Hacker News Reader

Comment by detaro | Hacker News Reader

They could always block stuff they don't want from actually doing anything in the games and not host it, which would resolve that problem. (similar to how with IPFS public gateways often have blocklists of content they won't deliver, even if it is available in the IPFS network)

View on HN

Now you have two ledgers, one of which isn’t distributed

Integration of user-generated content in ubisoft games will always have a centralized component, sure. They wouldn't dare having that unrestricted.

Yeah I guess my main point is all of this is fine and dandy and definitely works. But from a technical standpoint it’s just kinda stupid

So now you are maintaining an expensive and complex distributed database that duplicates the work that's already being done by a cheap and manageable internal database. For what benefit?

So you can say you have an NFT to offer. (I wish I was kidding here.)

And so they don't actually have to administer the marketplace. From their perspective it's just create a new skin and some NFTs for it, and release them into the wild.

Administering the marketplace is that part that actually makes money, though, because the house always gets a cut of the transactions (in service fees and transaction fees). That's been a lot of Valve's success in all the easy profit from the Steam Marketplace. If this is to increase shareholder value in Ubi long term, NFTs are ass backwards because they aren't long term revenue generating, but a marketplace they owned actually would be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com