PCG Article Is Crypto Gaming a thing to explore? Any reviews whether its worth?

[irwinnick]

This a relatively new (and risky) way for gamers as far as I've read. In fact, they seem to make your Xbox and PlayStation into a wallet. I am not sure if people gonna be doing that. Anyone tried it? Is it safe?

 

[flashn00b]

I think Dawn of War 1's Gorgutz 'Ead 'Unter has a good opinion on NFTs. I think the 0:47 timestamp applies to game development and not having NFTs attached to them.

 

[Colif]

I wonder what governments think about it. Reminds me of loot boxes.
Games companies want to sell more and more to people to make money off the one game, instead of make more games.Its just a new DLC.
they want your eth as well as your dollars.
Every game that announces the idea gets backlash so I hope it just fades away again.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

I wonder what governments think about it. Reminds me of loot boxes.
Games companies want to sell more and more to people to make money off the one game, instead of make more games.Its just a new DLC.
they want your eth as well as your dollars.
Every game that announces the idea gets backlash so I hope it just fades away again.

Yeah, the tax side of crypto really sucks. In some places, you are even supposed to pay taxes on crypto that you get airdropped and don't pay for. Not every country is like that, but you have to pay close attention to the tax laws when you get into crypto. That's exactly why I completely got out of it.

 

[Colif]

Very educational video
You don't own anything apart from a receipt - you don't own an item, its all digital.
At least DLC is useful somewhere.
NFT only have value if people believe it has value.
80% of all NFT value held by 10% of market, they are trying to make them look valuable so that people buy them off them and they can get something back.
They aim them at low information consumers and don't tell them all the info that would help them make an educated decision. Obviously as a smart decision is not to buy these things.

Anyone associated with NFT is after a quick buck and it really makes me wonder about Games companies who use them. Just how greedy are you?

 

[Brian Boru]

NFT only have value if people believe it has value

Hit the nail on the head.

 

[Colif]

Hit the nail on the head.

secret: its the same as money. It only has value because we believe it does.

 

[Brian Boru]

money

…is fungible.

 

[Colif]

not all of it, a lot of the amounts are just figures on computers, there isn't the actual cash printed to back it up.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

…is fungible.

But fungible just means replaceable with something that is the same, with the same value. Non-fungible just means it's not replaceable. The Mona Lisa is non-fungible. The only reason it has any value is because people think it has value. The same with a Babe Ruth rookie card that recently sold for $4.2 million. Pretty much the only reason anything that is sellable or tradeable has any value is because people think it does.

Ever since the USD stopped being backed by gold or silver, it's basically just fancy paper that we all believe is worth something, and we all agree on that value. It's all really kind of scary when you start thinking about that. What if we had to go back to bartering. A lot of people would be screwed.

 

[Colif]

So after seeing this thread - https://forums.pcgamer.com/threads/...try-pc-gamer-article-one-with-ubisoft.118244/

I realized something. I had missed EA announcing it and well, them going first is totally typical. And expected.
So 2 out of the 3 big publishers had announced - had Activision said anything before they were bought out? Have Microsoft announced a position on them? Nvm - https://decrypt.co/90634/microsoft-69b-activision-blizzard-deal-metaverse-move

The metaverse is a term that describes a future vision of the internet, in which users interact with avatars across shared 3D spaces. It’s envisioned as a more immersive way to socialize, play, and even work online, with blockchain technology and crypto
assets (including NFTs) expected to play a role as users move across interoperable platforms.

Metaverse feels like a trap. NFT infecting everything

I see four XBox titles on here - link

What about Sony? I see a Spiderman one but its a movie tie in (link), a Babyshark one but its music... I assume just those 2 examples show they are all for exploitation as well.

I mean, they basically selling you nothing, its even easier than dlc as it doesn't have to do anything. So if they can keep that fact away from their audience they will make bank selling you images of things they designed years ago. Who needs to make fun games when half the people buying them just think they can make it rich... games or pyramid schemes?

when some of these companies make casino machines and video games, where is the line in middle? All of its about making money for shareholders, customers aren't the audience anymore. How much more can they get out of you.

They have huge asset libraries just begging to be monetised again.. and it doesn't cost them anything. Handy given fact half the people who knew how to make games were problematic and had to be replaced by people who think right.

Publishers seem to love idea of profit... (obvious) but Devs are less sure how to use them in games - https://news.yahoo.com/game-developers-not-interested-nfts-222049144.html?fr=sychp_catchall

what a surprise.

its not just games, publishers have so many things that they can do this with. Books, movies, everything that is copyrightable can be made into one of these... and that is pretty much everything. Sell people nothing... lots of money in that.

there is a small cost, there is a charge to mint an NFT but I don't think it is very much. If you can convince people an image has more value than it costs to mint them, profit.

