It COULD Change Gaming for the Better
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ค. 2024
- Read the extended story here: www.belindaercan.com
Big gaming studios are seriously stepping into blockchain gaming, even though most players are outright opposed to it, calling it a scam from past experiences. So what’s behind it? Really just another cash grab? And if done right, is blockchain tech for the industry good or rather bad? Let’s check it out.
0:00 Big studios are embracing it
1:39 Quick tech explainer
3:40 Blockchain games done right
5:50 Blockchain games done wrong
8:17 Are all blockchain games scams?
9:24 How to monetize blockchain games?
10:40 Staying ahead of the curve
11:49 Good or bad?
/// Socials ///
▸ Instagram: / belindaercan
▸ TikTok: / ercanbelinda
▸ LinkedIn: / belindaercan
Written & Produced by Belinda Ercan
Editing and Strategic Direction by n8wealth.com
#futureofgaming #blockchaingames #gamingindustry #gamingnews #gamingtrends #gaming - เกม
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | ครอบครัวสะท้านทุ่ง "นางบี & อ้ายสติ๊ก"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A1rhYcxxNtA/mqdefault.jpg)
When you introduce real money into a game, you break the magic circle.
A game is a set of rules with endogenous meaning and value. The moment you can earn money by playing, the game is erased, and this set of rules becomes a job, a trading platform, or a casino.
I do not believe the blockchain can benefit a healthy game. Because it revolves around the value of « owning » something and attaching a monetary value to virtual goods. Which is contrary to the purpose of playing.
Yup I don’t want reality in my life escape from reality
i was working for a dude about 8 years ago who was doing blockchain gaming... he's in prison now, though oddly not for scamming me out of my pay.
Some good points here, but I don't necessarily agree with the three core features as presented.
"True ownership" sounds good in some ways, but has some really bad long term implications. Developers not being able to address balance issues isn't a win for consumers, it's a win for investors that will begin hoarding "overpowered" items and selling them to people with more money than sense. Now there's pressure on the devs to balance the game around those items, which is silly because it has the same end of "nerfing" those items while simultaneously making the game worse for every other player.
Portability is also a strange dream IMO. If the asset itself is stored as an NFT, with it's stats, model, etc, and another developer decides to include support for it in their game, well then the game and it's mechanics must be designed around that item. Can you do that for every NFT item from every game? Not while making a GOOD game, that's for sure.
If the NFT stores just the art asset it makes way more sense, but it does mean your item's power will vary from game to game. It also puts a lot of pressure on developers to create stats for and import assets they have no control over to allow you to bring your item over, and what actual benefit do they get for doing that? Why would Fortnite work to bring in your NFT asset when they could make their own and sell it instead?
I'm also not sold on the idea of completely unique items that only you own. It promotes the Bored Ape style of "art," where items are generated to be technically unique but end up looking completely generic and soulless due to lack of actual design, and each bit needing to work with every other bit when randomly mooshed together. It's completely unrealistic to expect that companies would carefully design thousands and thousands of unique items.
Now the secondary market, I think that's where the biggest potential for gamers and studios shows. Let's say that NFTs are contracts that guarantee access instead of actual assets. You buy an NFT for the game, and now you have access. But, since you own the contract, you can transfer it freely with anyone else on the blockchain with no middleman. When you are done, you can sell your access to another player to recoup some of your costs, the other player gets a discount, and the studio gets an automatic fee from the transaction. It's an evolution of the old used games market that helps everyone. Of course this really only applies to always online digital games that can verify ownership to grant access and won't really do anything for offline games, which is fine.
The same goes for microtransactions. Bought every cosmetic in the game, and now you're done playing? Sell them off on the secondary market. No need for the items to be unique, as you aren't selling the items themselves; just the right to use them in the game. You could always buy it full price from the developer, or just wait for it to go up on the secondary market.
Overall I think NFTs are a lot more useful as contracts or proof of ownership for physical goods than anything else.
And finally, since people bring up Magic the Gathering a lot, I think it's actually a really good example of how NFTs SHOULD work. There are no truly unique cards, they don't work with other games, and while the cards can't be physically nerfed/updated, official tournaments have ban/restricted lists instead. While you own the physical card, you don't own any rights to the IP or art, and you have no guarantee towards the viability or value of the card or even it's use in official play.
