"A Solution to a Problem That Doesn't Exist" - Blockchain Gaming
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 พ.ย. 2021
- Gaming is changing, according to the mainstream publishers who are starting to follow the massive influx of money surrounding the idea of blockchain in gaming. Jason Schreier gives his take on it in an article on Bloomberg which concisely discusses some of the inconsistencies and issues surrounding this influx of interest and how it is based on very little...For now.
Jason's Article:
www.bloomberg.com/news/newsle...
And Tweet:
/ 1459254152786292737
Axie Infinity study:
/ 1459191090100244483
naavik.co/business-breakdowns...
Follow my twitch! / kiraonttv
Join My Discord! - / discord
GET NORDVPN and help support me:
go.nordvpn.net/aff_c?offer_id...
USE COUPON CODE: kiratv
Want to support me further? I now have a Patreon.
/ kirayt
------------------------------------------------------------
#blockchain #cryptocurrency #gaming - เกม
It's so crazy how much hype block chain, crypto and NFTs seem to have been getting in the gaming world yet gamers themselves don't seem to care and nobody can explain actual real features that require these things. Anything that these developers seem to put out with these things, they're all possible now without this tech
It's just a cash grab. Ofc, if you're in AAA gaming places in the last couple years, that's basically what AAA gaming has become with "Live Services" - including road maps that never come to fruition.
Hey Kira, I play MTG online, which already has a system, basically made up of a bunch of bots and websites, where they have individual cards you own in your collection which have a 3rd market value for tickets in the game and you can purchase one ticket for one dollar. And these sites let you sell them your tickets for like, 90 cents to the dollar. These tickets are also used to join events etc. Basically, all this to agree with your point that what NFT's "could accomplish" is already being done without them.
People are already upset with the way Robox monetized the game, and it's not even NFT. Turns out that it's just hard to design a system where you can exchange in-game currency to a real-life dollar (not to be confused with the opposite process). And the way current crypto game did it, it's even worse than Robux system.
The idea to carry items from game to game is just ridiculous. Even if it's technically possible that all the developers could agree on a standard... why would they do that? Why would they sell you a powerful sword or a fancy skin that you can use on all games when they can sell you a new sword or a new skin on each game you want to play. As cool as it sounds, no developer will want that as a bussiness model, they'll make sure it doesn't work that way so that they can keep selling you stuff regularly.
This NFT stuff is a case of people not understanding how either game tech or business works. Think about Miis - sure they were cute, but Nintendo didn't even implement them in all of their own first-party games. Who would want to play Zelda with their Mii LOL?
Also, there would have to be limits, like same platform, shared game-content database, etc. Because games only have what you build into them - Minecraft isn't building in all of Dark Souls' items just in case a player wants to carry it over.
Not only that but think of the balancing issues
This idea sounds so much like an afterthought, something they just came up with in order to make NFTs sound useful.
@@jon_deluxe Yes, but not to make it sound useful, more to tap deeper into that gamer-brain that reacts to cool-sounding, but impossible, things. You see the same at every E3, or all over Kickstarter.
My argument will only work after NFT games reach the level of quality of typical games, but it all depends on the choice of new players, if more people choose the games that let them cash out then these games will succeed by taking a small cut from the transactions between players, normal games can measure tgeir prospects and decide which system works better for them
When I first learned about Blockchain gaming, play to earn and the Metaverse I thought it was kinda exciting, but following it for the past year has shown me that any potential good that could come of it is likely to be ruined by greed, the weird thing is that when you look at the marketcap of these games and the prices they're selling NFTs for it's almost like they think we're living in 2040 Ready Player One universe already and that whole reality is already priced in... 10+ years too early, I'd actually like to invest in a good blockchain / play to earn game but I've yet to see a single one that ticks the box of "I'd still want to play this game even if it was nothing to do with play to earn/blockchain"
The whole idea of play to earn confuses me. Games are a hobby, something I do for fun. I don't expect anyone to pay me to play a game anymore than I would expect someone to pay me to watch a movie or go for a hike.
Yes, there are specific scenarios in which people can make money in online games. Gold farmers, etc. Usually they do this by doing boring repetitive shit nobody else *wants* to do. And let's be honest, they still don't make very much, at least not in terms of the standard of living in the US (which is why most people who do this are in countries with a much lower cost of living...).
This is just basic supply and demand. If an activity in a game was both fun and very profitable everyone would do it until the market was diluted to the point where it wasn't profitable anymore. So either it's just not going to be fun (in which case why should I bother when I'm playing games for entertainment...) or it's just something that fundamentally not everyone can do, like winning a tournament or something. And if you're trying for the latter than good for you, but I know I don't have the time to dedicate to something like that myself and again, I just want to play games for fun.
I have been hearing about NFT and gaming since 2017 and after all this time I still don't manage to know where is actually a good idea to use them. The best possible scenario would be something like create an open source game, develop a whole franchise to sustain an ecosystem and NFT being a cosmetic that could move on between different games. Other than that doesn't make sense at all.
@@kevadu I find "play to earn" bs and too good to be true. Because if I wanted to "play to earn" I be a streamer, game tester, content creator, esport gamer etc that require to put in effort. There is no way to casually play games or play with little to no skills required and doesn't feel like a chore/job just to earn. I wish I'm able to passively earn money just by playing games and be a no life shut-in hikikomori with no skills. But the reality is what you said, that will never happen because EVERYONE will be doing it. As yea the company would lose money, might as well give everyone free money. Sorry if I just repeated what you said here and there. I just wanted to rant out my thoughts.
Yep. I'm don't like the phrase "play to earn", I would much rather it be "play and earn". It might seem the same but I feel like the goal should not be just the "earn" but also the "play".
Glad to hear you’ve changed you mind on this 😊
Yeah, the whole "game first" is probably never gonna happen when the blockchain is involved. It's all gonna be about making money. I might be wrong but that's just how I see it.
It's already that way for big game studios like Ubisoft and EA. Imagine these two companies introducing NFTs in their games. A truly nightmare
@@alanrcastro8580 ubisoft is already involved in a lot of blockchain games :)
@@alanrcastro8580 Yeah very true. We'll see how it turns out I guess.
