Good argument, but with Open XR that just isn't going to be the case, everyone need to start thinking of it as any other video game system. There is literally no difference. It's just another game, that's why this shit isn't going to work, realistically many different people could win Epic or Unity will... see what you need is a preexisting Library of objects and environments, think how much "stuff" is already developed for the unreal engine, Ubisoft, Zenimaxx or EA has a real shot, Assassins creed has possibly the best shot, they have what many don't. Detailed mapping of all kinds of cities and strutures, shit they are using ubisofts scans of Norte Dame to rebuild it right now. The hardware will all be cloud based, no reason for anything other than a visor, I thought for sure the series x was going to power a wireless visor, all the power none of the processing. Light easy, just another control attached to another display. There are many way to do this.
Yeah I’d rather trustworthy company’s like EA and Ubisoft owned my stuff rather than me. I get the whole image NFT stuff is a crazy bubble, though some have actual utility and arnt just a picture. Though even then, the prices don’t reflect the value, at least for me. But I don’t understand the backlash especially in the gaming community unless it’s a reaction due to bias from the effect of crypto on gpu prices. I would have killed to have been earning something with real world value back in my Warcraft days.
Honestly a NFT activation Blockchain for games would be nice. I've bought games in the past (most of them being EA games) where I found out they were unplayable because the activation servers weren't up anymore. A game could just look towards the Blockchain and use that as an activation server.
Yo're excited for games to be developed around forcing you to grind for nfts, fear of missing out on nft drops, and fees paid to devs for trading them? Sounds like you're the perfect consumer for publishers like Ubisoft, Blizzard, and EA.
P2W games are basically everywhere now. Look at EA for example, you need to pay $50-60+ for a base game and more to unlock features to actually get the full experience. Most online PVP games have some form of P2W where the best equipment/characters are only accessible with more money. I think this will continue with crypto games as it’s been shown to not really halt player involvement.
https://nitter.net/BlindHag/status/1471948943802130438?t=tjoIst3dpdZbhFO--1A5EA&s=19 Here is the link to that Twitter thread on Nitter. Nitter is better for privacy and does not nag you for a login. More information can be found here: https://nitter.net/about *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s weird. Went on a pc forum I’ve not been on in ages and the kick back on gaming nfts is strange. I understand the whole issue of crypto effecting gpu prices, but nfts etc…why would you not want to own your stuff and instead have them owned by Ubisoft,EA etc. I don’t get it. I’d have killed to have earned something I could keep or spend for real goods back in my World of Warcraft days.
Gamers dont want pay to win. NFTs are so much more than that but most of them see gaming NFTs as a way for big gaming companies to steal more money from them. It's honest fear. There are plenty of shitty game makers out there. Imagine what EA will do with NFTs...
I agree but I think it's at its infancy. EA sports said blockchain gaming is the future at their conference this year. I think when bigger players get involved and more time in general will allow everything to develop more. I think blockchain games will be mainstream built into PlayStation and Xbox in the future. Play to earn will be the norm but yes right now the games are not impressive
I think things like this would help engagement. Even if they're simple decisions like blue or teal, when people feel they have a choice they identify more with the product. I think something like a membership would be cool. Like if you beat our game you're in, if you've beaten all five you have access to discounts/sponsorships, early access, or some weight in the direction of the franchise. I wish it were as simple as pestering companies to implement things gamers wanted. Everything is so formulated now and nobody wants to risk breaking from it because studios invest millions into each game. I think we'll see new companies emerge in the next few years that take chances that pay off, whoever can do it first will become the next EA or Blizzard.
I think NFTs are the future and should be embraced, but I am wary of big corporations controlling and producing those NFTs. To speak on the gamer community behalf, trends with AAA game developers over the last decade have leaned further into greed and farther away from quality. The push against NFTs in gaming isn't necessarily about the collectible gamers could own, it's the potential for studios to lock even more content away from the consumer. Without regulation over how the NFTs should be handled, studios like EA can lock athletes/characters with stats behind an NFT marketplace at whatever price they set. That marketplace is then moot when they release next year's 2K or star wars game and you need all new NFTs to play it. These are all things already happening without NFT technology. Not to mention how this could affect the modding community when Rockstar or Bethesda decide you need authorization to use certain assets.