Such a complex topic I tried to make sense of. But some of my points are just pipedream-ish. Your points are well outlined and hopefully add to this discussion here. Agree with the secondary market. The rest still feels forced.
Cool then the game gets shut down and my item becomes worthless
Nice video, but you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the blockchain is used in these "games". When you buy an NFT that corresponds to a game item, the only thing that's recorded into the blockchain is an identifier for that item, a link, or a look-up string. You don't own the item itself (unless there is a real-world contract that specifies that the owner of the NFT owns the in-game item), the item _can_ be nerfed and altered by the game developer for balancing purposes (since you only own a token - a link or identifier to that item), and when the game shuts down, all your item NFTs are worthless.
And as for sharing NFT items between games, guess what? You need a centralized database of the game items that different games use that keep track of information about the items, like stats, in-game behavior, etc. The only thing that would be recorded on the blockchain would be ownership information, tokens with links into this centralized database. And guess what? If something were to happen to this centralized database, again, your tokens, your NFTs, would be worthless.
The blockchain doesn't really solve any practical problem when it comes to game design. It needlessly overcomplicates things for genuine people and provides an avenue for scamming for bad actors.
Most blockchain "games" use NFT's as a signature rather than tangible ownership of the good. Although this is because most blockchains until now lack the throughput to store more than 10 megas on chain of data, there is a blockchain that allows you to store 400 GB in a single smart contract where storing assets would probably be possible
I don't understand your point, do you wish to own an NFT of a broken game? What is the point of that? Logically your NFT of a specific game will only be valuable if the game thrives...
The problem is. Game DEVS don't have the money to invest in blockchain... and the companies only want one thing...
Frankly the problem with real games using Blockchain is that 1) if a developer cannot balance something on the blockchain that is OP, then within about 2 weeks the gameplay will be boiled down to one optimal strategy and that is by definition a boring / failed design. Game design's purpose is to provide interesting decisons to the player. AND 2) if all choices can be perfectly balanced, then the way for the developer to continue to earn revenue to support the game dries up as gentrified players own all the options they need to be competitive at the game. Powercreep is mandatory for a game to have unending developer support.
You’re 100% right. But it seems that this system can actually work in the long run, because in physical games like Magic the Gathering, they’ve been essentially releasing thousands of cards for over 3 decades now. Cards belong to the buyer, and cannot be nerfed. Yet the game still works to this day, because of formats preventing power creep and more affordable ways to play. Still too expensive in my opinion, which is why I stopped playing, but it works as business model and the game is still going strong.
@@narcozero8410 but one of the main ways mtg balanced op cards was to ban them outright. Black lotus for example. So is the proposal for nft balancing to say, you are welcome to give us a bunch of money for a black lotus, but in 2 weeks when we discover it is broken op, your card that you paid money for will be banished to a “junk” queue where we send all the broken stuff, thank you for your money and here is an upcoming card you can buy from us, this time we’ll try harder! I think that creates bad will between the player and the dev that kills the game anyway. Marvel snap is my comparable for a digital card game and they balance bump cards within 2 weeks of release…
The "block chain done right" section just repeats the main talking points of most of this projects that vastly underestimates how games are even made. Why would you want a hyper link pointing to a supposed ownership of an item in a game to "keep your stats" if the server and itself runs on a proprietary platform and you can't migrate "your item" anywhere else? All of this things can already be achieved by traditional means and even more so, why do we even want to keep pushing micro transactions as the main business model for games?
I'm not opposed to the technology itself but it has proven time and time again that the only point of implementing blockchain related things in games is to pump up some shitty virtual coin, speculation or alright scams.
I would love to make money just playing a game, but lets be real, the moment any MMO introduces any way how to make money in it, in that moment the game will be flooded with bots immediately making the game unplayable for anyone.
I don't think the block chain can provide value within games, but I think it can find value as a means of supporting games as a means of tracking attention and perhaps other performance metrics.
