Hacker News Reader

Comment by web4 | Hacker News Reader

look at it this way: anybody can google images of the rarest MtG cards and print it out on paper, and bring that to play with. but the other player will probably frown on that. because both players have bought into the idea that the "cards" not the JPG image that makes them is what has value in the gameplay.

the same is possible in blockchain setting. ownership of that unique token can hold value for gameplay and collectibility, despite JPG being CC0 and free to download and print out.

View on HN

> look at it this way: anybody can google images of the rarest MtG cards and print it out on paper, and bring that to play with. but the other player will probably frown on that. because both players have bought into the idea that the "cards" not the JPG image that makes them is what has value in the gameplay.

This is not true. Concerning "value in the gameplay", as you put it, the value is in the JPG. The "card" might have a value as a collectable but that value has no bearing on "value in the gameplay".

if the value is in the JPG or "image" then anybody can print it at home and play with it in competition. but it is not the norm. likewise, nobody has a collection of self-printed MtG JPGs in their attic, but they do have collections of "cards" which hold sentimental value to them.

For information, you can play proxies in some competitive MTG games if you prove you have the card. And in less known games like vampire CCG, proxies are allowed in tournaments without proving anything (and imho it makes that game even more competitive, and allow players to modify their deck at will depending on the clans/player at the table.

> prove you have the card

this is where blockchain is well suited. user can sign a message with their private key and cryptographically prove ownership where all other parties can also verify it cryptographically

> proxies are allowed in tournaments without proving anything

cool! but not what most refer to when talking about trading card games. if you have access to all cards in the game at any point there is no need to trade or do anything in particular to acquire and own a specific card except to say “I choose that.” if a game works like that it wouldn’t make sense to build blockchain based ownership around it.

> anybody can google images of the rarest MtG cards and print it out on paper, and bring that to play with. but the other player will probably frown on that.

Wizards of the Coast frowns on this, and bans it in sanctioned tournaments because obviously they want to sell you cards. Actual players do it literally all the time and it's not even very controversial.

Honestly a game where you get advantages from "rare" cards that people pay huge sums for doesn't really appeal to me in the first place.

It's not really any sort of level playing field at that point. Each to their own I guess.

agree, but that is not the game I am describing. many free to play iOS and Apple games use an in-app purchase model and users are fine to pay $1-2 to add new skin or expand their play. in those cases the assets are locked to your apple account, and also include a 30% take fee.

acquiring an nft does not even need to include payment at all. assets can be distributed to users for non monetary reasons, such as some achievement or action taken in the game, or defeating some other player in a pvp battle based on a mix of skills and random chance and as a result winning their hand or rare loot or whatever. it is up to the game to decide these things.

> acquiring an nft does not even need to include payment at all. assets can be distributed to users for non monetary reasons, such as some achievement or action taken in the game, or defeating some other player in a pvp battle based on a mix of skills and random chance and as a result winning their hand or rare loot or whatever. it is up to the game to decide these things.

You've literally described how games work now. No NFTs required

yes, games and game stores hold records of ownership under your account. some of that may be purchased, some of it may be acquired through another means like an in-game achievement.

nfts are literally just records of ownership of a digital asset that are upheld without a central entity.

“it’s a lot like owning assets in a game” is exactly correct with the distinction that it’s decentralized

> nfts are literally just records of ownership of a digital asset that are upheld without a central entity.

Again. Above you literally described how games already work, with no need for NFTs. Why the hell would games need NFTs?

the only need for NFT in a game is decentralization and disintermediation of payment and ownership. if you wish to distribute game assets and give players a form of transferable and scarce digital ownership that is not locked into a walled corporate garden, CC0-licensed NFT represents one approach.

You don't need NFTs for CC0-licensed assets.

You don't need "decentralized ownership" for something that is literally only applicable in a single game.

On top of that, the myth that people clamor for digital scarcity is also the invention of crypto bros.

OK, but then again, I'm not seeing the utility of an NFT on a public blockchain, apart from the mythincal "I get to use it in other games" thing, which is only going to work in games with "free" art assets - vanishingly few.

as I said in my original post: this is a niche application. some share of users will be happy to own and trade CC0 licensed assets that are not centrally owned by a single game company, and not sitting in their steam or apple account.

similarly, some share of devs and gamers like to publish and purchase work on Itch.io, even though it’s the minority compared to Steam or Apple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com