How do we wake people up?

 

[Withywarlock]

I'd like to think it's not going to take off given how ridiculous some of the ideas have been, and how those coming up with the ideas have zero knowledge of how video games, programming, and intellectual property law actually work. I'm reminded of children thinking they're the first to come up with an idea, or the first to drop an f-bomb.

The intellectual calibre does not match the amount of money being dumped into NFTs. One person purchased an NFT of Jodorowsky's Dune for $3M, a book which is publically and freely available to read online, believing themselves to be the sole owner of the rights to produce an animated series. As someone who was previously a pathological liar, telling tall tales to sound cool, I recognise their behaviour about being in talks with studios as being such. If they believe, they're inept. If they're lying, they've at least succeeded in trolling the internet for a few days. Worryingly they've suggested burning original copies of Jodorowsky's Dune to preserve their NFT, which is a whole new take on Crypto-fascism.

Another idea was from Bloomburg Wealth's own Charlie Wells and Misyrlena Egkolfopoulou, who suggested making NFTs just flat out pay-2-win:

Imagine being able to earn money by playing Mario Kart, that indefatigable Nintendo spinoff series from the pre-internet Super Mario. You wouldn’t have to be all that good at it. You wouldn’t have to play it 24/7. Because, in this mind experiment, you get to be Mario for as long as you like. You get to be him because you own him.


Because your Mario is an NFT, he’s impossible to duplicate. You and you alone own him. And because you own Mario, your go-kart is always better and faster than the ones piloted by other familiar faces in the Mushroom Kingdom like Luigi, Toad and Princess Peach. So off you go, earning the kingdom’s digital money – Mariocoins, let’s call them.

Given market economics, you might have to pay more for NFT Mario than for, say, NFT Peach. But then you’d also earn more, because here in the Mushroom Kingdom, Mario is the fastest player. When you step out of the game and back into your day job, you still own Mario. When you start playing again, Mario is there, waiting for you. Waiting to earn you Mariocoins.

You can sell Mario to another player if you like. If you’ve played Mario right, he might be worth more now than when you bought him. Maybe you’ve demonstrated how lucrative Mario can be. Maybe more people want to play Mario Kart. Maybe Mariocoin has soared in value because everybody is talking about it on social media.

Because a moment spent having fun instead of grinding and hustling is a moment wasted. Unless you're into that. I didn't get The Insane title in World of Warcraft by being bored, after all.

Is it worth exploring? It doesn't matter. It will be explored, and some people will make a lot of money from it, and a lot will lose money on it. It's already happened with on-disc "downloadable" content, preorder bonuses, (not-so-)microtransactions, online passes, season passes, battle passes, loot boxes... what's to say enough people will stand up to another bad practice this time?

 

[Colif]

Big publishers do own the rights to the things and can sell NFT that are perfectly legal BUT I still wouldn't buy them as they aren't really worth it yet. The number of people doing illegal stuff and shady deals outnumbers the legal ones. But the legal ones are only really selling based on the misconception you own anything other than a position on a database.

Dune crypto deal was dumb. 100x the value of a book. No one on the purchasing side ever heard of copyright before? Buying a book doesn't make you the creator. The author has full rights over anything done with the work, so the single page NFT idea wouldn't have worked, someone already did a similar thing with another book and got taken to court. See video.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

I'm sure not going to argue in favor for NFTs in all gaming. I hate that kind of thing. But I do believe there are a few use cases where they would make sense. Digital trading card games are one area where NFTs make a lot of sense. I'm not into that, but a lot of people are.

Also, I can see how you could use them like how in some games you can pay real-world money to buy costumes for your in-game character. NFTs would make sense for something like that. Again, I never get into that kind of thing.

As long as NFTs make sense for a type of game, like trading cards, I'm ok with it. And I'm even ok with it in other types of games, like if you could buy an NFT costume in Assassin's Creed, or something, as long as it's optional, and not necessary to complete the game. But if game companies start shoehorning NFTs into every game, it's going to get annoying.

 

[Frindis]

Tons of new virtual land ownership popping up and it is just mind-blowingly sad. It's sad because stuff like that is made for STEALING people's money, especially the money from people with different kinds of gambling addictions. It is ****, ... just a big stinky pile of ****!

I remember a time when we paid money for a game. Then we got the game and then we played the game and everyone lived happily ever after.

 

[Colif]

I'm sure not going to argue in favor for NFTs in all gaming. I hate that kind of thing. But I do believe there are a few use cases where they would make sense. Digital trading card games are one area where NFTs make a lot of sense. I'm not into that, but a lot of people are.

