This is missing the forest for the trees. Of course it wouldn't be a carte blanche, but it would be trivial to let people transfer in cosmetic items (think stickers, color schemes, etc.) based on another ecosystem/game/achievement/etc.
Cosmetic digital items (e.g. non-gameplay-impacting) are like a hundred-million-dollar+ industry.
If this "transfer between games" thing is such a killer feature why isn't it happening now? Shouldn't we be seeing stuff like this in Steam games where Steam could easily expose your progress between other Steam games.
Amusingly, Valve has already experimented with this (and, as far as I can tell, given up on it). There were a handful of in-game items in Team Fortress 2 which were given to players as a reward for purchasing certain games, or for completing specific achievements in those games.
This is one reason you wouldn’t be a crypto billionaire no matter how prices went up; you’d probably sell first.
Some email providers (Hey in the US) don’t accept emails from other senders without prior authorization from the user. IIRC Chinese providers won’t accept any of yours unless you have a contract with them.
No, it wasn't. Email was popular and established before spam became a big concern.
Though spam, and the necessary control mechanisms, is one reason email had become less central.
We encounter new problems, then we build solutions, that's how progress works.
So please stop moving the goalposts.
Do you even play games? It's literally happening between Blizzard games lol. Hearthstone and WoW had all kinds of cross-game cosmetics (mounts, card backs, etc.). Let alone all the goodies you get from Blizzcon in-game (which have a sizable secondary grey market on eBay).
A hearthstone card skin has no use in WoW.
You could do that since the GameBoy Color and without having to trash the economy, become a fugitive and give Matt Levine writing material for years.
It would not. Every one of those items would need to be intentionally added by the game devs. Every piece would need to be created, modeled, textured, and animated.
I suppose it would be trivial if you created a pile of uninteresting and uninspiring games with the exact same engine, assets, and art style, like so many NFT's of depressed-looking monkeys
There are plenty of games that support user-created assets. There's like zillions of skins in CS:GO that don't need to be "manually created, textured, and animated" by Valve (by design). Your argument just betrays a complete non-understanding of modern game engines and how cosmetic items work/are created.
And that's just the technical side, design and art would be horrified if you have no control on what can be added to a game.
You can't put those CS:GO skins into Skyrim. It would probably be easier, like I said, to move it to another source engine game with the same art style and the exact same models, but that's it.
Exactly. If I were a game studio given a choice between letting my users bring in objects from anywhere or forcing them to buy my objects, I would pick the latter.
Please don't poison the well by calling it a scam.
edit: -4... Time for some of you to read the HN guidelines I guess.
It could be cheaper than buying a similar item on the new game. I don't see how that is a scam, I just use the definition that's in the dictionary. Who is being deceived and defrauded here?
Why do you assume the item you transfer needs to have an ability? I don't make that assumption, lets keep it simple and assume it's just a cosmetic display item without any abilities and that it's possible to display this item in the other game.
edit: You could for example display the rank you have in one game in another game, assuming the possibility to do this exists of course.
Since it costs thousands of dollars to store any significant amount of data on the major blockchains, any game item will just be some reference stored on the blockchain.
Unless every game developer builds an appropriate model for every possible item there's no "simple" importing of an asset. Even if a full asset was shared between games no two games are guaranteed to display even a texture the same way.
Even your example of "rank" is meaningless. Rank in one game doesn't have anything to do with rank in another game. The number of goblins you killed in a fantasy RPG has no meaning to a racing game.
As for these being scams, there's no reason any of these things require a blockchain. Games have at various points supported custom player models, skins, spray decals, and all sorts of other shit. None of it needed the added rent extraction of a blockchain.
The only reason to add a blockchain is to get players to prop up whatever shitcoin blockchain is being used. They get vague promises of asset reusability but actually just get normal scammy in-app purchases.
I'm not debating whether it's a good idea or not and I'm not interested in that debate either.
You're doing the same thing as you did before, you twist my words into something that is easier to attack. This is the third time now, please stop. Rank in other games is something people ask about or mention when playing somewhat similar genres so I can definitely see that being interesting to some people.
None of the things you mentioned has anything to do with scams? Rent extraction != scam. in-app purchases != scam. Blockchain != scam.
To give some examples: (1) they are not legally binding; (2) even when a legal contract exists between the NFT issuer and the first owner, the terms don't carry over in NFT trades, unless additional contract terms are signed outside the blockchain; (3) as such, they don't solve any problem they purport to solve, as buying the NFT itself on chain is irrelevant, only the off-chain contract matters; (4) they don't even contain the item they are about, or at least since hash of it, in the vast majority of cases; (5) they don't even solve the real problem of fungibility, as while the token itself may not be fungible, the item that it represents remains trivially copyable. I am sure there are more.
- Our game is inspired by <Genre defining game> we will pay homage to this game by including <Genre defining game NFT> in our game.
- Our game supports modding and enough people care about <NFT> that someone is willing to implement that NFT in the game via mods.
There's an order of operations here. These examples rely on the NFT already being meaningful in some community before it gets added in. Anything that a random person creates that nobody cares about would never be ported in.
I would guess that if "Web3" becomes the thing crypto people aim for, GCP, Azure, and/or AWS will implement "public ledgers" that have a very similar interface and may or may not rely on blockchain underneath. Any decentralized blockchain would be forced to compete with those centralized offerings.
The benefit is someone else can make a marketplace, analytics or other tools that work for many items across many games without you having to spend time implementing them yourself or creating and maintaining an API for this data.
Also it's bad for players, as the visual identity of the game would be destroyed by items coming from other games. Yikes.
Meanwhile, in the real world, whenever some company wants to implement NFTs they get massive backlash from their player base.
Almost all of those things are in some way user hostile, too (E.g. preorders, micro-transactions).
This is not something you want to admit to if it’s true, because you haven’t got the rights to old game you’re copying.
> - Our game supports modding and enough people care about <NFT> that someone is willing to implement that NFT in the game via mods.
Why don’t the mods just put the thing in? Mods don’t need to respect anyone’s NFT ownership.
> Why don’t the mods just put the thing in? Mods don’t need to respect anyone’s NFT ownership.
For the same reasons that people buy games instead of pirating them most likely. "Right click and save" is a fundamental part of the internet yet digital things are still are bought and sold. (edit including DRM type mechanisms if this pattern became a thing that actually mattered money wise).