continue to background earn until demand plateaus at an exorbitant price I'm guessing.
• In 12 months that NFT might be aspirational or in fashion and 400 might be marketed at £750, same split would earn the devs/pubs a further £30 per trade equalling £12,000.

Whole thing is a con, meanwhile we just hope we get to own a rare NFT that will be in demand or get stuck with a lame common. Real life loot drops. I'm not really against NFTs in principle but there needs to be some regulation to stop them going to this level.

I think the reason why people are upset with NFTs is because a majority of gamers do not engage in current marketplaces, like CS: GO skins, because they are not interested in collectables. A great example is Magic, Pokemon, and Yu-Gi-Oh cards. Some cards can go up to the tens of thousands of dollars and collectors will gladly pay for a rare perfect condition card. However, a majority of people will see buying that piece of cardboard for $$$ is simply ridiculous. What they don't realize is that people actually enjoy and value collecting things that have clout and scarcity in their communities. Also, a lot of people enter these communities just to play the stock game. Crypto being a great example of that recently.

I agree with you 100%. Making a way to bring "tangibility" to digital ownership and goods seems to be a huge untapped market and everyone in the software biz wants a piece of that pie asap.

 

[IntentionalPun]

It's like you two don't even remember Horse Armor. This is the equilivant of dipping their toes in the water. Eventually, uncontested, or even promoted like some here are doing, this shit will get progressively worse. If this garbage gets a foothold we'll be looking back wishing for the days of NPC NFTs.

Then it's like you don't remember online passes.

I remember horse armor well; I also have been following NFTs. Where the entire world is going with NFTs at this point is not set in stone, let alone videogames.

Not everything follows the same trend like like a lemming.

Videogames that already make money selling digital pajamas to kids for $15 a pop. NFTs don't just magically make any game company more money than DLC; in fact their concept of being able to be sold outside of the confines of the game (at the core of a decentralized economy) sort of... well.. complicates things for these companies. Ubisoft is clearly testing the waters of whether there will actually be an aftermarket for their NFTs, which they are giving away for gameplay achievements, just like any other collectible hat or armor or whatever pointless thing is driving people to play their games right now. There is no evidence at this point that they will suddenly cause an increase in price of the already prevalent MTX; they also are getting absolutely terrible press. And this isn't 2006; it's 2021.. anything w/ negative press gets meme'd to death.. the consumer who wants to make fun of a brand has way more power.

So I see it in 2 ways TBH, that one of these 2 things is more likely than any major change to the current landscape of ALLREADY HAVING MILLIONS OF LITTLE PURCHASABLE/EARNABLE THINGS:

- NFTs might start getting attached to these things, without much of a change in price or anything else.. they just incentivize people to earn or buy them even more, because they can be sold
- NFTs die a horrible death in games outside of the weird money laundering scam games

I'm not saying the 3rd option "NFTs will infect games horribly" isn't possible.. but what are you even envisioning? A dramatic rise in price for MTX? Even more MTX(somehow, is that possible)? What about NFTs, if they do somehow despite all of the absolutely horrible press, is going to change games dramatically from the current landscape of every game featuring buyable/earnable "rare" items?

 

[Neilg]

Whether this happens now or not, it's the future. It's a way to create scarcity and create a reseller market. We already have unique or seasonal events that grant exclusive rewards to participation etc. that once they've gone, they're no longer earnable (unless a second event in the future gives that opportunity).

Now imagine you just earn the right to purchase exclusive seasonal rewards. Let's say a skin. Let's say they are limited to only 500 stock, and the original purchase price is £10. That creates a secondary reseller market which will be driven by supply. Then the companies will make a percentage back of the resale when using a broker like Dmarket. So they will get a transaction fee every time the asset changes ownership.

One of the really important things to take away from this though is that if the game developer controls the auction house and each asset is limited with a unique key, you don't need NFT's to do any of this.
people can already trade rare items and sell them for money and the game developers already have the power to limit the number of any given item (they just don't because it's stupid).

So why are they using NFT's at all?
Well, the idea of linking them to an NFT ONLY serves to attach them to a world of speculative trading where the value is skyrocketing because a bunch of people with far too much crypto and no way to cash out are manipulating the market. If these items 'take off' and become valuable, it will be because a small group of people purchased almost every single one of them and drip fed some trades back and forth for $10k+ a pop to create artificial scarcity and inflate the value. This then widly increases the potential value of new collections that the developer drops.
That is the end goal of anyone making NFT's - there is no other end goal, this is the only reason why any of this is being done with an NFT instead of a secure auction house. they bring nothing of value to the table and all of the proposed benefits of them to trade digital items can already be achieved through other means.