I think in the long run IP must die. If it doesn't die, everything will be owned by a tiny number who control everything everyone else gets to do, because of AI. A decentralized solution for AI requires accepting that content can be mass produced, trained on human effort (the same as all humans learn to produce). Even if you think current AI has "no soul" (I would agree) there is little reason to think it won't improve (I'm on the plateau side of the AI situation, for the record, but I don't think a plateau is a permanent situation. I think we'll continue to see incremental improvements along with some steep improvements over the years/decades).
The corporate IP model ensures that executives who have no reason to care about gamers will have control. It will either be from cheap money from those who want to foist their opinions, or those who exploit simpler thinkers who are willing to spend massive amounts of cash on single games (which will in turn probably bankroll throwing cheap money at the AAA's).
Block chain can allow systems to be made with very little trust that would help determine who should get funding for larger endeavors.
Buster sword reference is on Apex Legends, not fortnite, for their final fantasy event. Good video so far-- but lets give Respawn Entertainment credit for their cool item that I don't use.
I've been waiting for a impartial content like this. Its hard to talk find a video about this topic without it being someone being extremely opposed, and a dumbass proud of being scammed or scamming other people.
Every new technology has a new potential, but what every use case everyone is finding for blockchain in games is literally doing something that already exists, but worse.
Agree! That’s how I see it too.
The very underrated TH-cam channel.
So refreshing and informative, with own unique style of delivery.
I know the subscribers gonna increase!
The blockchain is great. The problem is greedy people.
Great video Belinda!!
Thank youuu 🙏🤓
Greed
it's a shame that this great tech has been marred by nefarious figures and scams to the point where people are (understandably) biased against it. I actually think that for gaming, indie devs will break in this technology and make it mainstream. But it's just such a huge risk to take associating your game with this tech... Like you said, i think it will work when blockchain is not the focus of the game, but rather the game itself is. Great video, thank you. PS your utilisation of body language is great!
I'm genuinely curious though, what advantage does it have for regular gamers to store ownership information for game items in a decentralized database? I'm not really convinced by the claims that it "puts you in control of the game", as you still have to trust the game developer to implement the NFT items in-game and to maintain them, the game developer is still fully in control of the items, it's just that there's tokens that correspond to them in an external (decentralized) database... Why not just have the ownership information as part of the game as well, as part of the game's user account database?
The only reason I can think of is the ability to use them as a speculative investment vehicle. And that attracts scams and grifters. You don't need cryptocurrencies and smart contracts to implement an in-game marketplace.
@@dusxmt I guess you're right and this whole concept really only makes sense (and thus solves a problem) when we'll have a the ability to actually transfer "our" assets across multiple games and platforms. Right now, this is only an unrealized idea. So regarding the necessity of blockchain for in-game marketplaces, you're correct that a game's internal systems could handle trading and ownership on its own. doens't need blockchain. doesn't need decentralized servers. But once this interoperability of in-game assets across games becomes a reality, the whole thing would make sense. Yes, the devs still have control over the NFTs utility/look/rules within that one game, but the blockchain concept isn't to remove the game developer's control over the utility of in-game items. It's to give players the ability to sell, trade, or transfer these assets OUTSIDE of the game environment. That's for me the one and only real functionali purpose of blockchain tech in games. What if that one game shuts down? According to my learnings, even if a game shuts down, the assets persist on the blockchain and if the asset is created following a standard e.g. ERC-721 or ERC-1155 tokens for Ethereum-based assets, you might be able to use the same asset across different games then. but as i said in the video, all theory for now. And thanks for your comments; it just shows how much more discussion this concept needs before it can become a practical reality. Until then, I'll be happy "owning" my Pals in Palworld
@@dusxmt it's really late and my brain is barely functioning, so i'll be brief. it seems that you are constraining your thought to just marketplaces and item transactions. while they are a more apparent use, there are many other potential uses that are not quite so apparent, in the same manner that the same technologies used to build ChatGPT can be used to make very fast and effective search or product recommendation engines. It's not about solving problems currently in games, but innovating and creating new experimental things that are not yet possible without this technology. i'm excited to see what devs dream up
underrated
Cryptokitties and axie were more like proof of concepts. All it needs is one mainstream breakthrough to set the standard.
u mean ponzi schemes right