It also works for actual digital artists who can set up a database of their works and put people against NFT they bought. I can see that working if the NFT is just part of a package and say you also got better quality image files than regular users or more than just the NFT, as I know one artist who has done this and could offer other things as part of package to make it worth while.

Also, I can see how you could use them like how in some games you can pay real-world money to buy costumes for your in-game character. NFTs would make sense for something like that. Again, I never get into that kind of thing.

this is where it gets harder as people think they own the costume. they don't, they own a position on a db which happens to have the costume linked to it. They can only use it in the game, so why not just leave it as DLC? Only reason I can see to offer as NFT is if you plan on charging more as until people know these things are meaningless, people will likely pay more for the choice...

NFT are a perfect way to make people want to buy nothing.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

It also works for actual digital artists who can set up a database of their works and put people against NFT they bought. I can see that working if the NFT is just part of a package and say you also got better quality image files than regular users or more than just the NFT, as I know one artist who has done this and could offer other things as part of package to make it worth while.

Oh, there are definitely a lot of sensible use cases for NFTs. I was just focusing on the gaming aspect of it.

this is where it gets harder as people think they own the costume. they don't, they own a position on a db which happens to have the costume linked to it. They can only use it in the game, so why not just leave it as DLC? Only reason I can see to offer as NFT is if you plan on charging more as until people know these things are meaningless, people will likely pay more for the choice...

NFT are a perfect way to make people want to buy nothing.

Yeah, you're right that you're purchasing a position on a blockchain. But the other side of that is that the NFT is tied to it, so nobody else will have the rights to that NFT until you sell or trade it with someone.

Why not leave it as DLC? Obviously, they could. But assuming you're one of the older guys on here, like I am, it's kind of hard for us to grasp the concept of digital ownership. If you have a certain costume that is being sold as DLC, a million people can buy that same costume DLC. But if you sell a costume as an NFT, it is a unique costume, and only one person can own it. In the real world, it's like you could buy a pair of 40x34 Levi jeans that are the exact same style and size as the ones I bought, but mine might have slightly different dye shades in it here and there, and maybe I ended up getting a mustard stain on my pair. They're similar, but different. I could sell my pair of jeans to someone, and people would look at them and say, "Hey, you're wearing WoodenSaucer's old pair of jeans."

Now think of it like this. In a big-name, fundraising auction, a pair of jeans that Brad Pitt wore while he was filming Fight Club would go for a lot more money than my pair of jeans with a mustard stain on them. Why? Because they don't have a mustard stain? No, because he's Brad Pitt, and those jeans were in a movie.

NFTs make that possible with digital property. Maybe TES VI comes out, and it supports NFT armor for your character. Maybe there is even a feature that you can custom create your NFT armor for a fee. Phil Spencer custom creates his own armor, wears it in the game for 10 hours and YouTubes it, then puts it on the market. Now, I can buy the exact NFT armor that Phil Spencer was wearing in that YouTube video, and I can prove that it was really him that made it and sold it to me.

Personally, I don't give a rat's backside about that sort of thing. It's completely and utterly meaningless to me. But I can see how some people might be interested in things like that.

 

[Frindis]

@Colif Maybe they can politely ask for a refund for buying the book?

 

[Colif]

Why not leave it as DLC? Obviously, they could. But assuming you're one of the older guys on here, like I am, it's kind of hard for us to grasp the concept of digital ownership. If you have a certain costume that is being sold as DLC, a million people can buy that same costume DLC. But if you sell a costume as an NFT, it is a unique costume, and only one person can own it

the costume design might be unique but you don't own it. Its just the visual representation of a database position. Your NFT is just the position. You are only person in that spot, but unless other people want that spot, and they don't sell more costumes that are almost the same as yours but just slight variations, you might be holding a worthless position in a database. Its possible there are 1 trillion unique costumes and some others are more valuable than yours.

Probably come out eventually that best way to make money off these things is make your own. There will eb a lot of people who get nothing.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

the costume design might be unique but you don't own it. Its just the visual representation of a database position. Your NFT is just the position. You are only person in that spot, but unless other people want that spot, and they don't sell more costumes that are almost the same as yours but just slight variations, you might be holding a worthless position in a database. Its possible there are 1 trillion unique costumes and some others are more valuable than yours.

Probably come out eventually that best way to make money off these things is make your own. There will eb a lot of people who get nothing.

It might as well be the same, though, because that costume is tied to that spot, it always will be, and nothing else ever will be. With blockchain technology, even if it is just a spot on the chain, you can prove the entire history of that spot, who owned it in the past, how much they sold it, bought it, or traded it for. I can prove that Phil Spencer was the one who created that spot on the chain and sold it to me. And I'm the only one with the right to use the costume that is tied to that spot, which is the same costume that Phil used when he owned that spot. It's just semantics, but in actuality, it basically equates to the same thing.