 

[IntentionalPun]

the game developer controls the auction house

This failed (already cancelled) STALKER NFT was going to be an auction, for something most people would never normally buy (become an NPC), but other NFT initiatives don't involve any sort of "auction." There is simply an NFT attached to MTX or free collectibles.

You are right in that the plan appears to be to limit which reseller market these game NFTs can be sold in, with backend deals in place. If that takes off.. well.. again, what even changes for gamers? NFT bros paying people to play Rainbow Six for 600 hours to earn the special NFT recon hat?

Possibly.. but IMO.. who cares?

 

[Neilg]

This failed (already cancelled) STALKER NFT was going to be an auction, for something most people would never normally buy (become an NPC), but other NFT initiatives don't involve any sort of "auction."

I was responding to someone saying how NFT's would work for something like skins.
Every NFT is open to bids and it's up to the current holder to accept it or not, that's how they are traded. that sounds like an auction to me.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Then it's like you don't remember online passes.

I remember horse armor well; I also have been following NFTs. Where the entire world is going with NFTs at this point is not set in stone, let alone videogames.

Not everything follows the same trend like like a lemming.

Videogames that already make money selling digital pajamas to kids for $15 a pop. NFTs don't just magically make any game company more money than DLC; in fact their concept of being able to be sold outside of the confines of the game (at the core of a decentralized economy) sort of... well.. complicates things for these companies. Ubisoft is clearly testing the waters of whether there will actually be an aftermarket for their NFTs, which they are giving away for gameplay achievements, just like any other collectible hat or armor or whatever pointless thing is driving people to play their games right now. There is no evidence at this point that they will suddenly cause an increase in price of the already prevalent MTX; they also are getting absolutely terrible press. And this isn't 2006; it's 2021.. anything w/ negative press gets meme'd to death.. the consumer who wants to make fun of a brand has way more power.

So I see it in 2 ways TBH, that one of these 2 things is more likely than any major change to the current landscape of ALLREADY HAVING MILLIONS OF LITTLE PURCHASABLE/EARNABLE THINGS:

- NFTs might start getting attached to these things, without much of a change in price or anything else.. they just incentivize people to earn or buy them even more, because they can be sold
- NFTs die a horrible death in games outside of the weird money laundering scam games

I'm not saying the 3rd option "NFTs will infect games horribly" isn't possible.. but what are you even envisioning? A dramatic rise in price for MTX? Even more MTX(somehow, is that possible)? What about NFTs, if they do somehow despite all of the absolutely horrible press, is going to change games dramatically from the current landscape of every game featuring buyable/earnable "rare" items?

I don't think anyone would complain that much if NFTs were basically one-to-one with existing MTX. Ponzi scheme or not, you'd likely have some folks earning real-world money from these things as long as they know when to get in and get out. Though the potential environmental impacts would be an ongoing source of bad press.

The bad thing about it would be the games that hit the news for defrauding users of millions of dollars collectively (which is almost inevitable with any game that built a thriving user-to-user market) . This would happen just because for every user that understands that they should never buy-in for too much on a single NFT and to get out while the getting is good, there will be 10 more who buy at near peak value and continue to hold until the entire scheme collapses. Which would again always be written in stone because unlike a generic digital coin, whatever game the NFT is attached to will eventually lose popularity, destroying the value and demand for its NFTs.

Then there is the fact that the scarcity is in fact completely artificial and in the case of gaming completely reversible, thus leading to potentially even more negative will against gaming in general. You will absolutely have companies that hold a good amount of their "limited run" NFTs for themselves, only to dump them on the user-to-user market once the price reaches an absurd amount for the content. And that doesn't even mention the games that aren't even games but just bizarre speculative investments to begin with.

 

[IntentionalPun]

I was responding to someone saying how NFT's would work for something like skins.
Every NFT is open to bids and it's up to the current holder to accept it or not, that's how they are traded. that sounds like an auction to me.

That's not how Ubisoft is handling their NFTs, just like skins, they are giving them away just like so many other collectibles within the game. There is no auction; they may in the future charge for these, but there is no plan for "auctions" in their system. Other NFT games also don't involve auctions from what I've read; they are often "free", earned with your time in the game (and that time commitment can be massive.)

The money is then made on the backend; Ubisoft seems to have a deal with 2 NFT markets, to get a cut of trades. In those scenarios, there will be auctions.. but not within the game.. Ubisofts plan seems to be to attatch NFTs to existing MTX types.. and are starting only with free "unlockable" (likely to combat bad PR.) They may eventually attach them to paid MTX, but there's no mention of or evidence they'll directly do auctions.