The only requirement for this is to reach the critical point wherein a sustainablr portion of your playerbase will want to play the game for fun, regardless of earning potential
I'm a littbe bit more optimistic. I don't consider Earth 2, Star Atlas and other scams as games. When big game companies want to make acutal games, they can't go away with creating a marketplace for a fake game. Gamers still want to spend their time in an entertaining way. So even if they intruduce NFTs, their sole exictence can't bring in the customers. So yes, if NFTs don't explode like bubble in the meantime, they probably introduce them in the games. But if they ruin the experience, they will loose their playerbase, and remember, these companies are not exit scams, they want a constant increase in profits each year.
Man what happened to gaming for fun...
Exactly my point. Its just gonna be about making money.
As my friend put it when I told him how boring p2e games where "yes, but earning money is fun" 🙈
I remember when video games started going mainstream I was so optimistic about the future of the industry
If I could go back in time I'd slap myself for being so naive
@@andresk4694 I mean he isn't wrong though. Totally wrong medium however. I honestly think integrating blockchain into gaming will cause health issues for a lot of people.
A bunch of low IQ losers who think they are as smart as Elon Musk think they found the next get rich quick scheme and are now getting played hard by scammers. This new wave of "play to earn" will very soon disappear after the inevitable happens and they discover that you can't eat an NFT.
Given its hit to frame rate, Denuvo might as well be generating crypto currency.
@@FlamespeedyAMV that would at least explain why it's so shit
Yo-ho-ho!
Actual utility for NFTs in gaming as far as I've understood:
1. Ability to go around app store and payment provider fees if you're a small company.
2. Ability to more effectively avoid taxes if you're a large company.
axie nfts are used to build teams to battle other players and monsters to earn currency.
Crypto has its own fees though. And most have a very volatile value relative to "real" money.
I'm not sure that the second even applies (particularly not the US or AU). For someone to actually get any profits from their NFTs (i.e. convert them into usable money) they must incur a tax obligation. Someone avoiding paying tax on that is breaking the law and will eventually get screwed by the IRS. About the only thing it might do is allow you to leverage tax write offs and loopholes more efficiently by timing WHEN you convert them into real money.
why be on th app store?
I saw a guy with (a very sketpical) FAQ trying to defend blockchain gaming on Reddit and the answer to everything was "technically true, but.." lol.
"i am not racist, but" "this is a not a scam, but"
@@ollllj 🤣👍
Check out On Chain Gaming he makes stuff on block chain games and he talks about upcoming games and all the hype but he shows that they have no real project yet and ask for money with NFT's. The only good block chain games are Axie infinity and Town star but if you check him out he makes good content
Reddit is the only place I've seen people that still think Blockchain is "the future", whatever that means. What problem it is supposed to solve, no one knows.
@@Spaced92 Well its supposed to solve the problem of gamers wanted to only play video games and make a living off of it. Its impossible to do if you aren't a streamer or top tier gamer but now its possible with NFT/blockchain games. I know that for a fact it with co-exist with normal gaming but it will not take over. It'll just be another option for people 18+ to make money
We are going to get even more half-as$ed games, the future of AAA gaming.
"But now you can make money from playing this broken, buggy mess...so that'll lead to less bitching...right?..right?!" - Publisher CEO
You still have to pay for the shitty game though...
I’d rather play a fun game and earn no money.
@@gaijinkuri684 I'm with you on that. I'd rather buy a game and not get a penny back but enjoy it rather than struggle with something rushed out the door but promising me some blockchain tokens or something in return.
Future? look at GTA, its hapenig today, nfts will just be an excuse for doing shity games.
@@FlamespeedyAMV You'll never get enough money out of it to pay for the game and the extra electricity.
The "reviews" on these games are also sketchy as HECK.
Indeed
I think u r forced to rate it high to unlock rewards or somesht
they are all FOMO videos
This looks a lot like "Dutch Tulip Mania Episode XVIII".
"Yves" is pronounced like "Eve". As in Yves Saint Laurent is pronounced Eve Sanloron.
That's fine, I've been pretty much done with AAA games for quite a while anyway. Monetisation is becoming more and more aggressive and the games are becoming worse and worse. That just does not add up for me. On the other hand, indie games are in a better spot than ever, so personally I'm not too worried / concerned about all this metaverse / blockchain / NFT scam stuff going on.
If this is the future of gaming then I’m probably selling my PC and finding another hobby.
You know...a PC does a lot more than just play games.
This is the future, prepare your mind for a sell
@@wildstarr sure but if your not using a gaming PC for gaming, it’s mostly a waste. Your better off selling it and buying a laptop.
A MTG or Yugioh style "rotation" sounds terrible. MTG has standard where they rotate older sets out, and Yugioh just power creeps old cards away by printing better...
Imagine selling off parts of your character every season, in hopes of getting a deal on new parts to keep playing through new content in the latest expansion. Or the social aspects of getting kicked out of a raiding guild, because you got priced out of the market (or the skills/cards/abilities you were trying to sell got nerfed, so you can't make your new build).
_______________
Block chain games aren't really "part of" the block chain anyways. They just choose to respect some receipts on the block chain, and grant you some items in their game if you hold the receipts. If you get banned the devs still have the ability to not respect the receipts you currently hold in an external block chain, meaning that while you can still "trade" those receipts... There does not exist anywhere where those receipts are respected and able to be used for something.
I saw somewhere, might have even been on this channel, that it can also be used as a way to avoid liability. You try to sue them for not honoring your purchase, but you never were buying anything in the game at all, you were buying an nft you still have access to that has a representation in game
All NFTs should be tied to a real world asset
I still don't see what NFT's do that Steam Marketplace doesn't already.
I can give an example of Mir4. Many servers are being monopolized by "players" of high level, who probably play since the launch of the game and who pay for the benefits offered by the cash shop, so far nothing unusual, as p2w games are like that. The problem is that the game involves crypto and crypto = money and then things start to get dirty, the players who dominate the server act like a criminal group, preventing any player who is not part of their group from progressing in the game, even threatening players outside the game, not to mention that there are bots everywhere, that are from another well-structured group, that manage a large network of bots. It is also worth mentioning the Whales, which invest a lot of money and control the flow of the market.
If they stop new players from getting into the game, who will keep buying the token and keep the game afloat? It seems like they're just shooting themselves in the foot with their bullying and hazing of newer players.
People supporting NFTs like to criticise the banking system. But the reality is that they don't see a problem there. They just want to be the next ones in the top.