Sure, there will be trillions of NFTs out there in the crypto space that will be worth nothing. Like some of them will have a real-world value of a very small fraction of a cent. But there is the possibility for an NFT to have a very high value, also, especially among the people who see things how I'm describing it, and they wish to be collectors. And those people are definitely out there.

 

[Brian Boru]

people think they own the costume … why not just leave it as DLC?

I'll bet there are a load of people who think they own whatever they bought as DLC too.

if you sell a costume as an NFT, it is a unique costume, and only one person can own it

What I've read is that all that depends entirely on the contract you enter into with the seller—eg some NFTs they can sell to other people also.

best way to make money off these things is make your own

That's my thought too. We mildly looked into that side of it, but it'll only work for fairly high-ticket items due to all the gotcha costs currently involved in actually getting a NFT to market. That 'friction' needs to come out of the system for it to be worthwhile for ordinary people to sell like they do on eBay etc.

a database position

Unless you keep it all under the mattress, isn't that what your bank balance is also?

 

[Colif]

Sure. People think they own DLC. I get that, but it only exists in one place. NFT exist on blockchain or at least the record of them does. But the thing they were tied to when created? maybe not. At least its only storage space that is wasted, not actual physical items.

Its possible who owned a NFT will mean something going forward, like it does with artwork.

The wild west days need to be over before that happens. We currently in a gold rush and too many out to make money and throwing others under the bus to get it before it is all stopped.

 

[cursedlalaland]

This a relatively new (and risky) way for gamers as far as I've read. In fact, they seem to make your Xbox and PlayStation into a wallet. I am not sure if people gonna be doing that. Anyone tried it? Is it safe?

well, I did learn abt crypto and it doesn't feel like a game tho, it's more like a community stock using blockchain, but if you speak abt NFT games like RACA, let's say that it's basically like a project that you want to invest. there are a lot of explanations abt it tho, so yea,, its safe to play it but we need money to begin with, because it's like an investment

 

[WoodenSaucer]

've read is that all that depends entirely on the contract you enter into with the seller—eg some NFTs they can sell to other p

It's all up to whoever creates it. They can sell as many or few replicas of an NFT as they want. But no matter how many they sell, you are the only one who owns your specific NFT, even if there are 10 more like it out there. The idea is that the fewer there are of one type of NFT, the more rare and valuable they'll be, assuming they are something that people would care about.

well, I did learn abt crypto and it doesn't feel like a game tho, it's more like a community stock using blockchain, but if you speak abt NFT games like RACA, let's say that it's basically like a project that you want to invest. there are a lot of explanations abt it tho, so yea,, its safe to play it but we need money to begin with, because it's like an investment

I've been involved in a several different crypto projects before I got out of crypto. In my opinion, it's all a racket. It's one of two things: 1) a crypto team just trying to hype you up so they can get your money, or 2) a Ponzi scheme where the only way investors can make money is if other people lose, and so the losers wait around until new investors come and they lose, so the initial losers can finally make some money, rinse/repeat 1000x.

Every crypto project has their own "use cases" to try to get people believe that they're worth investing in, and they're going to blow up and be huge, and you're going to get rich and get your Lambo. One popular "use case" is that they're making a stellar, ground-breaking crypto game. Everybody loves games, right? So this is going to be huge, and you're on the ground floor. You need to invest now while it's new, and watch it blow up when the game comes out. I invested a couple thousand dollars in one that was sure to take off that was going to have a whole suite of Wild West-themed games in their "saloon." The first "game" they came out with was everyone could bet on a coin toss. Heads or tails. There weren't even graphics for it, and it took like 12 hours for the coin to flip and land before you saw the results. Haha. Obviously that wasn't going to be huge. Somehow I was able to break even when I sold. I was involved with investing in a team that was also going to put out a big crypto game. But then came delay after delay, and they just kept hyping everyone up for the huge things coming.

Moral of the story: Almost all crypto "games" are just things to convince people to give them their money, and they never pan out in the way they hype people.

 

[Colif]

Are there any that haven't ended that way? Just curious. Has any crypto game made it big yet or are they all looking for the winning formula that makes including these things into a game more fun than say, not including them. Handy in card collecting games I would expect. If Nintendo every dirty their feet with these things, Pokemon official NFT could be a thing... and probably sell well.

Only ones I see are so obviously a scam I can't believe people would fall for them. The movie for Crypto island, for example, made me cringe constantly.

12 hours for a non graphical coin toss... so reminds me of what they do in mobile games... here is a time waster for you. did you like paying for our one days coding effort we probably stole from someone else.