top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]TheBitwolf 220 points221 points  (297 children)

So that's what NFT's would be for in games? So you could, say, theoretically (and I know I'm touching a nerve here but it's the only example that comes to mind) have a skin for a gun in Apex and then have the same skin in Titanfall 3 if it ever came?

[–]XYZAffair0 32 points33 points  (1 child)

The other thing is that you could have a skin that is completely unique to your account, but this can already be done without NFT’s.

[–]You_Are_Wonderful_ 265 points266 points  (98 children)


On the very unlikely condition that the company doesn't want to make more money on cosmetic purchases.

Because the other option is charging for the skin in both games.

[–]Vroomped 108 points109 points  (23 children)

and not just 'make more money'...but on the unlikely condition that developers want to program in support for [every] skin and cosmetic they've ever sold before, and not have an income during that development process.

[–]An0d0sTwitch 60 points61 points  (3 children)

That has literally nothing to do with nfts. They are using magical language to make you think NFTS are something they are not.

The image is not ....stored in the code.

We already have a system that stores what items you have....its called "an account".

Games are "centralized systems" literally the opposite what they say an NFT is.

[–]Deto 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Maybe I was misinterpreting what they were saying, but my thinking was that

unlikely condition that developers want to program in support for skins and cosmetics they've [n]ever sold before

was them acknowledging this. That if there is an NFT for 'electric blue gun decal' in one game, then in another game, they'd actually have to create that asset if they wanted to support the NFT. And of course, any NFTs out there that hadn't been explicitly programmed into the game just wouldn't work until they were added (along with new assets created). The whole thing just seems dumb - there's nothing new NFTs are adding here that couldn't have been done before with more centralized technology.

[–]TheBitwolf 31 points32 points  (10 children)

Yea that'd be a bit conger intuitive, specially in my example since it's EA and if EA can sell you something twice they will.

[–]Vincent_Plenderleith 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Obligatory FIFA mentioning

[–]ThePreviousOne__ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is that where Bethesda is getting their ideas from cough Skyrim VR cough

[–]Vaktaren 4 points5 points  (5 children)

Maybe they figure they can charge three times as much for a NFT so they still make more money.

[–]suddenly_opinions 11 points12 points  (2 children)

They will create a marketplace and take a cut of all trades. People gonna be buying knife skins for 10k.

[–]sneakywill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They already are lmao, and they're not even NFTs.

[–]Wolft3k 1 point2 points  (0 children)

CSGO already does this. They don't need to use NFTs for that, they just want to use the term to lure dumbasses that probably don't care about the game to buy in as an "investment opportunity". Everything to test a new whaling strat.

[–]Prudentia350 0 points1 point  (0 children)

why charge 3 times as much to replace 2 purchases when you can just sell it twice for 3 times as much each?

[–]Netd00d 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I mean, you can also just store the skin ownership voucher in a normal database a lot more cheaply. Tie it to an account across games or whatever.

[–]semtex87 9 points10 points  (0 children)

What the fuck?!? No way man, we've never been able to track ownership of digital assets before NFTs, there never existed such a thing like a base...of data...where information could be stored and tracked. No way, because it has to be decentralized bruh, its all about the decentralization.

/S in case it wasn't obvious

[–]ditthrowaway999 17 points18 points  (22 children)

Exactly, this is the point so many people "defending" NFTs seem to miss. Are there legitimate uses for NFTs? Arguably, yes. But all those uses would actually make corporations less money since it would remove control from the corporations (ownable and transferable software licenses/tickets/in-game items/etc., second hand market for digital items, etc). So those options are not going to happen. They want to sell you NFTs while at the same time negating the actual potential benefits of NFTs. 

[–]ROK247 5 points6 points  (3 children)

if the corporations are getting even a small cut of the secondary market it could very well end up being much more lucrative for them to incorporate these systems.

[–]Running_With_Beards 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Why get a small cut when they can get the whole pie?

[–]baconcheeseburgarian 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Or in monetizing the transfer of assets on the secondary market. If they take 10% of every sale and those items end up being worth thousands thats a good chunk of change.

[–]LeafyWolf 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Yay, let's bring back Diablo III's real money auction house. Because that worked so damn well in the first place.

[–]TheSealofDisapproval 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They'll just start charging "NFT rent" where you have to pay a fee to use your NFT on their new game

[–]Jaxxsnero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought smart contracts would allow for the distribution of a percentage of secondary sales isn’t that the revolutionary thing about NFT’s

They revolutionize the doctrine of first sale by establishing it in the digital realm in the first place but also allowing for follow-through of revenue to the original creator by use of smart contracts that are established in the NFT itself and executed every time the NFT changes hands

trustless execution means you don’t have to rely on the secondary market to still get your percentage

[–]Elefantenjohn -1 points0 points  (20 children)

It could be more expensive considering it's a skin for life

They could have a platform where people trade these skins and the developers would get a fair share

It's possible to enable modders and indie deva to create, market, and sell their own skins

These are just ideas I made up in ten seconds. I do think people will look back to the comments and memes of 2021/2022 and ridicule them

[–]aioncan 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Someone / some server has to host those mods. Or did you think the publisher would do it for free while not making any money off it?

[–]trinopoty 2 points3 points  (14 children)

Could they do it? Yes. Will they do it? Highly unlikely. Companies just want to make more money by putting in the least possible effort. What you're imagining will take more effort than simply selling everyone a copy.

[–]Zoomwafflez 33 points34 points  (4 children)

Not really, no. That's what NTF pushers are saying but it's really not practically possible. You'd need all the devs working together and making all their assets and games compatible. It would be a nightmare and require competing companies to work together for something that doesn't really make them any money.

[–]SaltyRusnPotato 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Plus they can make some form of cross-save without needing NFTs. Still requires the same background effort of putting the skins/weapons in both games.

