Shuji Utsumi, Sega’s co-CEO, comments in a new statement that there is no point in implementing blockchain technology if it doesn’t make games ‘fun’. Sega...
Shuji Utsumi, Sega’s co-CEO, comments in a new statement that there is no point in implementing blockchain technology if it doesn’t make games ‘fun’. Sega...
I have no problem with a blockchain used in non-monetary context. Consider, for example, a competitive RTS/TBS which recorded RNG events or keystrokes to the blockchain, which helps show if there was lag, and helps to verify that the RNG is fair, and that both players aren't cheating. Or a game with a "Speedrun" mode, recording input as blocks, and making sure it's all publicly verifiable. Think of a Doom demo file, but encompassing all attempts from all connected players; new routes can be discovered quicker and cheaters can be outed near-instantly.
Blockchain as a concept is of great value to anything where public auditing is wanted. We've associated it to scams and money, and that bugs me. Including more aggressive monetization, speculation, and a profit motive makes a game less fun. Including a publicly auditable log of past events in a game built for multiplayer feels like it would be a value-add.
That doesn't need to be a distributed ledger, that can just be a database. The only use cases for DLT/Blockchains is where it is undesirable to have a central authority.
Games will always have a central authority - the devs - so there's just no point. Nothing is gained by decentralizing trust, and quite a lot - especially speed and simplicity - must be sacrificed.
It technically already exists. The Steam Marketplace and your inventory is open to both developers and users. But there's just no incentive to implement another game's items in your own game. The most you'll see are one-offs like TF2 Poker Night.
Do you really want billions of computers solving arbitrary random math problems just to write in a random keystroke, of which there are kapillions per hour?