The only people excited for this is the crypto speculators hoping to make cash. The games are secondary at least.
Look at Gala games they are a real company publishing actual good block chain games and they have a game out that is good and more on the way
Ding ding ding. It's just a new way for crypto-bros to ruin something for money. None of these investors who stand to profit off an open game economy with ownership of game assets give a shit about the games, or the people playing them
i genuinely think p2w korean mmos would benefit from an additional p2e blockchain feature sarcastically speaking.
I got an ad for a blockchain/NFT game at the beginning of this video.
I will never like this practice, but I will always like your videos covering them.
Games are about entertaining people. Blockchain is about keeping ledgers, which is the polar opposite of entertainment. Unless you can make accounting and paperwork fun and exciting, you're never going to get gamers excited about your game because "it has crypto". That's just a fact.
MTG is an interesting case because there is a version (MTGO) where people own the cards and uh... definitely don't openly trade them for basically in-game cash equivalents (event tickets are used to enter events so are pretty much completely liquid, $1 USD = 1 tix), at least so far as Wizards of the Coast (WOTC) is concerned. That would be a contradiction to WOTC's policy that their cards have value on the secondary market. To remove ANY ambiguity, MTGO's "redemption" feature (the ability to trade a full set of one of every card from an MTGO set for a set of physical cards for a moderate fee) makes a new MTGO card very close to a physical card.
Which leads to the interesting problem where when people are banned from real MTG they also need to be banned from MTGO. In real MTG if you get banned you still have your cards and can do whatever you want with them, but in MTGO where you could theoretically have a collection actually worth thousands that WOTC would effectively be seizing. Man, it'd be REALLY bad if some of those bans came for effectively no good reason at all -- oh dear, who is this Zach Jesse guy. Oh my, those crimes are... I mean, he's served his time, but we can't have a person like that playing MTG, better ban him to be safe.
Now WOTC has a problem. They definitely don't want a lawsuit from Jesse over his MTGO collection (he's a pro, every pro plays extensively on MTGO because the level of play is very high), that could lead to a court deciding their cards do have value on the secondary market and oh my, gambling, accessibility to children, securities law, etc. etc. WOTC will do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to avoid opening that Pandora's Box (or Pyxis of Pandemonium would be more appropriate). So WOTC's lawyers definitely didn't go to Jesse with a money offer equivalent to the value of his MTGO collection (probably at a significant premium) to get him to just... not sue them ever over banning him from MTGO and never tell anyone about it.
Okay, due to leaks in the grapevine, probably from WOTC themselves to maintain a level of confidence in MTGO in the era of cancel culture, we are quite confident this is what happened. But that story goes to show, there's definitely a place for an ability to buy and sell in-game stuff divorced from the developer's ability to ban you.
Could this be set up by the developer themselves? Yes, but then you basically have to acknowledge the goods have value on the secondary market. You speak of transaction fees, but WOTC actually makes no money from trades on MTGO. It theoretically costs them since they have to maintain that infrastructure. The fees are made by independently run bots who sell cards for more than they buy them for. And this isn't a don't-mind-the-man-behind-the-curtain thing I've been doing for the rest of the post, they're well known and have long histories. WOTC makes money the same way they do in real life, event entry fees (event tickets) and selling digital packs. Cards literally can't get into MTGO without doing one of those two things, so as long as people want new cards in MTGO, WOTC has a revenue stream where they can still deny that an in-demand mythic rare is sometimes $100+.
Oh man, what a shit show.
I ALMOST felt a TINY bit bad for Jesse (not nearly as bad as I feel for his victim, mind you) simply because I believe if you’ve served your time and don’t reoffend you need to be reintegrated with society to help prevent against recidivism. But if they cashed him out to avoid a PR disaster and he took the deal, then there’s nothing to feel bad about in the least and we can go back to saying fuck that shit bird and I hope his victim has found peace in the time since his heinous act.
"Hey competitors, please use your own artists and developers to make sure our NFT's fit and work in your game too otherwise nobody will value them, thanks lol!"
This is it really. There is just a hollowness.
See the same in TCGs right now. All of the value in Pokémon is hype rather than actual playing.
Look at something like metazoo, the game is actually terrible, but people are so caught up the in the hype and all the stuff the creator is doing that isn’t the game, like shoes, topps cards etc. The game isn’t worth the hype.
@James Black I mean as an avid gamer of games with a TH-cam channel about playing games I’d like to believe that the good ones survive and the hype dies. There are bubbles that burst but the good games survive even through the bust if they have players.
A solution looking for a problem.
It's a solution trying to create a problem.
I feel like the golden age of gaming ended around 2012
Maybe the blockchain 'game devs' just want to use your computing time/network as part of an anonymous distributed network, for the purpose of mining coins (valuable) or strengthening their blockchain ledger database (also valuable). No one promises to make you money unless they themselves know they can make a lot more.
"play to earn" doesnt work - at best those companies are vehicles to transfer wealth from one person to another, without new players there is simply no way everyone can just print money out of a game like that, somebody needs to spend money for someone to make it
People spend a lot of their money trying to "speculate" on the future of blockchain. They want to be able to say that they got on the ground floor of the next big thing. But here's the thing about speculating on new technology; you're going to be wrong. When automobiles were the new and exciting tech, thousands of companies sprang up to try and get in on the big exciting thing. There's only a handful of them, now. Dot-coms sprouted like weeds in the 90s, as people rushed into the exciting new Internet space. Only a handful of those are even still alive. If I were a betting man, I would say that none of the companies talking about metaverses and NFTs around now are going to be here in 20 years. Not even Facebook is going to bring the killer app. It's probably going to be some podunk little company you've never heard of, don't care about, and probably doesn't even exist, right now.
Can you play a block chain? Does it entertain you? Can you laugh at NFT or enjoy it? Then why the heck put it into a game ?
Actually yes, you can. Imagine an NFT as any other in-game item, but you can transfer it out of the game to your wallet, to a marketplace, etc. They aren't just static pixel images like you think.
@@Lounjakt why would I want to do that? To place it in an auction house like in Diablo 3 which ruined the complete game? No they are absolutely worthless, and they say nothing about owner ship because NFTs of trademarked items have already been sold and it was a scam. Its basically writing a piece of paper that states I own these things and its meaning less. There are technologies that people adopted fast and with ease because they were convenient and had a use, with NFTs you first have to invent a use or force people to use it and that is just bad. Also if it is used for exchange against money it should be automatically be labeled as gambling with all the restrictions.