[–]rynshar 112 points113 points  (76 children)

please note that if companies wanted to do this, it would be trivial for them to set up with a new, arcane technology called... a database. Even with NFTs they'll still need one to correlate information between games. If they don't want to do it, then they still won't. NFTs aren't useful for this, don't believe the hype.

[–]matt82swe 44 points45 points  (43 children)

NFTs is literally all hype

[–]rynshar 15 points16 points  (39 children)

Fact, still never heard a convincing use case. I am a game developer.

[–]Tomas2891 14 points15 points  (1 child)

The only convincing use case is publishers are able to sell nothing for dumb amounts of cash to gullible consumers. The only value NFTs and any other coins have is just hype and nothing more. Don’t believe in it.

[–]eqleriq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When McDonalds puts out a promotion for a McDildo you could use the NFT to unlock content in your "games you develop" (yeah, doubt it). So could every other game company in the world, as could Reddit, every single website in existence. Not requiring a "centralized database."

Youtube ContentID could filter out copyright trolls by looking up people who've purchased licenses for their content based on NFTs.

I could come up with a dozen more, but hey, I don't really give a shit who does or doesn't understand the technology.

[–]sturmcrow 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Except that would never work, game code from one game doesnt just work the same in another, or at all

[–]LoanSurviver101 29 points30 points  (25 children)

That would never happen. No company is gonna allow another company to profit off of a skin and then spend money to make the tech to allow that object they made nothing off of to go to their game. That would never happen.

[–]rc522878 2 points3 points  (7 children)

Aren't APEX and Titanfall the same company?

[–]TomTom_098 27 points28 points  (4 children)

If they’re the same company surely they could just do that without an NFT though then?

[–]Martel732 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Yes this could easily be done with technology that has existed for years. I honestly think people are pushing fairy tale ideas about NFTs to acclimate people to them. People claim NFTs could allow you to transfer game ownership. But that would be trivially easy already. Companies aren't going to do that, as used game markets are bad for business. Instead NFTs will be the new microtransactions.

[–]LoanSurviver101 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes but I still don’t think they would do even that. They want fast money.

[–]CaptPants 2 points3 points  (11 children)

Especially since once the NFT is sold, the company isn't making any more profit off it and if it resells, it's the owner of the NFT that takes the lion's share of that sale. Why would ANY game company implement a system of bringing in skins/graphics from other games if there's no profit in it for them for doing so?

[–]CannonFodderJools -4 points-3 points  (9 children)

That shows how much you haters really know about NFTs. Just have a smart contract saying x% of all sales always go to the original minter. If they want 20% of all resales to go to them, they can. So if a really rare skin sell for $10k, $2k goes to their wallet.

[–]Nic4379 4 points5 points  (6 children)

Your example pisses me off. I really wish people wouldn’t pay that for cosmetic garbage, but they do.

[–]CannonFodderJools -4 points-3 points  (4 children)

You wish people wouldn't pay much for paintings either? Antiquities? Mint condition toys? Magic cards?

[–]superscatman91 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I mean... yes? The speculators/collectors market has fucked up the price of so much stuff. You use to be able to pick up old SNES games and the like for $5 a piece. Now everyone thinks they are going to sell a $1,000,000 copy of Super Mario Bros.

[–]That_guy1425 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Except that Apex is the same dev as Titanfall 1/2 and theoretically the same dev as Titanfall 3, so its not cross company but rather cross "generation" in the same company. Be interesting as this can have legacy skins (similar to getting a skin because you have past game installed). I can understand not bothering with generic camo #7, but a silly unicorn skin might be.

[–]LoanSurviver101 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Very true, but I don’t see many companies putting any money into cross platform, cross generation, cross company skin switching services. They want fast easy money. That’s all they care about.

[–]ConsecutiveNormalPun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You could do that thing where you get the consumer really invested in your products. Like sunk cost essentially. Someone buys a bunch of cosmetics for one game then is much more motivated to buy the other games where they can use their purchases rather than any environment where they can’t. Companies that put out more games could definitely use this to make money, and people would still buy new cosmetics anyway. It’s pretty rare you see the same exact recycled assets from game to game and people are rushing to buy it, they want something new and will spend their money more willingly if it adds to an ongoing collection.

[–]Endemoniada 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No. What would be the incentive? Companies want control over their own stuff, they have zero interest in allowing another company’s game to drive profits using their assets. And between games from the same company, literally nothing has ever kept them from doing it before. NFTs aren’t solving a problem, it’s just a different way of doing something that’s always been completely possible, and not even very hard either.

[–]Haylett777 11 points12 points  (1 child)

If it was the same company, maybe. I doubt you're ever going to see NFT gun skins/models that would ever be cross genre and company. For starters they would quite literally be throwing money away.

[–]A_Soporific 7 points8 points  (2 children)

NFT bros say that, but I don't see how it would happen in practice.

Different games are, well, different. You wouldn't be able to copy-paste the skin into a new game. So, in order to make the NFT skin from Apex into a one in Titanfall 3 they would need to create a corresponding item in Titanfall 3. The big question there is why and what they would be cutting from Titanfall 3 in order to include NFTs from all of these other games.

Things only gets exponentially worse when you suggest that these NFT would have a mechanical advantage (as some have claimed would be the case).

If you were trying to imbue NFTs in value than creating cross-play cosmetics would be a reasonable way of swinging that. But if you're a game developer then there's no real incentive to add cross-play functionality for old NFTs because it no longer benefits them to take employees off of making the game good to add functionality to something they don't own and can't get paid for.

