DLC

Abby1994_21

I would suggest start by reading Bitcoin Standard you would get to know why Bitcoin is important and i would say start using the ecosystem more which is build on bitcoin like lightining channels, Coin join, LN markets, Atomic Finance (DLC smart contracts on bitcoin), Umbrel ( host your own bitcoin node )

Abby1994_21

Yup they are using DLCs plus there also another company that is using DLC called 10101 and now LN markets is also looking to use DLC for their platform.

Abby1994_21

That is not true, Bitcoin has bitcoin native smart contract also they are called Discreet log contracts - [https://atomic.finance/blog/discreet-log-contracts/](https://atomic.finance/blog/discreet-log-contracts/) . DLC was created by the same person who was involved in creating lightining network.

Abby1994_21

They do have smart contracts built on bitcoin not L2 they are called DLC ( Discreet log Contracts )

ContributionEast8976

Yes. Obviously an L2 payment protocol designed for faster *Bitcoin* transactions would only ever deal in Bitcoin. Insightful stuff. But I'm eager to understand if it is viable to have a robust smart contract Layer 2 without a shitcoin. As I said in my first comment, if you read it, I am actually not a fan of STX and would love to know what a non-shitcoin smart contract L2 path would look like. Would it look like RBGs? Rollups? DLC? Would they be built on Lightning Network so they are usable in a timely way?... Is it good to build everything on Lightning Network or is a bit of diversification a good thing? As I alluded to in my original comment, I think the best case scenario is being able to use BTC (even in the form of sBTC, a 1:1 decentralized peg) to pay for smart contract transactions and gas fees. This is only a somewhat recent development and still being discussed I believe it would be the right direction for such a project so users would never have to leave the BTC ecosystem, which is far easier for the majority to understand.

IceWallow97

Love it when a DLC just drops unannounced like this.

Soy7ent

And why would any publisher, like EA nor Ubisoft want that? They make billions by selling you "access rights" and the same game year after year. It's ridiculous to think they would give up on that. Some indie games maybe, but for soon decades, the DLC and F2P model has established itself as extremely profitable.

dondondorito

The last thing that gaming needs is blockchain tech. This is a hill I‘m willing to die on. Give me well polished and well written games without hiding much of it in pre-planned DLC's or torturing me with stupid loot boxes. I just want to have some fun.

I_argue_for_funsies

So many small minded takes here. People are focused on in game assets like swords, etc. But what being overlooked is limited edition DLC. Say you want to preordered HALO 2 and it came with a limited edition DLC. Every pre ordered got one, but that's it. That sword skin, armour, or even multiplayer map is limited to the people who preordered. They use it in game, love that it's exclusive, and even become a super-host because their friends can't play that elite map without that friend hosting. Then, as time goes on, people start playing Halo 5 and servers go offline. DLC is useless.... WRONG. Halo 5 allows you to use that skin, play that map, and wear that armor from Halo 2. Or maybe Fortnite allows halo skins based on your ownership. Now it's even more rare. Maybe even they let halo 2 people get halo 5 a few days early, beta access, or even early access to Microsofts version of "Blizzcon" or whatever. This doesn't even tie in the ability to sell via after market, which is what everyone is focused on here. Or maybe you want to hand your DLC to your son like an old record collection. Who knows. Point is, proof of ownership is more than just the ability to sell. Its proof of community and let's developers have access to users that actually play their game. A targeted survey to their players can have much more value than some random survey that's brugaded by those that hate the franchise. There are lots of other values, but I'm tier of typing.

Academic_Instance_22

It doesnt NEED to exist but it would be better to have a decentralized network and DB for some parts of the game In the future you ll have better than Axie or Crypto Kitties games running on designated Blockchains like Ronin . Other advantage is the liquidity of the market , transferability of assets . You have txs stored on chain which is better than having to then dig up in a database somewhere in a obscure country For some games youll have Play to Earn economies , gold / items etc which you can easily earn royalties as a dev / project. And last but not least , you break the DLC dogma driven by the same 3-4 companies. Last 2 decades gamers were robbed, tricked and bled dry by companies by : - DLCs - not truly owning the game - monthly payments

NFTs_Consultant

You think Steam doesn't charge developers? All these closed systems charge about 30% commission. Blockchain, you buy a token that gives you access to a game, you authenticate your session using your NFT and then can play the game as you wish, across any platform that you wish to play it on. You want to sell your game? Whack it onto opensea and sell the NFT and now someone else can play the game without reliance on a third party platform charging commissions. Secondly you buy a skin in fortnite, but you want to use it in call of duty - if there are interoperable standards for NFTs and the like then potentially you could use it in other games. The value of that DLC is now much greater because you can take it with you. All the current closed systems - sony, nintendo, steam, apple, google.. they all love having their own closed ecosystem which they control access to and can charge everyone a fortune for using. A fully open, decentralised model, means that players have full ownership of their licences, assets etc. It needs a lot of work to get there because there's no agreed standards. But once it gets there then a neutral, decentralised service is the best way to store that information, as it cannot then be controlled by a single company.

