Sega calls video games that use blockchain technology 'boring'
Sega calls video games that use blockchain technology 'boring'
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’.
Never thought I'd see the day when Sega became based
Actual quotes from Shuji Utsumi:
“The action in play-to-earn games is boring,” Utsumi told Bloomberg News. “What’s the point if games are no fun?” “We’re looking into whether this technology is really going to take off in this industry, after all,” he added.To add from the article: "Sega does plan to let external partners use its lesser-known Three Kingdoms and Virtua Fighter characters for non-fungible tokens, a sort of certificate that confirms ownership of a digital asset."
"Sega will still offer its lesser franchises to several blockchain games to be announced later this year, and will continue to invest in related projects — to the tune of hundreds of millions of yen in each case, Utsumi said. The technology remains useful, for instance by making it possible to move characters and items between different games, he said. Longer-term, Sega remains open to getting more involved as the technology matures."
I guess no one reads articles and just wants to bash new technology, makes sense. Next time use a non-editorialized title and use actual quotes.
It makes no sense to put it in games. Who would actually ask for Blockchain in games? Even the BAYC games ran on Web 2.0, pretty much separate from the Blockchain. It was just a gatekeeper for it
I would go one step further. Blockchain as a technology literally has no use cases that wouldn't be better served by something else.
I disagree. It makes a ton of sense when proving transactions are legit. So if your game has a lot of high value transactions (think EVE Online), it could make a lot of sense as a way to audit the game servers.
I'm interested in big online games without a reliance on a central server. If all of your trades are handled outside of the game's servers, and the game server logic isn't complicated (or made freely available, like Minecraft), the developer ending support for your favorite multiplayer game wouldn't matter all that much because you could host your own server and keep playing with all the same stuff you had before.
That said, I haven't seen a single game use blockchain properly, and I've only seen a few where I think it could add value. So I'm with Sega, don't add it unless it's the best way to solve a real problem. It's a bad choice most of the time, but that doesn't mean it's a bad choice all of the time.
Putting it in games is questionable but using it for games isn't odd but will never happen since that is actually a rather pro consumer move and publishers wouldn't want a secondary/"used" market for their games.
Microtransaction season 5 horse armour DLC isn't fun either, but here we are :(
Yeh exactly. Different companies will do different things. I will choose to ignore unfun cash grabs but there will always be reasons for people to give up cash for simple pleasure. I can only wish the developers I like choose me as their customer.
We're fortunate to live in a time where there is no shortage of great games.
I mean they are not wrong. Even some of the "funnest" games are essentially trading/crafting games or games that have little to do with blockchain.