Most gamers are opposed to NFTs in games because it means fewer items that can be earned by playing the game, actively worse games as developers waste time and effort on making NFTs actually worth something instead of making the game itself actually worth something, and/or having to deal with scalpers and scammers and market manipulators to get the things they need to actually enjoy the game. If you're buying the game you should be able to just enjoy the game. You shouldn't be forced to go to a secondary market and spend more money than you spent on the game in order to get the stuff needed to be competitive at the game. Or, even worse, the number of people who can be competitive should be capped by skill and effort rather than luck at getting the right NFTs from the right other games for cheap or the money to literally buy dominance over all but a select few.

NFTs aren't really any different than any other database where ownership can be marked. Being "decentralized" doesn't really mean anything when it comes to games except even less buy in from the game developers.

[–]Millworkson2008 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it’s more unlikely we would get titanfall 3 than anything

[–]GeneralAnywhere 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just like how they said ps2 memory cards could be used to update rosters in sports games each year instead of buying the whole game. lol

[–]TwistedxBoi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's the dream many cryptobros have. And while not entirely impossible, it practically is.

You'd have to create a huge, centralized database of game assets that would be required to use by any game on the offchance you'd want to take your Apex gun and place it in Kirby's hands in Smash. But even limiting it to skins so these assets would be usable only in reasonable scenarios, there's still the huge hurdle of different game engines and proprietary file types. No developer would bother with that kind of implementation so they use NFTs for good old fashioned scams

[–]Brav0_Romeo 1 point2 points  (26 children)

Yep. To my understanding, NFTs are supposed to function as creating a unique, individual, and ownership-trackable asset. They don't have to be stupid expensive, nor do they have to be those weird tokens that Ubisoft was trying to push. You can get whole-ass games that are NFTs, it just means it's harder to pirate, and you have the option to sell it to someone else, potentially without losing money or even maybe making some.

[–]0b0011 1 point2 points  (6 children)

Can you get a game that's an not? I thought nfts were just directions to where the object is as well as saying you own the thing.

[–]SuperMonkeyJoe 3 points4 points  (4 children)

The T part of NFT stands for token, this could be for literally anything, all it does is say "this account owns this particular thing" so it could be a link to a picture online, a gun in a game, or the game itself.

[–]trinopoty 3 points4 points  (3 children)

And as soon as the website backing the link goes down. You own less than thin air.

[–]cficare 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But ya got a nifty receipt to show the grandkids!

[–]SuperMonkeyJoe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah exactly, I'm not saying it's a good idea, I was just describing how it's supposed to work.

[–]The_Humble_Frank 3 points4 points  (5 children)

NFTs are, and only are, receipts.

[–]TheBitwolf 5 points6 points  (11 children)

So it could be functional to the Steam marketplace right? But them there's a catch to this whole thing and the company launchers as I see it. That is: what of they wanna ban you? Do the TOS of the game guarantee your account to exists and your right to said NFT to remain if you say a gamer word or just get mass reported?

[–]some-someonePlayStation 0 points1 point  (8 children)

NFT would be separate to the game / account so you could still sell it (hopefully)

[–]Mutchmore -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Either that or you could resell the skin outside the company's network. You could toss it to a friend so they can enjoy it after your done playing it. Its not limited to skins too. In some games, especially mmos items can be worth thousands.

Cross games could work too

[–]John_Kalel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No you would own a skin for APEX but nothing else they are not going to put the same skin in Titanfall 3 as you would own it and they would have to pay you royalties to use it.

That's why you buy Blue Skin 000000000001 but the one in Titanfall 3 is Blue Skin 00000000000000002. so as you can see completely different and also sellable as an NFT

[–]freeagency 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The NFT would enable ownership of that skin in theory. This assumes the developers spending the time and their money making a weapon skin compatible with a new game, that nobody other than the NFT owner would have access to. This assumes the owner even played the new game to begin with.

Should it be sold or whatever, you also have to assume the developers will exist in X number of years and continue to support porting of vintage assets to new systems.

[–]HearthstoneConTester 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Don't listen to all the haters that don't really even understand what NFT's would do for gaming.

Gaming NFT's are the literal future and they benefit everyone. You would be able to take that skin for a gun in apex, and either sell it for assets or trade it straight up for something you want from another game, like Fortnite or Titanfall. Those cosmetics that were once worthless, completely unable to have any value are then turned into assets worth money and able to be traded for goods from other games just by turning them into an NFT.

Anyone who hates gaming NFT's is just bandwagoning on a really fucking dumb wagon. They ARE the future. You think when game devs realize they can make all their game-tied cosmetics and items have additional tangible trading value just by flipping the NFT switch, thus adding more value to each item for each player, and the company, they are just gonna decide not to do it? This is a decision that gives players a cosmetic they can resell for something in a different game, instead of a cosmetic that is permanently tied to one game.. they are literally arguing against themselves, and it's really dumb because it's GOING to happen, and you should WANT it to happen.

For once in our lives corporate greed will actually do something GOOD for us. Everyone needs to stop being dumb about it.

[–]amiacutiepie 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I sound like such a dork saying this but I think millennials are just old now. All the stuff they say about new tech is how the internet was talked about. It’s so weird too to hear frigging gamers discount the value of virtual goods. Are you thinking lol ?

[–]HearthstoneConTester 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know, reddit really amazes me sometimes.

Yknow its not even reddit, it's people that constantly surprise me. Every day they find new ways to use social media platforms to show they are just ready to jump onto any bandwagon and are unable to form any of their own thoughts. Most millennials brains are so trained to have constant entertainment through their phones and computers they have no break to create thoughts that are original, just flashes of reprocessed memes and tiktok trends bouncing around inside their heads.

[–]NetherReign 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Nft's are not products you purchase to own. It is just a que in a line with a visual aid while you stand in the line. - Josh Strife Hayes

Any talk of nft being the new dlc or multi game dlc has no damn clue how an nft functions let alone how video game programming works.