Positron49

I can try and explain the basic tenant. Today, the problem is game monetization. Every gamer complains that the price of a game is increasing to $70+ and it’s usually not finished, requiring DLC later or being called an “early access” to let it release. The other side of the coin is micro transactions on a F2P game. Those issues are obvious too. Blockchain gaming changes the monetization model. Each minted asset has a royalty baked into it, so the game can provide the asset for free (usually through playing) and let players buy from each other at whatever price they want. The studio makes money at the price and volume the market finds. To the question on why centralized entities aren’t used instead, you are sort of correct. The reason blockchain is better is liquidity. If Steam has an item marketplace, they could take a fee on items and agree to pay distribution fees back to the game studio, but they historically price gauge. Additionally, your users and liquidity are fragmented into Steam and PlayStation, so all trades just become dependent upon your in game marketplace anyway. Because in web3, all games would run on Ethereum, the studio gets to determine their royalty as soon as the item is generated by the game engine, and if it’s posted for sale by the player at $5, it can be purchased by someone in game, on a PC marketplace, on the PlayStation store, etc. all accounts would be the Ethereum wallet as well, so the studio or distributor don’t have to worry about the security or infrastructure to maintain this cross platform network. Blockchain, specially L2 on ETH, can do this cheaper than a studio can building it themselves.

GoodGodKirk

The blockchains are like games, they're constantly fixing bugs and issuing DLC.

ContributionEast8976

I think DLC Link is going to be a much better option than Stacks

squaredk2

Yes. Cutrently games are all pay walled and DLC, so give some power back to creators and players.

Aggressive-Land-8884

I’ve shouted this since 2017! As long as a shitcoin has a token attached it’s doomed to fail. Provide the utility on the main blockchain. Do not take out your own bloody token. If you can’t care enough about making the base system better with fucking DLC maybe sit on the sidelines. Btw this was not directed at you. Just had this rant pent up for a while lol.

Cryptolution

>Everything is subscription based, p2w, requires dlc Frankly I don't know what you're talking about because I play plenty of great games and none of them are subscription based, P2W or require DLC. So no we are currently not already living in a corporate hellhole. Apparently you like to support shitty producers.

Kerfits

That’s where you guys are missing the point of crypto enabled games. Game companies today charge gamers billions for DLC and virtual cosmetics, guns etc. People have been fed up with it for years, especially parents who pay for the thing. Crypto tokens and NFT-proof of ownership of add-on content for games will make it possible to sell your virtual clothing, guns, game passes, cheats, etc SELL IT to another gamer with any price you desire for it, making in game add-on content - and making them COMMODITIES. For example: If you have a gun that has a remarkable headshot record, you might be able to sell it for a lot more than an other gun with low kill rate. You can actually make money by creating value with virtual commodities.

djereezy

Yup…some people just start off with DLC from the beginning.

mutinomonem

Most people interested in gaming are consumers though. Consuming the next iteration of a long stream of marginally better devices. Buying gaming chairs for their gaming rig. Buying custom controllers, light up keyboards, headsets. Buying merch of their fav games. Little toys of the characters from them go on their shelves and collect dust. DLC, loot boxes, battle passes. Every part of it is designed to milk you. Besides the fact that every game in the last 10-15 years has just been a repition of the one before it...i struggle to see the new experiences one is achieving but the consumption is clear.

HODL_monk

Its been 5 years and we still don't even have NFT game items in real games that are not tech demos for crypto. The problem with cross platform NFT's is what is the incentive to the game publisher to allow and use them ? The best case for them is they will be vastly overpriced paired DLC sets, and I would never even buy such a thing. This is a Whales only idea, and as such, its effect will be very limited. Damnit, I was promised REGULAR digital music tracks that were transferable, even BEFORE crypto was a thing, and we STILL don't have them. This is probably the BEST use case for NFT's, since NFT's are basically a receipt for something, and they can be transferred but not copied, a big problem for music tracks. Resell able DLC would also be cool, because these items rarely have much playtime.

smurfguy

Atomic finance: https://atomic.finance/. Is it 100% safe? No because literally nothing is. They do this interesting method of finding times within monthly cycles to sell covered calls. You get your own keys, but they use DLC contracts to handle your bitcoin during covered cycles, so while you don’t have 100% control of your bitcoin while invested it’s more control than things like Nexo when you get to see nada on the blockchain.