@@holylingus That's the question none of these tech bros can answer. They've found a solution to a problem nobody has and nobody (except for investors trying to make money) needed solving.
All an open-ended, decentralized game economy does is create a way for investors and crypto-speculators to manipulate game economies and screw regular people over. The money you'll be able to make in a "play to earn" game is pennies compared to the profits investors will be able to bring in, with no oversight or rules at all.
Your video title sums it up perfectly in my opinion. They are trying to solve a problem that simply doesn’t exist in this space.
Dutch Tulip crash... Same shit... People buying into empty promises, not ONE single game, I repeat, NOT EVEN ONE is out here as proof of concept...
Blockchain is basically a decentralized way to store a data. I can see the appeal of it being implemented to create a currency where no one can really controls it. But for a game, what benefit does being decentralized offers? I don't see the appeal except being niche.
Why are people so hyped up about blockchain or NFT making its way to Gaming industries
What new thing does it offer. What's the benefit of decentralizing a game
Would it save Wildstar were it exist back then?
Let say I make WoW 2.0, what's the benefit of putting my players data, and their loot, in decentralized way? It's inefficient. Not to mention, you can still make unique loot with the normal server-client authoritative way. For example, for every crafted weapons, add additional tags which shows, "Who crafted them? When? Using what materials, and extra signature from the crafter itself" there you go, a unique one of its kind crafted weapons.
Plus modern game databases already run in a distributed architecture. It's part of standard cloud config, or basic redundancy in larger systems.
blockchain secures data. game items are data. now that they're secured in a decentralized database, their scarcity and authenticity are proved. so the item can be traded freely and with confidence.
@@borischevov As long as the company is reputable, without blockchain, you can securely safe game items in a centralized database, their scarcity and authenticity can be proved. So the item can be traded and freely and with confidence. Just like TF2 or CSGO items.
@@borischevov First of freely tradeable game items are a nightmare, the P2W-scourge is bad enough as it is why would you want to supercharge that? And any trustworthy company can just provide access to an API proving ownership/scarcity. And if the company isn't trustworthy you'll be no better off with Blockchains/NFT.
@@gunting i'm curious, how is scarcity and authenticity proved? looks like paypal or some equivalent is payment processor? and the marketplaces are not officially supported? no interoperability of assets between games? any reliable way to take loans against your earned in-game assets?
Brilliant dissection
I think a lot of the issues with the Blockchain, NFTs, etc has been that ppl get excited and want to make money off of crypto, but don't really have any clear idea how to do that. So they come up with ideas like putting them in games, "unique" artwork that's extremely derivative, etc and they do this without any real understanding of the fields that they're trying to insert crypto, blockchain, and NFTs into. And that's why so many of these projects ultimately fail (assuming they were ever intended to succeed in the first place, which... I have my suspicions).
We've seen this recently with the recent push into the video game market. Lots of crypto bros got all excited while gamers were just scratching their heads wondering why anyone thought that was a good idea. I mean, video games are struggling right now anyway with the "Live Service" nonsense - to the point where the only thing interesting in video games is coming out of smaller studios and from indie spaces.
Games are for fun not making money. People will play what's fun. Graphical superiority narrative and gameplay are what sells a game. People looking to make money without doing anything need to know that skills will pay the bills not speculation.
Narrative depends on if the game has a story or not, graphics have nothing to do with quality and gameplay can be simple as long as everything else keeps you playing, otherwise turn-based combat would´ve died a long time ago
I think they want to create inter-player market of items and when you transfer NFT of an item between players, they receive transaction fee which they can set to whatever they want. So they get already working marketplace they don't have to spend resources implementing and maintaining and that also gives them money.
However the problem I see is some blockchains have exorbitant built-in transaction fees like eth right now (about $18 to just send eth right now, hundreds to swap tokens) so they have to choose some other chains which complicates things because that chain might just die at some point.
one other problem i see with block chain is; it would require games to all run on the same engine and have similar if not the same art style, else items are most likely not going to translate smoothly.
I think the biggest issue with blockchain gaming is that it's all just a front. The only reason they are attaching a "game" to it is to hopefully get a larger crowd. The cryptocurrency market can only go so far and largely only attracts certain people. They added NFT's which are trying to appeal to the collectors and now with gaming they are trying to appeal to a new market. People don't want to play games as a job unless it was your job. They use them to have fun and unwind not to play stock market simulator with a different coat of paint.
It's the Next Big Thing, just like 3D television and Google Glass.
My 65yo mom is *still* pissed, "we were promised flying cars, dammit!"
@@mandisaw 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What is the piano music in the background?
What a great way to put it. The gaming industry has gone from dedicated individuals with visions for games. To games just being seen as any other commodity for profit. Sad days.
7:00 For example if the developers use licensed products (lets say nike shoes) and the licenser requires that their nfts can be used in all other games that provide their nfts. But let´s face it that isn´t going to happen because such a thing would work without nfts too. All in all nfts are just the next lootboxes and provide no positives for the majority of users. Ok you explained it right after anyway.
Not sure if you've seen Iceland's "metaverse" commercial, but it's good for a chuckle.
Honestly, the game to game transfer thing has already been done, as well. With Nintendo's Amiibo. Which, tbf, does get some third party support and compat, but it's really spotty, never certain, and extremely minor stuff. It'd also be a less tangible version compared to getting the wee figurines.
And that's really what it boils down to. Different games are going to have different game mechanics. Expecting something like a Master Sword to work in Tetris Online is madness.
2:51 - It's funny you talking about Riot making games that exist as something successful so they take it and make it more casual. Until their creative implosion I would have argued that this was Blizzard's thing. Certainly Warcraft and WoW belong in that bucket.
7:06 - Nope you have it 100% correct. The idea of moving skins or models that you have an NFT for between games is all of legally, technically and financially irrational.
Legally because the idea that an NFT gives you any copyright ownershp in the item is just so totally unlikely to be a thing so therefore this is going to be definitionally copyright infringement. The REASON no-one in their right mind with a legal division is going to agree to this is because if you have the legal right to use it in a different game, you could potentially parlay this right into creating a competing game. If this was the only blocker then maybe i could see a conglomerate getting together to make an agreement but...