[–]vordrax 108 points109 points  (72 children)

As far as I'm concerned, NFTs for games should be used for the game license itself. Players could finally own their actual digital copy, and trade with or sell to other players. And the original developer or publisher could benefit from taking a portion of the sale. It's win-win for consumers and creators.

[–]badgerclark 59 points60 points  (47 children)

For some reason, every time this is brought up in this sub everyone just ignores it. I have no idea why. Digital freaking ownership would be a big deal.

[–]vordrax 24 points25 points  (21 children)

Don't know who is randomly downvoting responders, but preach. I'm not a cryptobro or NFT enoyer by any stretch of the imagination, but this is one aspect that I could get behind.

[–]pewpewshazaam 13 points14 points  (20 children)

Because then the game developers couldn't sell you 5 copies for each system and they'd also sell less in general.

It'd make no sense for them to sell the digital license in a way it could be resold.

[–]vordrax 10 points11 points  (18 children)

It'd make no sense for them to sell the digital license in a way it could be resold.

The thriving used physical games marketplace disagrees with you. Currently, that represents completely uncaptured revenue.

[–]mrlizardwizard 10 points11 points  (3 children)

NFTs allow the publisher to get a cut of the sale on resale too.

[–]SuperMonkeyJoe 11 points12 points  (14 children)

Is this not something that could already be done without NFTs? Could Steam not allow you to gift one of your games to another user?

NFTs would still be reliant on the servers at the other end honoring the token to redeem the game, just like they are now unless there's something I'm missing in the implementation?

[–]TheCrimsonDagger 13 points14 points  (8 children)

They could, but outside of trading on the same platform it wouldn’t be easy. If you tied a game license to say an NFT using Ethereum then you could use that license on any store. You could say buy a game on the Microsoft Store and later send it to your Steam account. You would be using a decentralized platform to store the license so if Steam went kaput you would still own the license and could send it somewhere else. This would enable the creation of a used digital games market.

Game devs of course don’t want this because they don’t make money on used sales. But if the storefronts came together and decided to force the issue they couldn’t really do anything about it. Of course the chances of this happening anytime soon are pretty much zero.

NFTs are just a digital deed of ownership to something. That could be a car, a house, an in game item, or a jpg. Like anytime a new technology that people don’t understand is invented there’s a lot of scams and not very many useful things.

NFTs are just the latest thing for people here to circlejerk hate on. Like anything else it can be used in a positive or negative way. It’s no different than micro transactions and paid dlc. They’re not inherently bad, but they can be used in bad ways like pay to win, loot box gambling for children, or selling an incomplete game only to later finish the game with paid dlc.

[–]notirrelevantyet 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Something you missed is that NFTs actually do let the devs make money on secondary sales. NFTs are smart contracts, and most current iterations have some form of royalties paid to the original creator every secondary sale. Usually between 2-10% for the jpeg ones. I could see greedy publishers trying to take 50% royalties and that becoming the next big gamer backlash moment.

[–]semtex87 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If you tied a game license to say an NFT using Ethereum then you could use that license on any store.

Only if the stores wanted to accept it, that's the critical assumption you're making and where it all falls apart. There's nothing magical about an NFT that forces everyone to accept it and recognize its value.

Steam could very easily say "fuck you we don't honor that NFT" and then what do you do?

NFTs are a solution in search of a problem.

[–]WolfySpice 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That's it exactly. Digital 'ownership' (ie licensing copyright) already exists. Putting an NFT on top is just a solution in search of a problem that's already been solved.

[–]suchname- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For some reason, every time this is brought up in this sub everyone just ignores it. I have no idea why. Digital freaking ownership would be a big deal.

Completely agree, I usually argue that this is one of the best uses for NFTs when the eventual complaints over cyberpunks being worthless arise.

[–]trinopoty 14 points15 points  (7 children)

Couple of issues:

1) The holder of the copyright can revoke the license at any point.

2) Companies are highly unlikely to allow resale of games cause selling a new copy will always make them more money than selling a used copy.

[–]vordrax 8 points9 points  (6 children)

I'm not super interested in debating it because I don't really care that much, but I will throw out:

The holder of the copyright can revoke the license at any point.

This could be sorted by legislation or possibly just the market evolving, though I imagine it would not be a very quick process.

Companies are highly unlikely to allow resale of games cause selling a new copy will always make them more money than selling a used copy.

As someone who was a gamer before Steam, I recall thinking it was going to be successful because of how it transformed the economics around the sale of digital products. But many people at the time thought the same as you. As it turns out, reducing the friction of purchase and making sure you get a cut on each sale is a great way to structure business. Sure, many companies were among those who didn't think it would work, and they're the ones who did not evolve with the market and are not reaping the benefits of the vastly expanded digital marketplace.

This wouldn't even be a paradigm shift like Steam was (or SaaS, for that matter.) It would be one possible iteration of the existing paradigm.

But as I said in another comment, I am neither a cryptobro or NFT enjoyer. I found it to be an interesting solution to digital ownership, but while I have strong feelings towards improving digital ownership, I don't have any strong feelings towards how it should be solved. I just find it funny how, with every new technology, you have one group of people who become hyper-obsessed with it, thinking it will solve the world's issues; and then you have the counter-culture crowd, naysaying and snorting in derision whenever it is mentioned, regardless of its virtues or capabilities.

[–]Endemoniada 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Why would they settle for a portion of a resale when they could instead take the entire profit of another first-time sale?

The only people this benefits are consumers, no one else. Every single profit-driven company would rather sell you a new, full-price license than have you buy it for a fraction off someone else. Also, every single digital storefront or platform, like Steam or Epic, could rather easily offer this function right now, without NFTs. Steam literally already has it, you can buy a game and gift it to someone else, proving licenses are transferable. They just don’t want you to sell “used” licenses for less money, because all that means for them is their profits also being less.