EGarrett

They're already making in-game entities as part of their normal design, adding a check of a blockchain to enable it is just as trivial as adding a check of whether the person has DLC. You just have an immutable ledger to use. I notice you also just ignored the point I made to you with a clear description of how it can work, which leads me to believe that you know exactly what I'm saying to you but you're just making up replies to bicker. Don't do that. Read it again and this time actually answer. **It does bring in money. I already described this. You buy Nike Air Jordan Virtual Edition from their website, you can wear it in NBA 2K, NBA Playground, NBA Jam, Backyard Basketball, and other games. Either your fee for the Nike Air Jordan VE's is shared by the companies that offer it in-game, or (since credit card companies showed it can go the other way), the companies pay Nike for the right to allow Nike gear in the game, and they let you sport your personal stuff in the game. And yes, people want to do this. Look at how many people buy NFT's without even having a place to display them."*

EGarrett

>It only exists if the Devs let it - it doesn't matter if you purchased some DLC if it's not supported, and you don't get a say in that. Or you buy some superpowerful item, and it gets nerfed - again, you have no say in that. You have a receipt for a thing, but what that thing is and how it manifests are entirely out of your control Only in that individual game. You have it in any other game where it's implemented. >That's a vast amount of work No it isn't. It's literally just a call to the blockchain and checking a single value. Does user have the object? Yes? Enable it in-game. > Someone makes a game 5 years from now - why would they support 5-year-old stuff, when it costs them money, but doesn't bring in money? Because it does bring-in money. I already described this. You buy Nike Air Jordan Virtual Edition from their website, you can wear it in NBA 2K, NBA Playground, NBA Jam, Backyard Basketball, and other games. Either your fee for the Nike Air Jordan VE's is shared by the companies that offer it in-game, or (since credit card companies showed it can go the other way), the companies pay Nike for the right to allow Nike gear in the game, and they let you sport your personal stuff in the game. And yes, people want to do this. Look at how many people buy NFT's without even having a place to display them. \>And if it's more than cosmetic, that's even more work, as someone needs to decide how it works, what stats it has, make sure it doesn't break anything and stuff, for no actual benefit. Again, there's no underlying links - this all needs actually manually doing, so why would someone do this? This is not 'painfully easy', it's a huge amount of extra work! Making an item in-game that just turns on and off based on checking a blockchain value would not be extra work.

Complex-Knee6391

> won't "no longer exist." That's the whole point. It only exists if the Devs let it - it doesn't matter if you purchased some DLC if it's not supported, and you don't get a say in that. Or you buy some superpowerful item, and it gets nerfed - again, you have no say in that. You have a receipt for a thing, but what that thing is and how it manifests are entirely out of your control > Different games could render the same object differently. If I get the Air Jordan shoes from Nike for my video game characters, I can have that on the blockchain, and any game that supports it could render me wearing Air Jordans. The game itself does the rendering, the blockchain just confirms that I have it. That's a vast amount of work - who is doing this, and how much are you thinking you'll pay for it, if you're wanting this to persist? Someone makes a game 5 years from now - why would they support 5-year-old stuff, when it costs them money, but doesn't bring in money? And if it's more than cosmetic, that's even more work, as someone needs to decide how it works, what stats it has, make sure it doesn't break anything and stuff, for no actual benefit. Again, there's no underlying links - this all needs actually manually doing, so why would someone do this? This is not 'painfully easy', it's a huge amount of extra work!

Complex-Knee6391

It was entirely possible - even pre-internet, 'save game files' exist, that can unlock extra stuff or carry things through. But unless the game is very similar (eg a direct sequel) stuff can't be ported over, it needs coding and creating, art assets to be designed and do on, and that's still true - a gun in Doom can't just be shoved into Horizon Zero Dawn. Even outside of rights issues, it needs to have a load of numbers defined, how it functions, damage done, range, button mappings and stuff. So having a flag against a user that they've purchased some DLC is pretty trivial - that could be made to unlock a thing in several games already, Blockchain not needed, but why would Devs do that?

johnnyb0083

It'll take one AAA game to have crypto assets and make more money with them than without and everyone will jump on board. Opening up items in your game and allowing trade for the entire world can inject a lot of money, hell it could yield way more revenue than DLC.

slug_tamer

You get some sick DLC with extra skins though.

SA_Ichi

You might have gotten the Crab Season Pass DLC for free with that one

salgat

Man I'd agree if zoomers weren't able to buy so much DLC shit on apps.

YourMovieBuddy

I haven’t had this DLC

EveliaAvila

Is it? My portfolio has not received that DLC.

akibalogh

We are building a way to keep BTC non-custodial by locking it into a DLC - so it could be used for lending, liquidity farming, etc

akibalogh

We are building a way to lock BTC in a Discreet Log Contract (DLC) to take a DeFi loan in Maple.Finance. Check out DLC.link

johnnyb0083

This could usher in a new generation to crypto and do it with something most people love...video games. I'd like to see in-game NFTs as drops, then you can sell them on the blockchain. M$ can take a cut of all transactions, instead of DLC the more you play the more money you might be able to make. Some people don't have the time to farm all the cool items and would rather buy them. Why shouldn't M$ take a cut and the people that enjoy playing make a little scratch on the side.

tetakta

Thank you for your question! More about underground. I'm looking for people to talk about core scripting on the mainnet. And to talk about how to apply these technologies in life right now. I want to start learning Script, OP; Now I'm learning everything about nodes, LN, DLC, Taproot, Nostr.

johnnyb0083

Having a built in crypto wallet for a gaming console would be good for a few reasons: * Ability to buy games online, put USD on a L2 and take payments for games or DLC. * In-game asset tokenization if some games want to reward users with NFTs. * Available as part of the ecosystem and the developer tools if games want to take part. * Open marketplace of in-game assets that can be used for trading and raking in percentages off those trades.