Technically it's a complete non-starter. Anyone who floats this as an idea has no fucking idea how graphics works, PARTICULARLY in 3d. If you just take a COD skin or a doom skin and just copy it into Fortnite you're going to end up with nightmare fuel with parts in all the wrong places. It is possible to come up with a standard that allows the movement of skin model and animations between games but a) it's going to look shit, b) it's going to make it difficult for games to innovate on graphics and c) game developers aren't going to adhere to it anyway (if for no other reason than the first two). It couldn't even possibly be "any game" anyway, it would only be a very small subset of games. Except that it'd never work out because...
Financially it's a waste of effort. Even the "HUGE GAIN$"(questionable) that people are people are seeing from NFTs just don't make sense compared to (for example) Fortnite making a deal with Activision to add a group of character skins to the Fortnite store. And what's more that doesn't come with hate around NFT's, is manageable technically and legally and doesn't have the hidden crypto mining cost surprises.
9:30 - The problem with your potential blockchain use case is... it doesn't get anything out of actual blockchain except maybe hype. You already need to trust a central authority (Valve) or else the NFT is valueless anyway so adding blockchain is basically meaningless. A non-distributed alternative (e.g. Hash chains) will give the same non-repudiation values with a fraction of the running cost. Ultimately this is the knock down argument for basically every blockchain in gaming argument... Take any idea you have and replace "blockchain" with authorities to run the exchanges (which you basically need anyway) and it loses nothing (except "magic blockchain investment pixie dust"), gains reliability and is several orders of magnitude more efficiency.
Still looking for the song in the outro. Please help!
I still think the horse armor was a mistake.
The original sin.
Someone needs to go back in time with a shotgun.
We are moving towards times where the more average folks will live off the basic Universal Income and the extra will be money coming out of gaming/Nft/digital gambling and possibly little side hustles (as large corps will automate most jobs, physical stores will disappear...). It will take still a while but all pieces are coming together and many of us will live pretty close to the folks in Wall-E, which is presumely the end goal, and game/nft will define our digital lives.
Box price, Shareware, Subscription, Freetoplay, Microtransaction, over 3-4 decades of reshaping monetisation we are now at the ultimate point where game companies pay users to shill to an unprecedented level, so this is making near impossible to separate the real reviews from paid advertisement, we are at the end game, you cannot go further than that, after that it's implosion.
Blockchain and cryptocurrency are two different things but in gaming, blockchain is just a shiny veneer for cryptocurrency and Axie Infinity is a great example of it. The big earners got in early while the new players are the ones holding the bag. What a time to be alive.
In VR specifically... the idea of being able to earn a cosmetic and carry it over from game to game is very possible. For instance Oculus/Facebook (now Meta) have their own Avatar 2.0 SDK that is able to be used by all developers. Supposedly its very simplistic to add for dev's and there are several games that actually use this system already and its a fairly new system only coming out this year. So if you say, got a hoody from an event held on a game of yours, it would definitely be quite cool in this case to carry that over from game to game with you showing it off. This is the only use case of NFT's I guess I could see... but I also am not very knowledgeable on NFT's at all
However... I have no clue how this would work in PC gaming where a single entity is not holding all the tools for people to work with.
That's the thing - the NFT itself is worthless without the implementation of that item in a game (in this context). Shared items/customization are handled by the platform, and those platforms give devs incentives to integrate them in the game - up to a point. People like Avatars, Friend lists, etc, so there's a business reason to support them.
But just because Elder Scrolls 7 has horse armor doesn't mean that Dragon Age 12 has to build it *just in case* some yahoo shows up with an NFT for it.
@@mandisaw Yeah but I definitely can see how this could be cool in VR. Your "Avatar" is "you" in VR. So being able to show off things you enjoy and customize yourself properly to make yourself feel like yourself make a ton of sense.
I know the direction Facebook specifically is trying to go with this because they've already showed it off. They showed a concert being held in VR and you were able to buy merch for the concert to say you were there. And your avatar could wear this throughout every game and experience (if implemented). Right now I think there are only a handful of games that use this avatar system though but I think Facebook is going to be making a HUGE push over the next year to get it more adopted and widespread.
As far as like Steam - thats not really the same as Facebook. Its a platform for selling, Facebook has their own console with its own hardware and programming language. So I could possibly see it going on to Xbox or Playstation consoles as a built in SDK being used. I think other competitors to Facebook are years and years off but we will start seeing this in the near future with VR.
@@JamesParcelluzzi Even in VR, not all games have the same artstyle, physics, mechanics, etc. It's not "take your T-shirt across games", it's really, "each participating game implements their own version of this t-shirt, with its own models, animation rig, textures, etc".
Not only would it be prohibitively expensive, if not impossible, to support All the Things, it would totally break immersion for players, which is super-noticeable in VR, specifically. Imagine dropping a Fortnite skin in Elder Scrolls Online. Yeah, people could see you went to that hot concert, but they would also think you're a tool. 😂
@@mandisaw Well I think the thing is you're comparing the games that are just "games" and not social experiences. Obviously you wouldnt want this in Half-Life Alyx or Into the Radius. I agree this would 100% break immersion. And I wouldnt want it here at all.
However... games like PokerStarsVR, ForeVR Bowl and Pro Putt which are more about going out with friends to do activities online that you could do in real life. This is where this would be king. Being able to show up to go bowling with your friends wearing a Fortnite T-Shirt wouldnt be that outlandish or crazy or immersion breaking. In fact it would increase the immersion.
Or even games like EchoVR and Population One would be awesome. Imagine being able to wear your favorite pro teams merch, there are tons of people in the world that change their icons in games like League of Legends. Imagine being able to change your whole persona to support your pro team. And support them in that manner.
There is definitely a huge market for this as well as a bunch of ways that probably havent even been thought of yet but it cant be used in EVERY game for sure. Which is why I 100% think it should be in the dev's hands, but make it easy for the dev's to impliment if they decide they want to use it.
We'll just have to stay tuned to see if the owners of these platforms abuse it too much. And we as consumers will have to fight back and do our part if they abuse their power.
Lol there was a NFT game commercial on the vid
In regards to NFT being cross-platform I think its a mistake to think of it in terms of being able to transfer a skin (for example) from one game to another. Instead the market for trading said skin shares a market and currency in which you could buy/sell/trade items from one game to another. Basically reinventing the wheel because your essentially describing valve's marketplace, just with a means to cash out without breaking EULA.