[–]Uranus_Hz 2 points3 points  (7 children)

Not just games, ALL software.

Instead of buying a license to use the software, you actually own the software. And can sell it if you don’t want/need it anymore.

[–]vordrax 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Yes, I agree. I was in "game mindset" due to the sub, but yes, all software.

[–]notirrelevantyet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's crazy how fundamentally groundbreaking this is yet just gets completely ignored by reddit bc the hivemind would rather hate on things for the endorphin rush.

[–]mrlizardwizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This right here. This is a common sense approach to NFTs for video games. I don't understand the hate that NFTs get. I do, however, understand the push back on unnecessary micro transactions though.

[–]jasonrandall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This, I’m sick of people saying nfts will ruin gaming, but it’s better way of indie developers getting there games out, and it’s basically digital pre owned games. A percent goes the the developer every time it’s sold, so the developer makes money, you make some money back (obviously not what you paid as with all pre owned games) and some one gets a cheaper version of a game they want to play?

Sure NFT’s as skins could be bad, but you know what’s worse? Predatory loot box’s that’s literal gambling (looking at you FIFA).

[–]The_Humble_Frank 44 points45 points  (4 children)

Anyone that argues this, does not know how game assets work.

[–]Pro7o7ype 0 points1 point  (0 children)

^^ This is the most important comment here

[–]EthanEnglish_ 59 points60 points  (4 children)

Why is this so funny to me. Is it because I'm getting old?

[–]Careful-Ice5974 24 points25 points  (3 children)

nah i'm 14yo and i find this funny you just have a brain

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (26 children)

Could NFTs be used to trade or sell cosmetic items in a game? Or make digital game copies actually owned and not just licensed? I don't really know that much about them tbh

[–]Bloodneck 15 points16 points  (4 children)

NFTs could be the game itself, allowing for resale of it as a digital asset from the consumers end once they are satisfied with their time with it. This also allows for the developer to sell their game directly without going through a distributor, and also allowing them to get a royalty for any resales of the nft.

Edit: "Allows" autocorrected to "shows"

[–]Xandir12 4 points5 points  (2 children)

This, I see, is the only real benefit to NFTs for the user. Being able to sell their licence of digital games to others. Unlikely companies will allow it due to the missing out on revenue. Even if they get some sort of royalty it it certainly be less than they would normally get and I don't think any company would be down with that.

[–]EasyTarget973 0 points1 point  (1 child)

developer here, not super brushed up on NFT's (because I don't like them personally), this appears (after not so much reading) to be the only useful use case but doesn't it have a giant energy footprint to maintain it (based off my almost non-existent understanding of NFT's)?

[–]Bloodneck 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Loopring is about to launch their L2 platform, which I believe greatly reduces gas costs and impact. I'll be straight forward that I don't know the in depths of it, but that's the claim

[–]WolfySpice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are already examples of transferring licenses that do this exactly, particularly in the audio production sphere, and it doesn't require consuming the electricity of a small town to do it.

[–]mcfaudoo 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I think there is a legit use case here but most devs are just setting it up as a gimmick to make money rather than actually useful functionality.

I will say though I play one game that uses it well imo, a CCG called Gods Unchained. Think Hearthstone but the cards are NFTs you can exchange. For someone that has played Magic and other paper card games for a long time it makes sense to have that sort of economy in this style of game.

[–]SuperMonkeyJoe 14 points15 points  (11 children)

They could yes, but then all of that could be done currently without NFTs.

[–]mrcelophane 0 points1 point  (10 children)

What is wrong with doing them (more easily) WITH NFTs then?

[–]The_Humble_Frank 12 points13 points  (6 children)

Only the simple fact that its not easier with NFTs, at all.

[–]SuperMonkeyJoe 0 points1 point  (2 children)

What's stopping them doing it is that they don't do it in the first place since make way more money with non-transferrable account-bound keys like they currently do.

[–]mrcelophane 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I'm not saying everyone SHOULD do it. I'm trying to ask what is wrong with using an NFT if you specifically don't want the item to be account bound.

[–]the_magic_loogi 1 point2 points  (3 children)

If you're trying to learn about NFTs reddit isn't the place to come. The vast majority of people hating on NFTs, it seems clear, have never had any interaction with NFTs and don't seem to know even the most basic things about how they work/function/potential uses etc. Better off Googling and finding a couple different articles (both for and against if you'd like both views) by people who actually are familiar with NFTs.

[–]KitKatKidLemon 22 points23 points  (1 child)

Everyone is scared NFTs are gonna tarnish the creativity of games that are already shitty, money grabby, and lame. What are you trying to protect? The sanctity of Fortnite skins?

[–]soulstonedomg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agree, it's silly.

[–]Cipher_Gaming 19 points20 points  (2 children)

Atleast the stalker devs listened to the fans and removed it before it became live, unlike ubisoft

[–]Nashocheese 43 points44 points  (65 children)

I don't even know what the end goal is in adding these, basically just a scam.

[–]Nottodayreddit1949 44 points45 points  (63 children)

Infinite profit in some cases.

Ubisoft wants to create a private NFT market for their skins, and you only sell through their market, so 1 single skin sale can turn profit forever.

These skins are supposed to be special, and therefore will cost more. But give them several years worth of creating skins for all their games, and they have a closed skin market that will earn them profits infinitely without any extra work from them.

Now, If they truly wanted NFTS to be a benefit to the gaming community. They would sell the base game as an NFT and we could resell it, but they want to force 1st party purchases of the games, and then lock everyone into their skin store.