Electric-Noo

You forgot the 4th, special option only unlockable by means of the *In the Halls of Power* DLC where the winemaker runs a multimillion dollar winery company. In said option, the Winemaker - Founder & CEO - compromises on his values (if he has any left) to hire 1 or more "advisors", "consultants" or maybe even passes on his CEO or CFO position to an ex-member of the country's intelligentsia, military or even their political system, or more likely a family member of existing members of those organizations. After hiring such people and paying them a salary in excess of their actual on-paper skills, you essentially use them as a money-laundering gateway to the powerful with a say on how the freshly printed money is spent. This allows you the unique power-card known as *"Government Buyout"* where the regime in power, through either a department of theirs (subsidies) or through the central banking cartel itself (ultra-cheap, easy loans), funnels money directly to your company, giving you the time and resources to survive and even thrive (at least on paper) during the economic stagflation. Very powerful move, but often players will abuse this card too much and forget to actually run their business efficiently, becoming complacent and dependent on outside money for survival. This eventually causes it to collapse from the inside due to an overbloated bureaucracy, or more likely the overuse of the card ticks up the corruption-checkers' timer, resulting in severe amounts of money-laundering to eventually impact the hypothetical winery's business operations

EveliaAvila

My portfolio also yo-yo but guess i'm missing a DLC because there is no "up", no where.

DAMG808

haha genius,,,farmville special edition with the new gain or pain fomo DLC....

middlemangv

Games need to be fun. That is the first and biggest step. Game needs to be fun for people to play it. After that, you can add what you want. CSGO is fun, people are playing it for years, without any rewards. Actually, people are spending crazy money on CSGO skins, and CSGO literally has their own "skin market". So, people are giving money because they love the game, just for their gun to look nicer. Some fun game, where people will play it, and be able to buy skins via NFTs or to buy tokens for some DLC, or something extra in the game. That is the way.

Giga79

You could say the same about social media, it's meant for leisure etc. Yet we're all making fucking money. Why the hell would I want a 2nd job on Reddit? And yet, it's still my leisure time. Not everything is that binary. If when you finish a game you're given a trophy-NFT that can be redeemed for DLC, that you instead sell for $10, does that ruin the entire game for you? I doubt it.

NicolasDorier

Love it, wished DLC get more exposure

ThrowawayHoper

Legit more than a DLC for some games

Odysseus_Lannister

Video games already are and so is crypto but the problem is making them work with one another. Many games have been moving to a DLC/pay to win model where it costs tons of $$ outside of the initial purchase to actually access features of a game that used to be included with general purchase and many companies have caught on to this money making model. Making a game solely for crypto involvement is a death sentence because the best hype for gaming is having an engaging play style and active community first. These shit games that are basically crypto cash grabs will continue until an engaging game comes along that has crypto as a feature, not the draw.

raymv1987

If you get the early access with the DLC. Standard edition is Tuesday on GamePass

NEOkavliaris

Hello fellow souls player. Enjoy. In case you didn't play DS3 DLC do yourself a favor and do it. Final boss sister friede is one of the best boss fights i ever had.

Pr0Meister

I'm waiting for the DLC, but unfortunately it seems it will be a while Also I don't think I am ready to face Malenia again

Z3LS3

This.. the problem is that crypto is a money grab, unless you’re all just here for the tech? Devs and players are all looking to make money. People haven’t figured out how to make that work yet. Typically gaming is just about milking players for cash with DLC. I think it would work great as a concept for bridging items between games, a way to keep some progress or status in an MMO that’s been sunset by transferring game assets to a character in the companies next game. Best crypto game I “played” was coin hunt world, basically it’s Pokémon Go with trivia questions but you have to do all the legwork setting up the points of interest unless you’re in a major city near other players. The founder was paying out in btc and eth from his own stack, because he’s an oldcoiner, but rewards got needed more and more as word got out and it’s not very profitable at all anymore. Think I milked about 750k sats out of it while it lasted.

Giga79

I guess. If Mariah Carrey sells me a NFT ticket to one of her shows, is that an investment contract now? If the location shuts down after selling the stub but before the show, my NFT becomes worthless. If Mariah dies or takes a hiatus, likewise my NFT becomes worthless. If I buy a half-finished AAA game that requires ongoing DLC to be playable, I guess that's a security now too. If you buy YouTube Premium or a Netflix subscription, believe it or not, also a security. The SEC can get fucked.

Slippytoe

I don’t see why it hasn’t been done properly yet. I’ll bet most game devs are into crypto, they are the exact clientele for this sort of space. Why are they not sat round the design table banging their fists demanding to implement it into their games? Screw DLC content and skins, how about a real ecosystem?

eggZeppelin

It's like people asking what is the Internet in the 90s? A global communication platform? A e-commerce platform? A fad that is never going to catch on? Blockchain and Web3 are programmable like the Internet. You can write code to do whatever you want pretty much. I look at Crypto and Blockchain as like a DLC or an update for the Internet that will eventually let us do things faster and more efficiently and enable whole new experiences and functionality.

mimsoo777

Does it have a fiat mining DLC?

