"You're welcome"
I can't believe anyone thought NFTs were a good idea to begin with.
Conceptually NFTs could be useful.
The use case of “buy funny pictures” was the stupidest grift yet
Been paying attention and haven't seen a single use case for them that isn't covered better by other less wasteful and more standard technology
Only if you stretch the definition to the point where you're calling someone's Steam inventory a set of NFTs - yeah, it's a digital record of unique(ish) games & items, but the "on the blockchain" part was the whole thing that defined NFTs. Every single supposed use case I saw for them relied on pretending that a legal problem (licensing, mostly) was a technical limitation.
This guy gets it. Gamers want NFTs but they don't know it because they don't know what NFTs are
They are the perfect tool of digital capitalism
They create artificial scarcity
The artists who became millionaires from selling NFTs still think it’s awesome.
Bag holders trying to offload crypto wanted it to be good.
Companies did
Anybody who supports small artists that make art for video games so they can get a cut of the profit across multiple platforms and games.
This guy gets it
Just a friendly reminder, as sarcastic as it sounds with the "good job internet", this article is sincerely praising how people across the internet made many game studios and publishers reconsider and avoid using NFTs in games, comparing it to how internet buzz brought legislative attention to loot boxes in games.
PC Gamer is anti NFT. That headline is not sarcastic, it's actual praise.
Definitely anti-NFT.
Oh good, I was worried!
(also being genuine here)
I literally forgot about NFTs until seeing this post.
Whoever thinks this is a problem needs to be bullied more.
At first glance NFTs in games seem to make sense. For example take a digital trading card game, might be pretty cool to hold ownership of your cards outside the game and be free to exchange them with other players with no restrictions, right?
But then you have to think a step further: The card is useless without the game. If the game shuts down? Nobody can use the card. If the game decides in two years that the card you own is too powerful and they forbid it from tournament play? Well, wasted money.
So overall you might be able to prove ownership of a "card", but without the context of the game it's meaningless data. And the game has to decide itself what your card means and what it can do. So we're back to simply using a normal database inside the game to hold your cards giving the same benefits (without the headache of NFTs).
The argument that you could use the card or the item in another game is bullshit on top. The other game would have to implement every item, which they simply won't do. So NFTs in the gaming niche are overall bullshit.
If you're a scammer it sounds amazing. Otherwise, something like the steam market is way better.
You wouldnt have to implement every item, youd just have to make a default option for things that do not have an implementation for a game.
A similar example of how it would work irl is how Amiibos work. In Smash, a link amiibo would use a link AI, in zelda, it can spawn rare materials or spawn Epona in BOTW/TOTK. Scan a link amiibo in like Animal Crossing itll tell you not supported. In fire emblem games, generic ammibos with no special effects drop random material
How amiibos work for specifcally smash. As its the only one that writes data to the NFC chip, is sort of like NFTs for gaming, but a physical product. No one else has your specific AI (unless you dumped it)
All your examples still go back to each and every game having to implement that item. There is no "default option".
And if every game has to implement each item.. they can just leave items out. Or block them. Or say they are invalid. Or change them (buffs/nerfs). So you might think you are holding a unique item that only belongs to you, but in reality it's worth nothing as it can be removed with one click from any game you might want to use it in.
Which makes an NFT not an ounce better than having that item in the game's database.
It baffles me that people still try to defend the point of NFTs in multiple games. What is the motivation do you think there is for Amiibos to work across those games? Those are all first party Nintendo games, so they still are making money off of it.
Where the hell is the motivation to get your legendary dong slayer sword to work in call of duty? Why would they want to support that? They don't, and it makes no sense why they ever would.
Again, it's different with Amiibos because they're all developed by Nintendo companies, and Nintendo can force them to do that. You're also getting actual merchandise and something you can hold on to instead of a digital receipt.
We don't need your money laundering scam involved in games.
No look, bro. You just don't understand. NFTs mean that if I buy a Fortnite skin, then I OWN that skin. That means I can use it in Diablo. Trust me, bro. It's the future.
/s in case the multiple "bros" wasn't enough
I disagree with the use of the word 'bullying' implying that they would've happened otherwise. NFTs in video games would never have happened, because they don't do anything that publishers weren't already doing.
This means we must have diverged from the worst timeline.
I guess that's proof right there that things could have been worse
Didn't realize we could bully a jpeg
You can't bully a jpg. You can, however, bully a link to a jpg that you don't actually possess.
You clearly haven't seen weebs then :D
Not a jpeg... a receipt, with a link, to a copy, of a jpeg (that you don't own any rights to).
Cool.
The NFT people were sending death threats to content creators and artists speaking out against NFTs. I don't think we were the ones doing the bullying.
I see this as an absolute win
Good
Gigantic W
"Nice Fucking Try"
Loot boxes, DLC that should be part of the game, no physical copies, shutting servers after one year, pay to win... The games industry constantly talks about being looked at as an art form, but can you imagine if they pulled this shit as you walked into a cinema?
You get the good ending to the film if you pay extra. Also, that character isn't in it unless you pre-ordered...
Fucking GOOD
On the other hand, I even kind of respect scams that are purely targeting greedy people.
This is wonderful!
Thank God. Rest in piss, NFT craze.
Finally some good news for a change
No, this is definitely a win lmao.
Schadenfreude is a pretty toxic perspective but I'm definitely laughing at the people whose finances exploded because they sold everything for monkey JPEGs.
Proud of us for this one!
"Mainstream Games" are already scammy enough.
They said we just need a common enemy for humanity to unite. I did not expect it to be crypto nonsense.
For once the internet didn't fuck up.
Good.
That was literally the idea.
Is it bullying if it was a scam?
why the hell is this article still going around
Based
Huge win
I can’t wait to give more money to a company that can lock down my assets and put it behind a subscription model.
Ownership is for suckers!
W
I'm all for NFTs, but I count this as a win. I'm opposed to all micro-transactions in games; they breed only bad behavior on the part of game makers.
I think the technology behind NFT have a great potential, but well, it was used as overvalued scam, what a wasted fucking potential
No I don't see any potential in it, you don't own anything that you bought but a useless receipt, it only have potential for scammers and greedy corporations
Why is there am entire community against tokenized items? You nerds just love not owning anything?... Go back to reddit
A game is made up of a lot of assets. Art, scripts and so on. When you buy a game, all those files exist on your SSD for your personal use and consumption. Personally, I'm not sure why I'd need a token to validate any of that and any of the proposed systems only seem to open more lanes to get money out of my wallet and never to affirm my ability to enjoy my original purchase.
lol