 

[cormack12]

That's not how Ubisoft is handling their NFTs, just like skins, they are giving them away just like so many other collectibles within the game. There is no auction; they may in the future charge for these, but there is no plan for "auctions" in their system. Other NFT games also don't involve auctions from what I've read; they are often "free", earned with your time in the game (and that time commitment can be massive.)

The money is then made on the backend; Ubisoft seems to have a deal with 2 NFT markets, to get a cut of trades. In those scenarios, there will be auctions.. but not within the game.. Ubisofts plan seems to be to attatch NFTs to existing MTX types.. and are starting only with free "unlockable" (likely to combat bad PR.) They may eventually attach them to paid MTX, but there's no mention of or evidence they'll directly do auctions.

Based on the club I would say Ubisofts vision is to drive sales via NFT that are only earnable in certain games. Want that fucking awesome Bayek skin for Siege? Fine buy origins and spend 125 hours in game or buy the epic shortcut back after only 40 hours. How do I get that gold mask in Far Cry? I have to complete the Division 2, sweet.

There's loads of ways to do this essentially. As for the environment it wouldn't surprise me if they did something like SETi @ home and used idle processing power of consoles while already on.

 

[sainraja]

No. I don’t think it makes sense that someone technically owns a piece of the game I have bought. Also, isn’t it enough to milk mo eu from dumb people with mtx and dlcs? We shouldn’t forget that most of the games also have a cost of admission (+60USD).

They don't own a piece of the game you have bought. They own a piece of the game to which you bought the license of.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Based on the club I would say Ubisofts vision is to drive sales via NFT that are only earnable in certain games. Want that fucking awesome Bayek skin for Siege? Fine buy origins and spend 125 hours in game or buy the epic shortcut back after only 40 hours. How do I get that gold mask in Far Cry? I have to complete the Division 2, sweet.

There's loads of ways to do this essentially. As for the environment it wouldn't surprise me if they did something like SETi @ home and used idle processing power of consoles while already on.

What does this idea of yours have to do with NFTs? It really has nothing to do with them.. you'd do that w/ a UPlay account.. You login, and your MTX are tracked by UPlay.. whether that MTX was an NFT or not.. that's how that would have to be done.

Most things mentioned in threads like this are all possible w/o NFTs, and really have little to do with them. Really the ONLY unique thing about an NFT is the aftermarket for them in a "decentralized" manner. Of course... that's not even true, as companies like Ubisoft are forcing you to use 1 of 2 markets... obviously their close partners. Probably have a backend connection to UPlay.. since.. that's really the only way this would work for anyone to be able to "use" an NFT they bought.

And Ubisoft could do all of that w/ a Uplay item store, without NFTs.

Other games might use a different approach.. but for now the big company is Ubisoft.. and their NFTs are just.. MTX you can buy/sell on a marketplace tied to them. Same thing Diablo III did.. same thing Steam does w/ their item store (minus cash being exchanged, since they only offer Steam credit.)

 

[Neilg]

That's not how Ubisoft is handling their NFTs, just like skins, they are giving them away just like so many other collectibles within the game. There is no auction;

The money is then made on the backend; Ubisoft seems to have a deal with 2 NFT markets, to get a cut of trades. In those scenarios, there will be auctions.. but not within the game.. Ubisofts plan seems to be to attatch NFTs to existing MTX types.. and are starting only with free "unlockable" (likely to combat bad PR.)

what point are you even trying to make? you're telling me there is no auction but actually, there will be a way for them to be traded by auction?

are you just trying to take parts of my post out of context and argue with them because you're bored?

 

[IntentionalPun]

what point are you even trying to make? you're telling me there is no auction but actually, there will be a way for them to be traded by auction?

are you just trying to take parts of my post out of context and argue with them because you're bored?

You said the game developer controls the auction house; I was saying the game developers in general aren't. The NFTs start w/o any auction. They are given away, or potentially bought.

Unless you mean they control which 3rd party auction house you can then sell them on the aftermarket, which is true of Ubisoft at least.

If I wasn't providing any extra information, and was just repeating what you already meant.. just say so. There's no reason to be a fucking dweeb about it.

My point was the auction part is totally option for a gamer; they won't have to deal with any of that to acquire an NFT from a game.

 

[Neilg]

You said the game developer controls the auction house; I was saying the game developers in general aren't. The NFTs start w/o any auction. They are given away, or potentially bought.

Unless you mean they control which 3rd party auction house you can then sell them on the aftermarket, which is true of Ubisoft at least.