Benry26

Moon DLC is coming!

clusterlove

Softfork - DLC Hardfork - Next Game

IlIlllIIllllIIlI

Farming Simulator ‘23 : Moon Harvest DLC

Tufiolo

We already have those things, they are called... DLC lol.

superduperdude92

I think Nintendo has a working concept with amiibo. It's a limited supply toy that you buy and can interact with the game. Some even acting as full on DLC. Just apply this same idea to NFTs. Buy an NFT, connect your wallet to your gaming platform account, and have the NFT interact with the game somehow. You own the NFT and it unlocks perks across games or only in specific games.

Wowfan121231

X4 foundations + DLC Diablo 2 Ressurected and always always factorio

Comicaz3

This is a great call out too — that DLC or “season pass” stuff is a killer (looking at you, Fortnite and CoD) That being said, The Witcher 3 and Breath of the Wild had some of the best ROI for their respective DLCs (IMO) — easily felt they were worth every penny

InsaneMcFries

And even the games and DLC themselves. They’d rather sell the game at full price to every single potential player than allow the return of pre-owned games

masedogg98

I haven’t played the game since it first came out but man with this new DLC content coming out I’m going to have to give it another play! Plus it’ll help get prepared for the NUSA we’re headed for lol

markcorrigans_boiler

Nah, just regular GTAO. I tend to get sucked back in each DLC, but everything new, grind a bit to earn the money back, and then get bored again.

sakata32

And why would the guys who make Tekken want users to use skins that they earned in WoW instead of buying their DLC?

KAX1107

>A script is just code in a scripting language You're confusing The Script, with extensible scripting features it can enable. The Script is intentionally non-turing complete for security reasons, but it's designed to support any kind of extensible scripting capabilities. Tapscript is an extension of The Script, enabling DLC contracts, which are not only superior to turing-complete scripting, which as Bram Cohen explains [here](https://nitter.net/bramcohen/status/1654560652948807683#m) is dumb to have to execute on-chain, but also private, secure and MEV-resistant. Sapio (OP\_CTV) is an extension of The Script, likewise Simplicity. In fact, covenants could be used to verify STARKs (Maxwell's CoinWitness proposed this for SNARKs in 2013). It's not that bitcoin cannot support something like a javascript scripting environment, but it's just a very bad idea. On-chain contracts should never be turing-complete, the execution must always be deterministic. Turing-complete scripting is the cause of [tens of billions](https://decrypt.co/86503/defi-users-lost-billion-theft-fraud-2021-mostly-ethereum-report) of dollar value exploits every year, [millions of failed transactions](https://cryptopotato.com/over-1-2-million-ethereum-transactions-failed-in-may/) every month and the monstrosity of MEV. Besides, what's even the point when ethereum deals with the halting problem using gas limit? RGB and Taproot assets support these kind of capabilities in a way that's private and MEV-resistant. Client-side validation distributes the problem of contract execution. Then you have little scope for security exploits, deterministic fees and most importantly greater scope for privacy.

KAX1107

>Does this mean that if somebody forked the BTC GitHub repo and just enabled all of the opcodes, the resulting chain would basically be quantum secure and able to execute scripts? First of all, bitcoin has many scripting features that are not disabled. [Here](https://youtu.be/zSWFqC-0hK8?t=271) is Mike Hearn back in 2013 discussing some of the things bitcoin could support if we wanted to enable them. Multisig scrips, leveraged by lightning. Taproot scripts, leveraged by [discreet log contracts](https://adiabat.github.io/dlc.pdf) (DLCs), which are hidden or scriptless scripts to build any kind of secure and private multi-party smart contracts. Most DLC apps are currently in beta, like [derivative contracts](https://10101.finance/) and [financial products](https://atomic.finance/). If covenants are activated, that would dramatically improve DLCs. There are also other ways of enabling private, secure, MEV-resistant smart contracts through client-side validation protocols like [RGB](https://www.rgbfaq.com/what-is-rgb) or [Taproot Assets](https://docs.lightning.engineering/the-lightning-network/taproot-assets/taproot-assets-protocol). OP\_CAT would work with both SegWit and Tapscript, but Lamport signatures right now are huge so it would require some other tricks. PQC is a fairly new field currently and I don't think there's a rush to make bitcoin quantum secure in the immediate future. >Also what happened to nakamoto if he planned to make these things possible for BTC in the future and then just didn't? As he said [here](https://archive.is/8Cm0T), he had to design bitcoin to be able to support everything he could think of "at the beginning to make sure they would be possible later." There's ongoing discussions and research on [covenants](https://utxos.org/uses/) for 2 years and it's finally looking like there could be efforts to build consensus and attempt a soft fork later this year. The culture of bitcoin is to be skeptical and carefully examine trade-offs when activating opcodes. There's no formal process and nobody has the authority to define one. If there is already a proven use case, then it would be easier to gain consensus to activate support for it but it has to be done securely mitigating attack surface.

