Below I’ve linked to a pretty good interview that highlights some of the potential positives of NFTs entering gaming.
I’ve all along felt that the almost entirely negative reception to gaming companies dabbling in NFTs is a bit shortsighted. Yes, there’s definitely a concern that it’ll be used in less than great ways, making us yearn for the days of microtransactions.
But there’s also the potential for good things too. Like a marketplace where players can sell their own in-game creations for real money, think custom paint jobs in Forza. Like the ability to resell DLC or in-game items and skins to other players. Like reselling entire games when you’re done with them.
And yes, these things could potentially be done without it being tied to NFTs, but if NFTs and their profit potential is what it takes for gaming companies to implement these kinds of player tools, then I think it’s worth considering it and not just reject it out of hand.
My primary concern with regards to NFT is less the potential for abuse by some gaming companies, and more with the environmental impact. Hopefully that’s something that will be continually reduced.
It’s always hilarious how much these companies keep trying to shove it down our throats, as if it is the holy grail, when the truth of the matter is that it is literally a pyramid scheme, and therefore they constantly need new people to buy into it otherwise the whole thing crumbles.
As a Ubisoft fanboy, they just don’t get it and I wish they wouldn’t do any of this shit. With Ubisoft+ coming to Xbox (my guess is March when Dawn of Ragnarok releases), I will no longer be buying their games or DLC/expansions because why would I when I don’t have to which in turn, allows me to ignore all this shit completely.
On the positive side, while I highly doubt it, maybe just maybe, one day I will wake up to - XBOX + Ubisoft. Hehehe.
I would be less against NFTs if they were much clearer about it being a tool to make AAA games sustainable. But no, they have to make it feel that it is beneficial for end-users when they clearly contradict themselves in the same interview.
The end game is about giving players the opportunity to resell their items once they’re finished with them or they’re finished playing the game itself.
Do you guys see a future where players own the games themselves? That the games are an NFT?
That’s part of the use case we can explore, but it’s not the focus today.
Even so, I am still finding it difficult to understand why NFT are so necessary for Ubisoft profit. They have total control over the digital license for all items on their games, they can transfer digital licenses from one account to another on their system, they can create a marketplace to support users in making transactions with these digital licenses… including here a “ubisoft fee” for any transaction. Instead, they rely on a weird technology taken out of their main use case (decentralization) that also includes costs for (1) integrating with an external marketplace, (2) marketplace fee, (3) nft transaction fee.
To be honest, I think this is the least of my concerns. Environmental impact concern is mostly due to bad blockchain press. There are multiple alternatives that are much more eco-friendly.
It’s not that my idea is bad and everyone hates it for real reasons, it’s because they’re too stupid to understand how lucrative good it is for them!
Like, yeah, people can be stupid and reject good things for bad reasons, but if you want to try to salvage and rebrand then this behavior isn’t exactly endearing. Blithely doubling down and implying everyone who isn’t buying in is stupid is counter-productive.
Agreed. You definitely can accomplish most of what NFTs enables without actually relying on NFTs. But I don’t personally care what technology they use, or if they’re being hypocritical and dishonest in their reasoning. As long as they implement true ownership of digital goods in one way or another, I’m ok with whatever method they choose to do it. I just don’t understand the “NFT = automatically bad, never good” attitude.
Yes, there’s a lot of shady stuff and crazy Beanie Baby-style buying and selling going on right now. But that’s not a fault of the technology.
Not a fan how so many gamers, who know literally nothing about NFT’s at all, have kinda just hive minded themselves into assuming NFT’s are bad. Not because that position is wrong (it isn’t) but because this kinda rush to repeat whatever the in crowds are repeating online without thinking is dumb and can stifle actual innovation.
All that said, based on watching several hrs of explainer vids on NFT’s from both sides of the debate, it really does feel like these are complete and utter scams and every single time a proponent claims something and someone pushes back, it doesn’t help that the proponent instantly sinks into ‘ya just don’t get it’. That’s basically become a meme at this point. When your supposedly innovative new pitch can’t withstand a single basic follow up question it just isn’t a good pitch.
Even in this interview when the interviewer asks him for specific use cases, he lists something that:
Doesn’t need blockchain or NFT’s to do and which Ubi isn’t doing anyhow
Would have bad implications on game design
Do ppl actually want to bring their cosmetic items or characters from one game to another? Do ppl really think that sorta thing is even technically plausible? Do ppl think that is plausible from a game design/balance pov? Do ppl think anyone else will want to buy these items? Do ppl realize that the NFT doesn’t actually grant you any ownership WHATSOEVER for the art asset in question?
Usually with pitches you can at least imagine some pro’s and con’s together, but this stuff as pitched thus far really has no upsides for gamers really at all.
NFT’s are a token, not art assets. This is the thing that ppl online don’t understand. What you buy is a spot within a database. The art asset just gets attached to it as a way to show off to others that you have a spot in the database. The url you get when buying an NFT that directs you to a digital artwork doesn’t contain any ownership of the artwork whatsoever. The ppl who control what you see when your browser goes to that url can replace the art asset you got tricked into buying with any image or digital asset they feel like.
Why would anyone want to buy just a spot in a database? Because there are only so many spots. The creator of that database made it limited/scarce just to sell those spots at higher prices. And ppl who understand NFT’s buy those spots because they can re-sell those spots in a database to ppl who don’t know what an NFT actually is. Those naive ppl see these database spots being sold at high value and wanna get in on that and resell them. It’s purely speculative market without any actual object of value existing AT ALL.
Ugh. Ubisoft themselves already has had success in the space of blurring the lines between exercise and leisure/gaming. There are legitimate ways to blur the line between education and gaming too. Lots of places already use ‘game-ification’ strategies in the office with no need for blockchain nonsense. And tons of ppl already make a living playing games as is (eSports, streamers, content creators). This guy sounds like some young ignorant crypto bro sold him on something the bro didn’t really understand and the execs just bought it hook, line and sinker.