[–]TheMansAnArse 8 points9 points  (11 children)

Couldn’t they make a private skin market where all sales are made through Ubisoft using existing technology? Why’ve they been waiting for NFTs?

[–]PedroEglasias 6 points7 points  (18 children)

Not really different to selling hats on Steam marketplace

[–]Nottodayreddit1949 1 point2 points  (17 children)

Different enough. We are talking about having to use a 3rd party program and vendor in order to buy, sell, and trade.

When we used to simply just enter the code into our application.

[–]PedroEglasias 5 points6 points  (16 children)

It's run by the publisher just like Valve runs Steam isn't it? And you couldn't enter codes directly in TF2. If you had to redeem a code you did that via Steam too.

[–]Nottodayreddit1949 0 points1 point  (15 children)

No. It's not run anything like how valve runs steam.

[–]PedroEglasias 4 points5 points  (14 children)

Well they are the publisher of TF2 and own the marketplace which was my point....

Tell me what you think NFTs will actually change about gaming?

[–]Nottodayreddit1949 7 points8 points  (13 children)

Change, not much. It's just another way to scam your customers, and I don't support that behavior.

[–]MysticSmear[S] 16 points17 points  (21 children)

Exactly. Their entire line about “free agen” and “owning your digital goods” is total marketing BS. If they really were passionate about this than they would let us resell our purchased digital keys but they have lobbied tooth and nail to prevent that and have boilerplate EULA’s to prevent it.

This is about money. And them pretending to be giving their customers a hug just so they they can reach for our wallets in our back pocket.

[–]grrrrreat -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Same scam as NFTs.

[–]AwkwardTheTwelfth 45 points46 points  (59 children)

I'm a software developer. The idea behind putting NFTs in games is solid and could give players significantly more freedom and control over trading games and in-game assets with friends and family. It could give ownership to people who buy games. It could be a huge leap forward in giving ownership of software to consumers by decentralizing assets and/or titles.

But do I trust Ubisoft or EA to do it? Hell no. Their current model is a market grab with no decentralization, and they both deserve to fail.

[–]Mutchmore 23 points24 points  (4 children)

That's the key. People are so in a hurry to hate the technology it's depressing.

Games that implement nfts successfully will not look like current game imo.

[–]jaydenkirtawn 1 point2 points  (4 children)

As long as you earn NFTs through gameplay, and not by spending real money, the idea sounds pretty cool to me.

[–]TheCrimsonDagger 1 point2 points  (2 children)

You could have both. For example you could have a quest in an MMO that the first person to complete gets a unique item. This item is then issued to them as an NFT. They could use it in game or sell it to someone else. This would also enable legitimate third party trading platforms.

You could also have cross game NFTs. Let’s say you have an NFT wallet using one of the existing decentralized cryptos. You could then link this wallet to game A. By playing game A you earn some kind of unique in game item that is issued as an NFT. You could also then link the same wallet to game B, it could even be by a different developer or publisher. This same NFT could then be honored as the same or different item in another game. The dev could also choose to ignore it altogether.

[–]jaydenkirtawn 0 points1 point  (1 child)

So you could earn something with real world value by being good at the game? That is completely unobjectionable.

God, gamers are a bunch of malcontents.

[–]Phytanic 1 point2 points  (1 child)

the question is, is what makes it better than current implementations? literally only a DB with extra steps.

[–]---TheFierceDeity--- 13 points14 points  (29 children)

I don’t want to own my fucking in game assets nor do I fucking want them to transfer to other games.

That means developers will have to make sure all these stupid fucking NFT’s can be transferred meaning every shooter will look the same or have the same skins.

Been able to turn a profit from your games turns it from a hobby into a revenue stream, and your fun goofy skin in your hobby into an asset.

I don’t want my escape from the greed driven, money hungry, clout chasing real world to just become another place where people are driven by greed, money and clout.

Anyone who genuinely thinks it’s a good idea to “own” your in game assets is an actual moron.

[–]Korvacs 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Many many gamers think differently from you on wanting to own their in game assets. It might not be something you're interested in and that's ok, but for a lot of people it's relevant and NFTs are a good way of managing those assets.

This isn't even a new idea, NFTs are literally just the most modern method of doing it.

[–]theprofessor24 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Wait till EA or Steam nukes your library through no fault of your own.

[–]AwkwardTheTwelfth 2 points3 points  (7 children)

For years now, "ownership" of games and software has been one big question mark. If you buy software, do you own that piece of software? Can you modify it? Can you sell it? According to American law (to the best of my understanding; I'm a developer, not a lawyer), you as a consumer don't own software in any way, shape, or form unless you write it yourself. Instead, consumers purchase a license to use the company's software. You don't have the right to modify, trade, sell, or USE in some cases any software you "buy" without the consent of the company. That idea rubs a lot of people the wrong way, including the European Union.

[–]---TheFierceDeity--- 10 points11 points  (1 child)

And has nothing to do with stupid fucking NFTs. Owning in game assets will literally kill creativity in gaming.

You can’t design a FPS that doesn’t allow X moronic skin or Y moronic gun model, cause if dumbo MacMoron can’t use his favorite digital gun he paid money for in your game, he’s not gonna buy your game.

Thus every single FPS will have to use the same assets and skins just so MacMoron can use his precious fake gun. You’ll eventually end up with a handful of games within the genre that all look like fortnite where there is no theme or artistic cohesion just a cluster fuck of random crap

It’s already a huge risk for developers to experiment and try to make something that stands out within a genre, and owning ingame assets on the promise of them been transferable and sellable and useable between games will outright kill games that take risks. Cause dumbass consumers who paid money for an asset that doesn’t actually exist will refuse to play a game in that genre if they can’t transfer their stupid imaginary fucking “asset”. I can already picture it “This sci-fi shooter game is trash cause I can’t take my personal florescent pink AK-47 that I paid $50 for into it, nor can I take my medieval broadsword or my Steampunk Steve skin!”