Pristine_Spinach8718

No worries, just buy the DLC of Worldcoin which will allow you to scan your butthole.

Wowfan121231

Imho x4 with all DLC :p x4 > all currently

Icaros083

>To me the first thing I think is, you already pay for DLC and cosmetic shit anyways ... would you not rather actually have something you can take away from the game after it is done ? Well this has only ever been a theoretical bullet point. Unless you mean just having the NFT when the game dies, which sounds about the same as owning a skin in a dead game. Actually moving microtransactions from one game to another is the line I've heard over and over that makes me want to unalive every time I read it. Realistically, that could only work in games like CoD or sports games where they sell you the same game every year with slight changes.Those games are already riddled with monetisation, so what's the incentive for devs to implement something you don't have to keep buying over and over? Past that, games have different engines among piles of other technical barriers that would make implementing this in any practical sense, nearly impossible. That's why we haven't seen it materialize. And I think the outlandish claims people make in excitement feed into the hate. It starts to sound a lot like Bathing Apes or whatever else is the current popular thing, so it gets lumped with them. The key would be some kind of implementation of Blockchain that results in positively improved gameplay vs what they could do without it. NFT skins don't do that.

S7EFEN

\>To me the first thing I think is, you already pay for DLC and cosmetic shit anyways ... would you not rather actually have something you can take away from the game after it is done ? ​ that's not the option people want, people want less monetization, and in the crypto space integration with crypto just means a quick shitty game with shitty cash grabs. ​ \>I could totally see games like for instance Call Of Duty (just an example) selling NFT's for cosmetics that you could bring from game to game, that could literally end up being cheaper on the player as you would have all your skins with you already anytime a new call of duty game came out and even sell them if you did not want them anymore. ​ why would they do this if it means they make less money? why would they use NFTs to do this when they could just make skins transfer over games, or be tradable.... without NFTs? what do NFTs do here that would make this better? ​ \>Even if you could not use them, just the fact that I could sell my items when I am done with the game would be worth it. ​ is it not obvious why a game dev wouldn't want this? game playerbase peaks and starts to decline with pretty much every game, this would further the collapse of a games revenue as the playerbase decreases ​ ​ why is it that this is the default crypto bros response to this sort of thing? no, it's not a lack of understanding, it's that you are proposing to use blockchain or NFTs when they don't uniquely solve an issue or do anything to improve the existing process. they find a problem, then try to fit blockchain or nft into it, rather than finding a problem and looking at the best way to solve it.

Kiiaru

NFTs are never implemented in a world changing way though. Why do you need a Blockchain to distribute a DLC for a game? A game that's always going to be centrally run by the megacorp publisher, and will blip offline when they feel like it? What's the benefit? The only "benefit" adding all the extra NFT stuff for loot or DLC would be allowing gamers to profit off of their gear, which then requires the game maker to function as a marketplace and casino with taxes and blah blah online gambling rules blah... And from experience with tripleA game companies releasing barely functional games at launch, I don't want to see resources going to a Blockchain that is probably going to be just as buggy. In short: Not everything has to be Blockchain. A centralized locked down corporate owned game won't benefit from having NTF loot. Something designed from the ground up to incorporate NTFs probably will be better, but it's still just an accessory, not the core gameplay loop

DoitsugoGoji

Ok so now all thr DLC and the cosmetics are NFTs, and so that they make sense as NFTs they're in limited supply. So they hit the market and are sold out since they're all bought up by people using bots to cash in on selling them on the after market. Meaning that now you won't buy them since they're never going to be sold at a discount during a sale, since they've all been minted and subsequently hoarded.

jonfoxsaid

I literally own every current gen gaming console and have a pc with a 3080 in it. I actually literally said in the first sentence that I play games. I will admit as I did also in the post above that I pretty much refuse to pay for cosmetic items but I do often buy dlc for games, I just normally wait till its on sale ... I also have no problem with DLC as long as it does not feel like it was just held out from the game to make more money. I dont understand why all those aspects of the game would go away if you had NFTs ... I am talking about cosmetic shit and like avatars and skins ... not like in game weapons or something. IDK to me that would be cool, not everyone likes the same shit.

Pr0Meister

Exactly. Just from OP's statements and the comments so far I can see that they either never had gaming as a hobby, or haven't touched it in years and are unfamiliar with what goes on with all the DLC and microtransactions. Let's take League of Legends rn - skins, avatars, emotes what have you - all of it is account tied. The majority of other games operate this way. Sure, plenty of players throw money down the drain hoping to open/reroll from a mystery box a skin they'd like. But they are still players. At the end of the day, they are doing it so *they* can get that skin, and *they* can show it off in-game. Same with participating in events/doing achievements to get a limited edition item. With NFTs that all goes away. Having it on the blockchain, in a wallet of yours means it can be traded - and that means the game company endorsing a whole shadow economy outside of their control, where people participate just to get NFTs and then resell them. No thanks.

crypt0_sports

The gaming community hates NFTs and crypto with a passion. They’d rather pay corporations for every DLC and micro transaction under the sun however.