People who talk about transferring stuff between games forget that that would rely entirely on publishers not walling off their NFT ecosystem. Like yeah you could transfer between wallets universally but that doesn't mean that there's gonna be an item waiting for you on the other end to be activated
@@MenwithHill Perhaps putting a game into the 'nft ecosystem' would be a way to keep the developers, of those who opt in, honest. Everything they do in their game, add, nerf, buff, balance, whatever the case it. It all will be reflected alongside other developers directly based on the whims of the consumers. You add an over priced skin that is trash, well it will be reflected in the ecosystem by the people. There could be that sort of weight to keep them honest and as a community agree upon the price and desire of certain nft objects.
Say a skin is 10 bucks in one game, and another is 10 bucks in another game. But the community trades one of them for closer to its retail price while the other is a fraction of that. So you would be able to determine that due to the community, one object is worth far less than a seemingly comparative object.
Granted, this is just me spit balling and the above might be fairly vague in use cases. We already agree as a community the worth of somethings, but our only major action usually is to not buy into it, or hype it up for others to see.
NFTS from different games can already be traded on Gameswap. The publishers are irrelevant. If someone wants to play game X and they have a built up character from game Y, they would just need to sell their character for the equivalent value to someone doing the opposite, or to someone who is just investing in different game NFTS.
So what your saying is the only benefits NFT does is facilitate easier real money trading. While that's not the worse thing bots will probably abuse the system.
Reading about people grabbing multi-figures monthly as income in investments even in this crazy days in the market,any pointers on how to make substantial progress in earnings?would be appreciated..
You have to have an idea on what you wanna invest in carefully before going in.
@Michael, You make it seem unreal to make up to that as a passive income annually,when it’s clearly possible. I have made over 1Hunnid thousand dollars from January till now with no joke game plan. She’s a masterpiece and her name is Christiana.😁
Kindly reach her thru Tele gram page with
Christianarobert is the name
I think a Good T/A like her will pay off more than random u-tube videos,a lot of TH-camrs don’t actually care if you loose money, they just want more views and traffic!.
Guys/gals, y'all remember when gaming was just for fun and to escape and it wasn't about playing to get rich...money really does ruin everything
My problem is companies for so long have said you dont own the assets in the game. And thats for a reason. If you OWN an asset, i dont think the company legally should be able to alter that asset without permission. But they currently do and have to alter these things. Whether its due to reworks, to fit the theme, or for balance. Now imagine how youd feel of you bought ownership of an item, because it worked for you. Then the devs changed the item because it caused a bug. Now you no longer have what you paid for. And your ownership is also suspect because it has become a different item than was originally purchased
Yet another fundamental play-to-earn problem is the economy issue. With “earners” cashing out regularly to profit, new money constantly has to be coming in for both players & developers/publishers to profit. After an initial growth period of new players (assuming of course a buy-in not F2P model), where does the cash flow come from?
If the game is play to earn, players won’t be injecting more $ than required into the ecosystem in order to turn a profit. Cosmetics & other non-profitable (for the player) purchases would be largely irrelevant.
Advertisements are an option, but in-game ads are already being explored in traditional games. There’s the question of how a P2E game would be more attractive for a company when they can just cut ad deals for more popular games designed for entertainment, getting more eyeballs on better ad deals *and* being able to sell more cosmetics.
Yeah, amen for the first part; reminds me a lot of a Ponzi scheme. If the players are only selling to each other, any dollars that come out of the system have to come from other people paying in to buy stuff.
Where is your boy Caspian ?
Can't wait to see him on your video again 😂
An example of why some companies may let you have assets from another game from another develop is because they both own that coin so what is good for that coin is all of them. I don't really think that is going to happen soon -- its more in different games from say Facebook you may have the same skin for example. Although you asked a question and here is an answer. :)
While I agree that the use cases of using NFTs for cards or skins would work and allow you to put them up on some kind of market place my issue with the idea is what does doing that add? All of your examples have non-blockchain implementations that already exist. Hell, gear selling was a thing all the way back in 2012 with the diablo 3 auction house (which was removed because they realized that being able to buy gear directly degrades the games core gameplay loop). You pointed out the steam marketplace and the question is is how do NFT's make that better? The only upside I can see is that it is harder for people to dupe items to sell but even that isn't a huge upside as how big of an issue is duped sales on the marketplace?
Like to me the idea of implementing NFTs the way you say is analogous to Amazon saying that your packages will now be delivered via Ferrari, sure that sounds awesome to those that are into cars and may be cool as a concept to those on the fence but at the end of the day nothing actually changed as changing the delivery method ultimately does nothing to add to value of the product that you actually bought.
Ahh, so you did research the cons of Axxie infinity after all, you even addressed every single point I raised in my previous comment on an older video. Good to see you went deeper on it, my apologies!
:)
NFTs will never be useful in gaming because without an accepted standard of 'gameplay' that is shared among all games, the fact that you own an NFT between games is utterly irrelevant. Short of every developer and company implementing what your NFT in every game that releases your NFT is bound to the game it was released in and when that game is shut down your NFT may still exist but is as useless/useful as the receipt that says you bought a microtransaction for some MMO 5 years ago.
The only way NFTs will be useful in games is when they are literally the Matrix or when publishers merge into a megacorp that controls all game development. In both cases, they won't implement NTFs anyway because you will own nothing and be happy with it.
Who wants to take bets on which will happen first?
The very fact that so many players - large and small - are rushing into this space guarantees that no single entity will control it all.
I mean it's not like every single online game out there has some sort of RMT involved on it is some way right? if the future is Games as a Service, the blockchain could prove really important for these companies to better control the RMT aspect of their games.
thanks for the great vids man, it’s beautiful because youtube is now advertising NFT crypto games on your channel. ahhh the ironies of how stupid algorithms can be…
Good video.
What games should do is give the player total ownership (and trade rights) for their accounts, wich in itself is like an NFT but with an actual use. Players should bank those and it's value is related to playing the actual game, time played and popularity of the game. At worst is no different than a regular NFTs but without really losing anything.
The idea that crypto games are bad because they're new and just need time to catch up to traditional gaming doesn't make sense.
