Hacker News Reader

Comment by gruez | Hacker News Reader

>Step 1 might be for "web3" proponents to stop publishing visions of the future that sound like grim dystopias. When you have game company executives mocking the idea of "play to have fun" and NFT owners pushing for browser extensions that would make copy/paste illegal without permission from the blockchain

Is this an accurate depiction of "web3 proponents" in general or just a case of nutpicking[1]? I've heard of something vaguely similar to the first claim, but I can't remember whether it actually involved NFTs or was standard games-as-a-service rhetoric. For the second claim I heard something adjacent (eg. copy pasters), but I can't tell whether they're representative of the community or extremism/satire, and haven't heard of the specific proposal of browser DRM.

[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking

View on HN

It's actually very accurate.

web1 - it's open! web2 - it's open (but really controlled by social media billionaires) web3 - you own digital property but good news, you can be a landlord and get money by leasing out that digital property, or you can be a speculator, or you can be a serf and work in an nft farm. Ignore the wash trading, paid celebrity endorsements, and the rugpulls.

Square-Enix’ President, earlier this year. Last three paragraphs before the sign-off.

https://www.hd.square-enix.com/eng/news/2022/html/a_new_year...

"I realize that some people who “play to have fun” and who currently form the majority of players have voiced their reservations toward these new trends, and understandably so. However, I believe that there will be a certain number of people whose motivation is to “play to contribute,” by which I mean to help make the game more exciting... with advances in token economies, users will be provided with explicit incentives... this will lead to more people devoting themselves to such efforts and to greater possibilities of games growing in exciting ways. From having fun to earning to contributing"

You weren't kidding. They really want people as grunt workers in the virtual world. I guess that's why they are trying to remove any association with the words 'games' and 'fun'.

I read the three paragraphs and don't see anything that can be construed as 'mocking the idea of "play to have fun"'. The first sentence of the second paragraph literally says

>I realize that some people who “play to have fun” and who currently form the majority of players have voiced their reservations toward these new trends, and understandably so.

Which seems like the opposite of "mock" to me.

Good point. "Dismiss" would be a better word.

He's saying that the people who play for fun aren't important. The people who play in the hopes of getting money are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com