Giga79

That is Amazon's recent approach with blockchain lol I think centralization is fundamentally weak and decentralization is fundamentally strong. This just needs to play out over time. Once an entity gets the decentralized incentives *just right* the movement after is unstoppable, people will demand more, even to their cost. There still could be interoperability benefits under that kind of scheme. Twitch/etc. integration by interacting with a distributed smart contract backend may be more open and cheaper than centralized API access, as we've seen Reddit and Twitter recently lock down. The lazy approach would be DLC-whatever that comes with a *collectible* NFT on some no name blockchain. I think we have years of that before anything truly neat emerges in a decentralized fashion. I'm extremely curious what next OPCraft-inspired/MUD game will emerge after Ethereum gets its scaling upgrade later this year. Decentralized tech isn't ready/capable yet, maybe in 2-10 years this entire concept will make more sense, but I don't think it's a moot concept. I also think it's more likely something neat will come from the modder/indie gaming devs than a big studio known for blatant cashgrabs. Not sure what Ubisoft has done here. I still think it's worth checking out what they've done, who knows..

koelebobes

**Reddit Collectible Avatar DLC** Coming soon!

Giga79

Gaming is an industry, that is what their goals are just like any industry. I'm not sure that's a bad thing yet. OPCraft was a proof of concept on Optimism. It ran as an Ethereum-L3 but which replaced the EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) with the game engine for Minecraft. That way the same map and game physics, save files, and every other thing to do was on-chain (provably the same for each player, and immutable). The idea behind OPCraft's concept was to enable players to build custom clients for the game, the way there are ~10 different/unique clients for running a node on Ethereum all working on the same protocol. So one player could be playing what appears to be DOOM online with another player who's playing a Minecraft client. The concept was also to show the scaling capabilities of L3 blockchains, and how they're not confined to *another* EVM. This game came out a long time before ETH will undergo it's next (final?) scaling upgrade Q3 this year, so I expect to see a lot more of this type of thing emerge. The way this would trend, I imagine, is a developer builds a rock solid foundation to build off of (like Unity), and other developers or gamers come and build on top of that - accruing value to the original developer's foundation. Whether it be DLC dragon skins or whole modded game clients which revamp the entire game. Anti-cheat software is SO intrusive, but by putting anti-cheat on-chain it can be abstracted away and that work leased to Ethereum validators instead. Sort of how Roblox evolved into a $2B/annual revenue company just from enabling open development within their environment. 99% of the things they generate income from comes solely from volunteers and modders doing all the work - similiar to how Reddit or the Fediverse's value is derived. A group of people may spend 1000+ days building a more functional client for *your* game just so they can play it the way they want to (like 3rd party apps on Reddit), and this will derive value to your game just the same as had you paid them for their work directly. If a company is able to enable open development in a safe space, then add a marketplace with a commission in a safe space, their work is done.. Will people buy more DLC under that scheme? Probably, but it might be really good DLC that wouldn't otherwise exist so what's the harm?

SimbaTheWeasel

But is there anyone in the gaming industry working on something like this? Majority of the gaming industry is focused on money through either making their game addictive or selling DLC

The_Dude_2U

If it talks. I intuitively don’t trust it. But I think you are right. They’ll make it a video game with DLC or something

Odysseus_Lannister

Isn’t it most likely to be an in game/fake crypto? It’s not like they’re gonna use BTC/ETH in game for purchases/DLC/etc.

ProjectZeus

There are thousands of things I'd rather spend $248 on. The house DLC on Skyrim was only $5...

Busy-Development9246

Looks like we're playing a game of 'Slap on the Wrist Simulator'—just wait for the DLC pack featuring Gensler's puppet dance moves!

Kappatalizable

I dont know, its some rando DLC I bought last summer sale

SkuniMasterMind

this time - DLC international - spaning from 'MURICA to South Korea! International maafakaas

rootpl

The DLC Jail Pack is coming in hot soon.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; At 10101, they are extending the Lightning network to support DLCs, allowing Bitcoiners to trade from their channels. The article provides a recap on Lightning and DLCs, and delves into the transaction structure associated with regular Lightning channels. The article also explains how Discreet Log Contracts (DLCs) work and how they are used in the context of Lightning. The article concludes by teasing the first approach they tried to bring DLCs to Lightning using a Custom DLC Output on the commitment transaction. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*

KAX1107

You should read up on an introduction to [DLCs](https://github.com/discreetlogcontracts/dlcspecs/blob/master/Introduction.md) first. They're "invisible" contracts on bitcoin. Atomic Finance uses DLCs to settle call and put options on chain. How it works is explained [here](https://atomic.finance/blog/). There are several DLC applications being built including [stablesats](https://stablesats.com/), which can be both custodial (as with Galoy) and non-custodial using DLCs (as with Mutiny and 10101).

cashpig000

Maybe TA analysts need to download the lasted DLC that accounts the "outside interference events".