All the tools and techniques are already there. These games don't use them not because the ability to use the blockchain is so futuristic and revolutionary, but because they know they can make money without needing to care about that stuff. The only time you're going to see a AAA style "crypto game" is when a AAA publisher decides they need to slap blockchain on their already made game just to get in on the hype.
Weird that this is two years ago and the situation is still exactly the same
The most ridiculous thing is people thinking blockchain will be good for the consumer. I am far from being optimistic.
The major hole at 8:20 that I see is that big game companies shouldn't want blockchain (the technology).
I don't think Electronic Arts wants to handle the case where someone grinds or buys up a whole bunch of FIFA Mobile tokens and then transfers the tokens into a country with economic sanctions. Kakao Games or Amazon Game Studios (AGS) wouldn't want a banned player to still be able to trade their NFT tokens ... well maybe AGS would because cheaters are currently allowed to keep their infinite gold after a 24 hour ban.
If the big game companies cripple the aforementioned capabilities of anybody who owns the tokens trading them, then the "blockchain" would just be marketing speak. To users, it would be no different from the current system of having your in-game stuff stored on the publisher's servers and giving money directly to the publisher to get more in-game stuff.
I agree with you here.
Once the company normalizes it, it is over.
In the past, games had customization, but no microtransactions.
Look at it now, people actually expect cosmetics you can buy and flat out complain if they are lacking.
For me though, I'm not a slave to this. I can always stop playing or player older titles. You can't build your life around one thing in this ever shifting world nowadays.
so a block chain is basically what diablo 3s real money market was?
Essentially RMT but with more safety and the developers getting a cut, at least in the example you're giving but there's multiple other theorized applications
a major problem with using blockchain for an item market is the finality of item movement and the inherent security problems with crypto as a whole. If someone scams you for a team fortress 2 hat, you can message support and they'll handle it. If someone scams you for your NFT and you message support, there's nothing that can be done unless they decide it's a large enough matter to fork the whole blockchain.
Scams on steam happen all the time and it's not uncommon for the problem to be resolved in a positive way.
Scams on blockchain happen all the time and the best case scenario is having to pay a ransom to get an nft back.
Addition of NFT feels like a new door to exploit people who have more money than they need alongside attracting people who are in just to flip stuff.
A next step to microtransactions and lootboxes that makes games less of a product of entertainment and more of an elaborate market stock.
the problem with selling skins for instance is that there is no reason they shouldn't be available in the first place. They are digital and can be reproduced infinitely. Same thing with card games. Magic the gathering is especially a scam and you have to keep buying booster packs if you have any interest in being competitive. Better off just playing poker. If they made a PC game on it, then they can just have all the available cards for people to strategize with instead. It's garbage through and through. I will say you gave a fully fair analysis overall.
So how many undetected bots are on Axie Infinity? Very curious
I don't understand the argument of crypto uses is in axi infinity, as its easily for any game to compensate players through direct payment in thier real currency, I don't see why crypto or Blockchain is the only way for a play to earn which is a stupid idea for a game as games are purly intended for fun either for free or fir use to pay them
And if an idea for them to pay us, we have PayPal , direct transfer and wire transfers as we dealt with stocks for years,
Maybe as tax evasion? Nobody is taxing cryptocurrency right now.
@@JerziTBoss I think the hype of Bitcoin and hos people missed it out, and how every project with a crypto or Blockchain attached to it will make millions because it has crypto and Blockchain
my main question is, does de-centralize resources really benefit or hinder? because you look at places like walmart and it being like a one stop shop as well as amazon having like everything right there. I am not into this having a unique thing that no one else has and no matter what is said its still similar to other things. like does it matter if you have a orange sticker and the way its unique is that a dot on it is moved off to the left a bit. also the whole decentralized money thing of putting money here and there because its secure etc, well people have been doing this thing for a long time not with just banks but some people would stash cash in holes all over as well even miners back in the day would put claim findings all over for safe keeping but its also a much bigger pain in the butt to try to get all that stuff back or go out and collect it all. The whole technology of it all just seems like a fad not something new, takes up more resources to make and maintain, many more steps to make transactions. Now if something comes that cuts a lot of that out that would be way better but as of now, this is super clunky stuff.
its not even really decentralized, its just unregulated because there are no countries backing it up.
@@Nirual86 The code is the regulation.
I just realized this vid is from last Nov. Yeah, all the AAA publishers have basically dropped their NFT plans. Ubisoft is the only one still holding on and trying to make it happen. Well, okay, some of the more money-hungry publishers went ahead with it anyway and they promptly faced major backlash and no one bought their stupid NFTs. The same thing is still happening with Ubisoft. The only ppl who want NFTs, blockchain, etc in video games are the ppl who stand to make money off it AKA _not_ the ppl playing video games. And that's why the only crypto video games are the browser games that don't even pretend to be about enjoying the game - their entire thing is "make money by playing our game."
LOL in the middle of this vid, ad for Blakos comes up.
Been telling people about this since the whole NFT fad started. The point of the article is that you can already have a marketplace for people selling their digital assets, whether it be things in the game, or the game itself without having to use a decentralized that is by nature cumbersome system. These game studios are not going to be sharing nfts between other studios so there is not need for a decentralized marketplace to sell them when the company can just directly handle exchanges in their own marketplace without the cumbersome processes of minting tokens corroborating them by laborious peer to peer authentication across 100s of machines. These are just things that do not benefit from being on the blockchain beyond drawing speculators riding the fad to the bank, and does nothing for the consumer. It is something that should be simply centrally handled for the betterment of efficiency, security, and cost.
15 year ears ago people were already selling in game assets for WoW and Diablo 2 and dozens of other games without blockchain; if that's what's wanted all that's needed is for these companies to setup these market places and let people have at it.
Diablo 3 had a real money auction house as well as a gold one and while it was not good for what consumers wanted from that game, the concept was executable, and other games have done similar so Blockchain is just another more convoluted and cumbersome tech-bro solution to an already solvable/solved problem that only serves to try and force use cases for crypto to inflate the value. It's more tech industry smoke and mirrors promising us overdeveloped, overly expensive non-solutions, often to non-problems, like Lomi and tons of other Kickstarter tech scams, or the hyperloop and Theranos that give impossible promises obscured by technobabble to draw speculative investors to their doom.