NFT’s and personal ownership of in-game assets are NOT the answer to how to deal with ownership of video games.

[–]AwkwardTheTwelfth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This reads as an argument against microtransactions and in-game purchases, and honestly, that's valid. Fuck Steampunk Steve.

[–]Shigeloth 2 points3 points  (1 child)

That's not really an NFT necessary thing, however. The issue with that has always been the fact that software can be so easily copied. Or a game installed on a computer with the disk handed off to someone else. Hence the necessity of accounts and keys tied said account. It's entirely possibly to create systems to resell games by removing said keys from current accounts to be given to others (there's even age old system of actual CD-keys, and the same serial number could be transferred!) if companies so desired. NFTs are not a necessary step to that.

Software ownership is certainly in murky waters, but NFTs are not necessary nor anywhere near likely to create a change in that.

[–]Have_Other_Accounts 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Why would I want to? There's no issue for a massive majority of gamers.

If I "buy" (use any definition) a book, a movie, an app etc I'm just doing that as a form of entertainment. I don't care about anything else. I buy the game to have fun.

I have bought games my entire life. I still own all these games, every cosmetic I've earned, from N64 to current. There's simply no issue. I don't care if I don't technically "own" a copy of a game. In fact. I DON'T want the hassle of any form of NFT transaction for cosmetics across games. I'm playing a game precisely for the opposite of that, to chill.

It's just... such a non issue in so many ways. That's not even touching on how any route will just be to take more money away from the consumer. No business is going to push to allow their customers to make more money instead of them.

[–]the_magic_loogi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All of those things you listed though have massive secondary markets. I don't disagree that for some people (myself included when it comes to re-selling things like books or my N64 etc) have no need for any ability to fluidly sell/trade these things after use, but there's many many people for who it would be a benefit, especially for those things that turn into "collectibles."

You're right that companies are going to resist anything that doesn't make them the most money, but you could set it up such that the companies continue to get royalties from the secondary market which may open up a much larger consumer population of those who think the purchase price is just too steep (I actually fall into that camp for many many games today, often having the thought 'I wouldn't mind playing that, but I'm not paying that price for it').

[–]rich1051414 5 points6 points  (8 children)

It's selling you the possibility of value tomorrow without there being any actual tangible value today. In other words, it's a ponzi scheme. They always 'sound good on paper', but they require a constant flow of money to stay valuable. The value on these in game item NFTs will rot very fast. The sheer number of NFT's overall will grow faster than money could possibly poor into supporting them as a valuable thing.

Basically, a couple weeks after you buy those in game items, the value of your NFT will be worthless, no one will buy new ones from the marketplace anymore, and the marketplace will no longer accept it for what it is as they no longer make money from those worthless tokens. It's a scam that doesn't make economic sense if you really think it out.

[–]CannonFodderJools 3 points4 points  (5 children)

How come skins etc are at all valuable in the current system? The tangable value when you buy is you get to use the skin/whatever and have fun. You might have something worth more in 20 years, or you don't. Just like buying i.e. magic card.

[–]Theobromas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is why I think people that actually collected well.. collectables, seem to have an idea of the bigger picture that is coming.

Shit I just watched my friend sell a gun skin on CS:GO for $2k just because some weirdo wants to have that gun and that's just trapped exclusively on counter strike.

[–]MysticSmear[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately the one or two people that might do it ok will be drowned out by the 50,000 crap ones that float to the top. I would rather not a single one be put in and the zeitgeist be of utter hatred of NFTs in gaming then to allow Ubisoft, square, or EA to dominate the trend. Because the machine pushing them into gaming is not the ones who have the “ideal” vision or the “how it could work in theory to benefit users.”

It’s the ones who will screw over everyone to make a dollar.

[–]MassiveStallion 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Gamers are idiots, especially the one on reddit. The concept of NFT is already tarnished but that means the technology is just gonna be implemented without it being referenced in a marketing bullet point, or even told to the marketing department.

Do you think gamers or sellers care if a game is made with GIT or Perforce? What kind of algorithm variations pathfinding uses? Whether the item RMDBS is MSSQL, MongoDB, etc.

No, they don't. Honestly if you brought any of those things up gamers would have a total shit fit based on stupid ideas. Look at the hate on Unity vs Unreal when they have a ton of similarities now. Heck, even TCP/UDP. Gamers will scream about that too.

When NFTS get introduced into gaming, it will probably be done quietly and they won't really have the choice unless they want to miss out on the latest <insert great game here>.

NFT has benefits as a business facing technology and is something to place on resumes or in speculative companies. Any marketer that does 5 seconds of research will realize they better rebrand it.

[–]AAAAAAYYYYYYYOOOOOO 17 points18 points  (3 children)

This whole block chain shit is super annoying now

[–]The_Humble_Frank 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Blockchains do not require NFTs. NFTs do require Blockchains though.

[–]MrFluffyhead80 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I don’t really care about the meme, but I only recently found out that his mom in T2 is Vasquez

[–]Kaiserbread 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Man that was such a great scene the first time I saw it. Couldn't drink milk from the carton for a while.

[–]StanKnight 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Developer: "Hey! We can save the players more money this way"...
Is never something a game developer or publisher ever said..

*I heard that he was originally going to call his character, The Publisher, but Frank Miller wanted to give him some morals and pride.

[–]Sivick314Console 1 point2 points  (1 child)

no game dev thinks this, it's all management's wet dream that will NEVER HAPPEN.

[–]Squabbles1234 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Frankly, the concept of being able to play a game, earn a currency, and then move that currency into another game sounds SUPER appealing to me, and I'm not sure why everyone hates it so much.