Giga79

>You realize in order for people to use and adopt crypto, someone has to show ways in which they can use it? You were given links, and told what the links are for. You responded by saying those utilities are glorified and the person guiding you to them is shilling.. >So far, there are no uses for regular people. And a smart contract being theoretically better on one chain than another means nothing if there are no real uses for them. And no one is interested in sharing any uses which is ironic I'm a regular person...? I use ETH every day. I told you, if you're not interested in finance then financial utilities aren't going to appeal to you. It's too bad *regular people* are not interested in their own finances. I'm not sure what exactly you expect from a currency. >And again, anytime someone tries to share a use, all it is is a glorified transfer of crypto. No real world uses You keep using the word glorified but being able to send value trustlessly without a third party is a massive and recent innovation. *I* was able to donate directly to Ukraine's aid more efficiently (by nearly a month) and effectively (with no middleman fees) than the UN was able to. Do you think the people on the front lines who had body armour a month before their peers thought crypto was *glorified*? My government, and many others, use Ethereum as a way for people to authenticate their data trustlessly. You can purchase web domains, use them as public wallet addresses, which can be tied to your IPFS to display your decentralized websites. Many AI's (such as Meta's Oasis) use blockchains as a way to prove they're compliant with data laws. Spotify is testing token-enabled playlists which will give people a *direct* way to fund their favourite artists, and as a way to share royalties with fans. Reddit is selling collectible avatars on Ethereum with a very generous % going directly to the artist *each time* the NFT is sold or resold. The Lens protocol is a decentralized Twitter-like *social graph* resistant to censorship. Advertisers pay for ad-space on the Brave browser using BAT tokens, which are redistributed to the users viewing the ads. Starbucks used NFTs to offer customer-rewards instead of app discounts to reduce costs. Crypto is used for international employees frequently, especially in temp or "gig" jobs, as crypto offers is the least friction and least cost for Intl value transfers. DAOs are also a massive innovation. Quite recently a bunch of people banded together and almost bought one of the few real copies of the US Constitution, something not possible without all of these tools - whether you perceive that as a valid use case or not is subjective. OPCraft was a functional fork of Optimism without the Ethereum Virtual Machine - instead it had the Minecraft game engine put in its place, as a proof of concept. Everything from character locations, the blocks, the game physics, down to the location of the clouds in the sky were all on-chain. This would enable people to build different clients that interact with the OPCraft protocol, one person could be in Minecraft and another is in DOOM playing the same online game side by side - and by putting save files (or additional assets like DLC) on-chain they can't be tampered with or faked *by anyone* (even the game admins). VISA is upgrading their network to run on crypto rails, stating it will reduce their (and our) costs making them more competetive. The whole purpose behind crypto is to eliminate middlemen to reduce fees and increase trust. Can you think of any use case where these properties would benefit you? Finance is only the most obvious. I can think of a hundred cases which apply to me even in my day to day.. Crypto isn't for everybody, most people are fine to pay and trust middlemen and that's just fine. If people don't want to use crypto that doesn't affect me as someone who does use crypto. The less adoption there is the fewer people come in thinking crypto is something it's not (then getting mad and calling for their governments help to prevent themselves from buying any more), and the less congestion there is in the networks makes them cheaper to actually *use*. Everything is glorified from the outside.

adamdmn

EA involved in crypto? I guess you have to pay DLC to get the other half of your seed phrase

ThatOtherGuy254

Companies will try to make money wherever they can. I can imagine selling NFTs as DLC for EA Games as a way to squeeze more money out of people.

GroovyIntruder

Part of the DLC update.

InsaneMcFries

Is it just a matter of time? I hope so personally. At least give us resellable DLC or games if the corporate overlords can put aside their greed… don’t know if that will ever happen.

PenaltyFickle5699

mine didn't get that DLC.

Zerox10

The mainstream “gaming crowd” seem to hate NFTs and see them cash grabs and a negative thing almost like the backlash over full priced games having DLC and skins back in the day (horse armour anyone?). In theory they should empower gamers to be able to have opportunity to resell skins and even earn some cash for gaming - but can you really trust these big companies to implement them to be beneficial to gamers and not themselves is the big question.

podfather2000

I don't think you can complain about gambling education when you are in a casino. But I agree just give me the full game and some DLC for a reasonable price over pay to win games.

InsaneMcFries

Corporate greed is probably not gonna allow this. But how about you take those one time fees and allow reselling the game and/or DLC when you’re done just like the old days? That’s what I want to see in the industry, but it might be too optimistic

cryptdoh6

I’ve said it multiple times, and I’ll keep saying it. I rather pay $60-$70 for a game upfront and then be able to play it as much as I want. Even DLC is a one-time and then you own the content. All this in-app purchasing and now crypto gaming feeds on gambling addiction…….

cryptdoh6

I rather pay $60-$70 for a game up front and be able to play it as much as I want. Even DLC is a one-time fee and then you own it. In-app purchases and now crypto gaming, is just manipulating people with gambling addictions. Now if you could somehow EARN money without having to spend it, that’d be kind of cool, but I’m not sure how that could work…… Yes, I know streaming is a thing, I am saying I don’t know how earning money directly from playing games would work. Like what would give that value? Would playing somehow power the blockchain or mine crypto? Is that even at least theoretically possible???