This will never be about "CREATING INVESTMENT for PLAYERS" it will always be about nickel and diming customers. Gaming corporations have shown time and again they have no shame making people pay more for less and claiming reducing the value of the base game for microtransactions is necessary. Its like people think crypto changes peoples nature to be greedy SMH
With players owning the same token that pays the developers and community DAOs allowing the players to vote on changes, it's potentially a very mutually beneficial proposition imo.
@@carlwide6594 You are being bizarrely optimistic, frankly, to think that the games that can implement something like this, and by that I mean have enough resources that the attempt won't crash and burn immediately, would give a shit about the community beyond 'how make money fast'.
@@Darca1n It's basic business. Companies try to make the most money, which makes their shareholders the most money, also. In crypto, we basically pay each others wages and profit together. I pay so that their company exists, then when they succeed, the money I paid is worth multiple times more (in my experience between 50 and 1000 times more).
I can't imagine a play-to-earn system that benefits the player in any major way. The concept is 'rewarding' in the way that the gig economy is 'rewarding'. Conceptually, you put in time when it's convenient for you and you gain a bit of extra money. In reality, you find that the amount of work you have to put in costs you more than the small amount of money you're supposed to be getting in return. A game developer doesn't employ players, and players are not investors. No developer has an obligation to compensate them for time spent or money put in, so I think it's overly optimistic to expect these systems to be anything but predatory. On a capitalist level it just doesn't work out in anyone's favor but the company's.
Transferring items from games to games is a cool idea in term of gameplay. But not so profitable for a game license or a platform.
So I don't really see that happening except for a gimmick of the game (Mass Effect).
I really liked the idea at first but having hard time to see it in practice.
The only reason is hard to be seen in practice... It's the greed.
Quick example any fast food chain restaurant.
Why would they let you inside their restaurant with food you bought elsewhere (even another of the same chain)?
They want you to pay for what they have to offer so they can make money.
Same will happen with these kinds of games, they want to make money and they want YOU to buy the next new shiny thing.
NFTs & Play to earn blockchain games = Money Printer
The only time I've liked the concept was NFTs in a card game. My friend talked about LoL as the game which has a card game. He said "it would be nice to get a card that has a skin. Then I have that skin in the main game"
NFTs don't even seem to have the theoretical value as a digital currency, something most cryptocurrencies haven't been able to pull off either. They are a novelty, or at most they could function like Nintendo's Amiibo, where they have a specific purpose in one or two games and just provide some minor bonuses everywhere else.
The funniest thing is how many NFT games I am seeing advertised during your videos now.
The only way that companies would be willing to allow users to port one NFT item from one game to another and play nice with each other is if there were some sort of fee to port it into their game.
The ride never ends.
The idea that blockchain tech can enable a game where people "play to earn" is bullshit.
The only value that these digital assets will ever have is the value of the money other people put in. Now, why would anyone want to put money into digital assets in the first place? Do the digital assets accomplish something? Do they change the real world or the lives of those in the real world in any way? Do these digital assets do ANYTHING besides sitting in a database somewhere with a token saying someone owns them? The ONLY value these things have is that of the money spent acquiring them (in the hopes of making money by selling them later).
Like the article said: the only way "pay to earn" kinda works is if people keep buying into the project. It's just adding a decentralized middleman into a transaction that'd be cheaper if done in the real world for real work.
Blockchain tech seems like a neat idea, but it only seems to be used for giant pyramid schemes in the form of cryptocurrency and scams in the form of "games". Could anyone enlighten me on any useful use cases for blockchain tech, that can't already be done via other technology?
Decentralized finance
it exist just to change where the middle man cash is going... like, that famous 30% that everything in the industry goes to the store owner. NFT make sure that this money goes to the game owner. (not far off a pyramid scheme at all.)
It's already happening.
Lol I got an ad for an NFT game before this video. Blankos? Something like that.
Only good application I can see for blockchain in gaming is for skins in popular games that has game pass system implemented. For example the dev release a specific skin in a limited edition version for example only 2000 copies for a large player base game like Dota 2. For the fact of being limited editions they for sure over time will rise in price because whales will want them to flex. If the sales of this skins are based on blockchain it make them easier to trade with other players for real money that can be used also outside of the gaming industry. This is the main problem I have with steam for example. In fact, in steam if you sell a skin you have to spend what you get from the sale inside the steam shop and you cannot use those money in something else. The problem is that games that sale on steam cannot implement that type of technology because it will violate the TOS of steam that force you to conduct this actities exclusively through the steam system. I can see this only for games that are in Epic Game Store.
This also can be used as an alternative to kickstarter where you offer a specific limited skins to people that pledge to help you start your project while is still in alpha or beta.
I can think of an idea for a block chain gaming, but only in an augmented reality since for some thing like a osr DND game Where the games in game currency that you can choose to increase the value of Could be pulled out at the end, or like a casino with one time coins being minted as forms of tokens but that’s it doesn’t work on a widespread scale At the end of the day you were attaching a piece of repeatable code to some thing that is supposed to be individually hold some kind of value When you break a video game economy by duplicating is going to do the same thing to bitcoin, but with nothing to duplicate the physical value of the money behind it. It’s built for a crash.
MTG: Online (the older client, before MTG: Arena) did exactly what you said - you own all the cards and can sell them when you are done with the game, that's exactly what I did. A lot of the cards devalue over time as they rotate out of Standard, but some just skyrocket in value. Overall I didn't lose all that much.
how did you sell it plz? Vs dollars?
@@F4TG4M1NG yeah. I sold it to MTGO traders. You send them an export of your collection and they offer price in dollars and then pay you when they grt the cards .
@@klaxxon__ thx! How do you sent the cards then?
@@F4TG4M1NG through a series of in-game trades
It’s so dystopian that so many people are becoming shills for this or that coin, this or that shite crypto game. People are becoming walking commercials, all of their own accord
If it really does take off amongst the bigger developers then they won't need to agree to trade NFTs between their products, undoubtedly a third-party market will appear which would semi-automate it for end users. (Think of the CS:GO third-party markets for example, it would likely be a similar model).
or you know, they could agree to be part of the same virtual currency model like how they effectively do consoles and other platforms to begin with.
even if magically the programing of an item was compatible between games what makes anyone think that pulling random items from other games wouldn't unbalance the play of a game. Either it is a weak item not worth your time or its overpowered item that would mess up the game balance.
what do you think about a project like MetaHero?