trunkswd said: I still don't understand how NFTs work or what is even the point of them. |
Simplified.
...to avoid getting banned for inactivity, I may have to resort to comments that are of a lower overall quality and or beneath my moral standards.
trunkswd said: I still don't understand how NFTs work or what is even the point of them. |
Simplified.
...to avoid getting banned for inactivity, I may have to resort to comments that are of a lower overall quality and or beneath my moral standards.
shikamaru317 said: It kind of seems to me like NFT has become a bit of a boogeyman here lately. People see the word and automatically think "that's pure evil" because a media narrative seems to be conditioning them to think that way. Most are probably just sheep who couldn't even tell you what NFT is an acronym for if you asked them, and even if they do know it stands for Non Fungible Token, they probably couldn't tell you what a Non Fungible Token is. I'll be honest and say that even I don't have a very clear understanding of what it is, beyond that it's a digital piece of media coded to allow unique ownership backed by cryptocurrency for it's value. |
I agree with you to an extent, till you realize the possibilities of how gaming companies can exploit the crap out of a system like this. The justification for years regarding loot boxes or microtransactions from companies, other than it being a way to earn money from a FTP title, was that it wasn't gambling because the items you had didn't have any monetary value.
That thought process completely changes as now every item you get now has monetary value. Ubisoft's marketing for Quartz is that players can now become "stakeholders" in their games. But when it comes to literally every single aspect of items such as this, it's completely under Ubisoft's control. CS:GO is an example of how bad a system like this can get whenever a digital item has monetary value. And this is without actual supervision by Valve. Knives in the Steam marketplace for CS:GO run upwards of $1000. That's just with how bad it is with players. When the company enters the foray and can take royalties from sales like this, the negative possibilities are endless. Imagine seeing items that are $100 for nothing more than a JPEG lol. Companies will see big $$$ if this catches on. Blizzard attempted something like this with Diablo 3's auction house.
You don't see microtransaction prices rising higher than like $20 a skin, which is ludicrous as is. If Ubisoft sees a particular NFT skin is super popular, they can then raise the value of the item, therefore people will be spending say $60 instead of $20. And companies already know people are willing to spend on microtransactions, so they know they can get away with it. Think of it as owning a share of a company, only that share doesn't actually exist.
Granted, none of this has happened yet. But the fact that companies are starting to push this means that gaming will no longer be just a time investment. It'll be an investment investment, and worse, you never actually own this item that supposedly has monetary value. It's just a bunch of 1's and 0's that the company that created it holds the rights to.
I guess my biggest issue with this prospect is that I don't want real life economical elements seeping into my games. I just want games to be games. I wanna escape from all that stuff. That's the whole point of video games, escapism. It now just feels like I'm trying to avoid business scheme traps.
Last edited by G2ThaUNiT - on 15 December 2021Ryuu96 said:
This sums up NFTs @trunkswd |
Hahahah brilliant! Goes along perfectly with this line from my previous comment:
"Imagine seeing items that are $100 for nothing more than a JPEG lol"
Hell, Phil Spencer already put in his 2 cents on the topic:
https://kotaku.com/xbox-boss-phil-spencer-talks-about-exploitive-nfts-1848071039
Granted, he may not always view them as negative lol but at least he does for now.
I collect NFTs so I actually think it’s pretty cool that STALKER 2 is implementing it. Gotta see how they do it though.
shikamaru317 said: It kind of seems to me like NFT has become a bit of a boogeyman here lately. People see the word and automatically think "that's pure evil" because a media narrative seems to be conditioning them to think that way. Most are probably just sheep who couldn't even tell you what NFT is an acronym for if you asked them, and even if they do know it stands for Non Fungible Token, they probably couldn't tell you what a Non Fungible Token is. I'll be honest and say that even I don't have a very clear understanding of what it is, beyond that it's a digital piece of media coded to allow unique ownership backed by cryptocurrency for it's value. |
This most people who hate on NFTs have no idea what they’re talking about. Sheep mentality.
jason1637 said:
This most people who hate on NFTs have no idea what they’re talking about. Sheep mentality. |
Ryuu96 and I have put all over this page the dangers of NFTs in games lol
gtotheunit91 said:
Ryuu96 and I have put all over this page the dangers of NFTs in games lol |
Nah, what y’all said can already and is already being done through micro transactions. I’d honestly prefer NFTs than MTX so o can sell skins or in game objects or trade them when I wanna use different skins.
shikamaru317 said:
Answers in bold |
The market is not there for MS because MS has been at it for over a decade and they have made no real inroads. Even during MS best effort, they still did not sell anywhere close to Nintendo or Sony. The Xbox does not sell enough in Japan, and the amount of investment it probably would take to just get content probably just not worth it.
Case in point, lets say MS had a chance to purchase exclusive FF7 remake. Now if we go by how much it cost MS to purchase exclusive for Tomb Raider, they would have probably had to pay 500 million just to raise any attention. With that kind of money, they probably could get day one exclusive for a years worth of content on GP. MS probably could put that money towards a purchase of a studio. Hell, MS probably could do a hell of a lot with the amount of money it probably takes to just get a years exclusive on some Japanese game instead of moving the needle forward. After Tomb Raiders, MS is done playing that game because when you are not the market leader, the gains you get are minuscule at best.
As for XCloud, its best if MS continue to flesh out its content and build out 3rd party day one support along with their own. I am sure if opportunity occurs and the price is right they would put more Japan content on the service like they already do but I am also sure they do have a price now and its no where like it use to be.
I personally believe that MS should be looking at development studios in Korea, India, China where the price point is much cheaper and the developer work from what I have seen is strong. They could put a lot of that content day one for way cheaper then trying to cater to Japanese developers and also build and penetrate these markets more. There is a huge market base that is just begging for MS money that would net way better returns and increase GP subs. Once GP gets to a certain level, it would then help to open up Japan more as those developers would look to the service to expand their games reach with minimal effort. As I stated, mobile is the key and its the lionshare where Japanese gamers spend their time and money. The Console marketshare is owned by Nintendo and Sony and I do not see them giving that up anytime soon. MS already spent a lot of time with that effort, its time to think different.
jason1637 said: Nah, what y’all said can already and is already being done through micro transactions. |
Justifying one bad behavior by pointing to another bad behavior? Both suck.
...to avoid getting banned for inactivity, I may have to resort to comments that are of a lower overall quality and or beneath my moral standards.