If I wasn't providing any extra information, and was just repeating what you already meant.. just say so. There's no reason to be a fucking dweeb about it.

My point was the auction part is totally option for a gamer; they won't have to deal with any of that to acquire an NFT from a game.

I meant none of that and you should read my posts more carefully.
I said "if the game developer controls the auction house and each asset is limited with a unique key, you don't need NFT's to do any of this." - the auction house i was talking about in this case does not currently exist, and then I went on to explain why any given developer is choosing to use NFTs to allow tradable assets

 

[SF Kosmo]

Although the NFT thing wouldn't have been enough to seriously dampen my excitement for this game, I'm glad they respect the fan feedback

 

[cormack12]

What does this idea of yours have to do with NFTs? It really has nothing to do with them.. you'd do that w/ a UPlay account.. You login, and your MTX are tracked by UPlay.. whether that MTX was an NFT or not.. that's how that would have to be done.

Most things mentioned in threads like this are all possible w/o NFTs, and really have little to do with them. Really the ONLY unique thing about an NFT is the aftermarket for them in a "decentralized" manner. Of course... that's not even true, as companies like Ubisoft are forcing you to use 1 of 2 markets... obviously their close partners. Probably have a backend connection to UPlay.. since.. that's really the only way this would work for anyone to be able to "use" an NFT they bought.

And Ubisoft could do all of that w/ a Uplay item store, without NFTs.

Other games might use a different approach.. but for now the big company is Ubisoft.. and their NFTs are just.. MTX you can buy/sell on a marketplace tied to them. Same thing Diablo III did.. same thing Steam does w/ their item store (minus cash being exchanged, since they only offer Steam credit.)

But that is only an example. The wider picture is obviously NFTs that are independent of a publisher platform. And for that you couldn't just use uPlay. I think people are trying to give you examples of how NFTs will establish themselves. Personally, I'm not arguing for or against, I just like the conversation. If you take the topic as a whole, most of the analogies and examples are not really about where NFT is headed. We are trying to apply examples of a new technology into old (or contemporary) monetisation practices, as well as creative process.

The whole discussion is still focused, at the moment, around an implicit creation process as well. Somebody creates something that is then resold. What about emergent items that will be created in game by way of AI for example (in the future). That is ultimately the vision - more and more complexity/reactive components and customisation will inevitably lead to more 'uniques'.

Think about it - you can tie a whole host of crap to any sort of player defined metric. You looted that box after playing 500 hours and killing x amount of enemies with headshot, you now get this decal on the barrel and this unique design. And that item is your NFT. It just got created dynamically. It wasn't issued to you, it can't be bought etc. And Ubisoft don't have to care or even engage with it. You marketplace it, they get a cut. You keep it and show it off, people have an aspiration to earn their own.

There are also things like Virtual Pro in sports titles. Liveries in games like Forza. Items created in game will have certified authenticity and be transferred into other games. At the moment, you would need a redeemable uplay item (asset) in each game. Also, in the current model your item only has value in its own era. As each FUT season ends, your cards are worth nothing for example.

Essentially what we will see on the journey to full blockchain is these first tentative steps, that on the surface, don't look too dissimilar to what we already have but it's a necessary step before we get to the point of cross IP NFTs (CS:GO to Rainbow Six: Siege for example). I doubt it's something I'll ever participate in to be honest as I rarely buy MTX or DLC, and the reason it will be slow is the publishers and developers are going to need to see how it affects the current model of standard cosmetic purchases. But, I can only see this giving them more profit in the long run so I'd expect it to grow and grow personally.

(Un)Fortunately (depending on your stance), it looks as though NFT is the chosen technology for digitally reselling in game assets and unlockables

 

[Bernkastel]

Reminder after 12 month delay certain game held out one of the most essential, most important components of their game franchise for what reason? IDK, maybe millions would continue to pay $15 for 6 straight months? Nah, that cant be right.

After proposing that all reviewers were paid to positively review it and after launch it will be like Battlefield 2042, you now went straight into a new conspiracy theory. People in r/halo have glitched into co-op and its broken.

 

[Fafalada]

The blockchain will make NFT integration in the metaverse easier.

I see a lot of people hold this belief(well, belief that BC/NFTs somehow make propagation of digital assets easier across ecosystems), but I've yet to see anyone provide a single argument for how/why that's the case.
I mean other than making monetization easier - but that's not integration.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

Keep in mind that the cryptocurrency evangelists have their money invested in it. You will not find a single one of them who is objective and honest.
They need to pump this shit up so that they can cash out.