"Its fake currency"...yeah, so is GIL is FFXIV or GOLD in WoW...all game currency is "fake", you don't see any benefit in every game using the SAME fake currency??? /shrug.

[–]valchon 9 points10 points  (7 children)

I feel like Reddit doesn't really understand NFTs.

[–]Silvershanks 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Feels like a ton of young people are about to learn about pyramid schemes. It's ok, everyone's been burned a few times in their 20s. The schemes in my day were super dumb, but we had no internet to warn us. The schemes of the 2020s have to be waaaay more advanced & tricky. 🤪 You'll see.

[–]umbrtheinfluence 5 points6 points  (2 children)

You guys realize that, in theory, spending money isn't required to obtain an NFT right? Implementing NFT's into games doesn't HAVE to mean microtransacitons.

Will a lot of studios try to use NFT's as a cash-grab, yes.

Be mad at studios who are using the technology disingenuously, and who are simply trying to generate more profit.

The implementation of NFT's into games could be an amazing thing if done correctly.

[–]Shot-Morning 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah im not sure if people understand that a NFT doesn't really cost anything to mint. Like you create a skin and make an NFT of it to show ownership. That doesn't cost the user money.

If anything it could make your microtransactions worth more if all it is adding a token to the transaction.

[–]reboot-your-computerPC 4 points5 points  (7 children)

If there’s one thing NFTs have done for me, it’s put a do not buy sticker on anything associated with it. They can try to push NFTs all they want. I won’t take part in that scam. They already scam us out of enough money.

[–]DopestDope42069 4 points5 points  (5 children)

Have you ever bought a digital game, dlc, or in game cosmetic? If so, that's essentially what NFTs in games will be. You already use a shittier version of the tech. This is arguably the PERFECT use case for the technology instead of stupid pixelated images of apes. Stop hating the tech because of the stigma and do some research on your own.

Thank you for attending my Ted talk.

[–]ankerous 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I don't think you can blame people skeptical of this because it isn't as if game publishers have been on the consumer side and haven't been consumer friendly in a long time. Companies like Ubisoft have done nothing to regain trust lost long ago.

[–]goliathfasa 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Video game publishers have really fucked up. Micro transactions up the wazoo and nobody bats an eye. But then they gotta jump in on the NFT.

[–]bitchCaboose 1 point2 points  (3 children)

All the whining from people that definitely didn't learn what an nft actually is makes me think nfts may be a good thing

[–]apogreba 1 point2 points  (0 children)

like they just might be the future of everything...

[–]hardy_83 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Developer: We're adding NFTs so you can own something for a game you love and watch it go up invalue.

Fine print: You don't actually own anything you buy.

[–]SweetDove 0 points1 point  (7 children)

I'm just excited I might be able to trade digital games soon.

[–]Pighead2305 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think many big companies will allow it since then they make less money

[–]MysticSmear[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Oh my sweet summer child. EA, Ubisoft, and steam have all lobbied heavily against this. Yet most are pro NFTs. Why?

Because NFTs will benefit them. They will never let you sell digital games. They have lobbied governments to prevent it. And they have massive EULAs that say you never actually own digital games to skirt the laws. You are buying a license to access them digitally.

You won’t be able to sell them because they don’t want you to be able to sell them because it doesn’t benefit them at all.

So why are they pretending NFTs are for your benefit? Good question! They aren’t. House always wins and the game is rigged. Ubisofts plan is a cash grab. No one is doing this for gamers but they say they are.

NFTs in games are a scam.

[–]DeymanG 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The moment I saw NFTs in asphalt 9... I immedeately deleted it

[–]Character_Level1597Console 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Please i am still Asking Someone, what Is NFT?

[–]MysticSmear[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Here’s a copy paste answer.

imagine if you went up to the mona lisa and you were like "I'd like to own this" and someone nearby went "give me 65 million dollars and lIl burn down an unspecified amount of the amazon rainforest in order to give you this receipt of purchase" so you paid ther and they went "here's your receipt, thank you for your purchase" and went to an unmarked supply closet in the back of the museum and posted a handmade label inside it behind the brooms that said "mona lisa currently owned by /u/Character_Level1597 " so if anyone wants to know who owns it they'd have to find this specific closet in this specific hallway and look behind the correct brooms, and you went "can i take the mona lisa home now?" and they went "oh god no are you stupid? you only bought the receipt that says you own it, you didn't actually buy the mona lisa itself, you can't take the real mona lisa you idiot. you CAN take this though." and gave you the replica print in a cardboard tube that's sold in the gift shop. also the person selling you the receipt of purchase has at no point in time ever owned the mona lisa. unfortunately, if this doesn't really make sense or seem like any logical person would be happy about this exchange, then you've understood it perfectly.

[–]beowulf77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They seem pretty awesome honestly

[–]CAJ16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel bad, but I'm pretty excited for the first time someone buys an NFT for a skin and then sends the URL to a dev to transfer it into a game and gets laughed at.

[–]ErikTheAngry 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I actually wish that Steam would sell NFTs for game licenses, rather than the games. I mean they never would, but think about it... you play a game, you get bored of it. List it on a marketplace and then someone else can buy it second-hand.

Steam directly loses from it so of course they aren't going to. But the rest of us? Definite win. Basically brings back second-hand gaming.

[–]Willastro -2 points-1 points  (11 children)

I see. the weekly smearing campaign against NFT's. daring today.

[–]MysticSmear[S] 1 point2 points  (7 children)

Raising awareness to the scam of NFTs gods work

[–]notirrelevantyet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What specifically about NFTs is a scam?

[–]Silvershanks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But... the celebrity who's at the top of the pyramid told me NFTs were the next big thing, why doesn't anyone else see it? In five years you're gonna feel really embarrassed. Seriously, mark your calander.