1245
Meh, I'd count that as a win.🤸
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
1245 points (96.5% liked)
Fuck NFTs!
244 readers
1 users here now
Fuck NFTs!
NFTs. Fuck 'em expensive images.
Rules:
-
Follow Fediverse Code of Conduct
-
When posting links of news articles, put the article title in Title section then diss/shit about them on the Body section
-
Do not post misinformation/disinformation
-
If you think an NFT is still cool, please screenshot them before sharing them here.
-
Obviously, don't promote/self promote of any kind, esp. NFTs
Icon from Untitled Collection #202729794 by NFTJ2
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
At first glance NFTs in games seem to make sense. For example take a digital trading card game, might be pretty cool to hold ownership of your cards outside the game and be free to exchange them with other players with no restrictions, right?
But then you have to think a step further: The card is useless without the game. If the game shuts down? Nobody can use the card. If the game decides in two years that the card you own is too powerful and they forbid it from tournament play? Well, wasted money.
So overall you might be able to prove ownership of a "card", but without the context of the game it's meaningless data. And the game has to decide itself what your card means and what it can do. So we're back to simply using a normal database inside the game to hold your cards giving the same benefits (without the headache of NFTs).
The argument that you could use the card or the item in another game is bullshit on top. The other game would have to implement every item, which they simply won't do. So NFTs in the gaming niche are overall bullshit.
A game developer could easily link a trading card to an account. There's no need whatsoever to use an NFT for that.
And if you want to use them in 3rd party games too? The game developer could sign a list of cards you own which you can import. No need for a blockchain.
Why would developers allow that? They're capitalists and want to lock you inside their platforms
If you're a scammer it sounds amazing. Otherwise, something like the steam market is way better.
You wouldnt have to implement every item, youd just have to make a default option for things that do not have an implementation for a game.
A similar example of how it would work irl is how Amiibos work. In Smash, a link amiibo would use a link AI, in zelda, it can spawn rare materials or spawn Epona in BOTW/TOTK. Scan a link amiibo in like Animal Crossing itll tell you not supported. In fire emblem games, generic ammibos with no special effects drop random material
How amiibos work for specifcally smash. As its the only one that writes data to the NFC chip, is sort of like NFTs for gaming, but a physical product. No one else has your specific AI (unless you dumped it)
All your examples still go back to each and every game having to implement that item. There is no "default option".
And if every game has to implement each item.. they can just leave items out. Or block them. Or say they are invalid. Or change them (buffs/nerfs). So you might think you are holding a unique item that only belongs to you, but in reality it's worth nothing as it can be removed with one click from any game you might want to use it in.
Which makes an NFT not an ounce better than having that item in the game's database.
It wouldnt, because in the case of amiibos, each is just an ID stored in the NFC chip, the only implementation they would need to do is during something like a switch case check in programming, if none of the implemented cases are detected, then it would default to the default option, it doesnt need to be specific to the said amiibo, it just needs to not be in thr ID list that is not already inplemented. The non implemented path is the "default" option. What other term would you even refer to for the specific case where it is NOT the case.
Your whole situation is more or less is how konami implemented yugioh cards in its early games.
The "default option" you bring up is useless. What value does it have if I "own" a playing card ID, but the card isn't implemented in 9 out of 10 games? And the tenth game shuts down after a year, so now my card can't be used anywhere. It's idiotic.
As it's just an ID I probably don't even have any card image or stats or whatever, it's a worthless value in a database (blockchain in this case).
It isnt useless as in some cases, amiibos would provide material, albeit its less valuable than the ones implemented, it does serve a function. In the context of yugioh, they were only implemented for the first few gameboy/gba games till the code feature dropped off entirely.
I'm still talking about NFTs here, not Amiibos.. and in the case of an NFT you don't even get a physical object to look at.
It baffles me that people still try to defend the point of NFTs in multiple games. What is the motivation do you think there is for Amiibos to work across those games? Those are all first party Nintendo games, so they still are making money off of it.
Where the hell is the motivation to get your legendary dong slayer sword to work in call of duty? Why would they want to support that? They don't, and it makes no sense why they ever would.
Again, it's different with Amiibos because they're all developed by Nintendo companies, and Nintendo can force them to do that. You're also getting actual merchandise and something you can hold on to instead of a digital receipt.
You make it sound like I was pro NFT (im not), im just saying NFT-like usage already exists without the use of NFTs or not.
Ya and Amiibos are shit. It's more expensive ways for pay to win.
But at least you get a physical thing when you buy an Amiibo. My daughter used to buy them just because she liked the figures, she didn't even care about the game part. With the NFTs, you get... a picture anyone else can duplicate on their own computer