Yeah. People say this but it's like that for any game. In its annual report for 2020, EA confirmed that Ultimate Team made more than $1.62bn. Fortnite made over $9 billion in 2018. Bungie has earned nearly $3.3 Million (Revenue) in 2 Months from 10 Eververse items. Meanwhile, The Witcher 3 has made 521 million PLN ($124.7 million). People will buy digital assets for uniqueness/looks/competition. It's a lie to say gamers don't like it. If they did they wouldn't pay for it.
It's almost essentially how the industry works now, even tho if a friend came over they could play my games, they'd likely never play my digital games otherwise. So most predatory things will get over looked during the "industry creation" and that will just be, "how it's always worked" Take the xbox one launch, dmr debacle, over 10 years later... dmr is almost exactly how they said it was going to be, and my xbox is almost useless if it's offline. For example, how long have people been complaining about EA, yet they're still here operating the money printer.
Ok great, so you are on the inside of this situation, so the way I would put it to you is like this - what if your colleagues began leaving, and when you found out why they were leaving, it was because they were getting offered higher paying positions in DAOs that were producing games? Would you stay with your company out of loyalty? Or would you eventually consider leaving, for better pay. DAOs can take care of the 70% you are talking about that you would not like to worry about, by providing positions for those people as well. This is hard to convey to someone such as yourself who is invested in the current system, but we are witnessing a complete change of how we organise ourselves and our economies. By eliminating the executives and large stakeholders, DAOs become more efficient at delivering the products that the consumers want - they will therefore out compete the Blizzard's and EA's of the world. It's something like thermodynamics - you can't get out of a system what you didn't put in, so how will Blizzard create more value for it's consumers than a DAO can, when they are directing much of the value they receive to executive pay and to large shareholder interest, when DAOs direct all the value to the creators (and support positions) and the products? My argument is that this greater efficiency will create a game theory situation where Blizzard and similar companies will face a decision to adapt or go extinct. And frankly, even if they choose to adapt, they will eventually go extinct. The time scale I'm talking about here is perhaps 10-20 years though, I'm not suggesting your industry will change tomorrow.
I know you’re all for it, and think it’s funny, but rich people who have no clue about football and are jumping into clubs that are over 100 years old to make a quick buck are no laughing matter. There will be an uproar from the working class local. You’re clearly not into sports, but let’s say it was gaming. Imagine EA took over your favourite indie game, and changed everything to ‘pay to win’ and loot boxes. I would __love__ to see uproar about that.
No one likes to catch a falling knife. If you applied the same logic and bought LTC 3, 2, or 1 year ago - you would’ve gotten your ass handed to you. I’m not selling my google and Amazon for EA or activision stock either. I’ll wait to see if LTC puts in a sustainable rally against ETH and BTC. Until I see a trend reversal, I’m out.
🔥PinkSale listing is LIVE🔥 OFFICIAL PINKSALE LINK: https://www.pinksale.finance/#/launchpad/0x01A52900E1C788c67C2e35Aa46e0EA6D0Bdb30c0?chain=BSC Don't miss your chance to buy $FATCAT for a 10% lower price than on PancakeSwap listing!🤑 Jump on the $FATCAT rocket to the moon 🌕 🐽PinkSale ✅Fat Cat ✅*$FATCAT* ✅0.1 BNB min buy ✅2 BNB max buy ✅15 BNB Soft Cap ✅30 BNB Hard Cap ✅Total supply : 1,000,000,000,000,000 $FATCAT PancakeSwap launch is scheduled as soon as the PinkSale finalizes!🥞 T.me/realfatcattoken
EA and other companies have been pushing micro transactions for a long time - gamers hate micro transactions like 20$ random loot packs, gambling for kids, exploiting gambling addiction etc NFTs are just being introduced to non crypto people as micro transactions for jpegs
Gaming is just the current big thing, next year it'll be something else and people will flock to that. I agree that the games now are probably not going to be worth much besides a few exceptions, but it's still a new technology so it needs time to grow. Before you know it, we'll have something a la ready player one and we'll be fighting evil EA inside of it.
I completely disagree and it's 100% going to happen. We're talking about a trillion dollar market that hasn't even taken off yet. I've paid for EA's ridiculous prices for gun skins/ legend skins and they are of no value to me other than cosmetic. If I could trade these skins with friends/other players, that would add value. If I could transfer a gun skin to a racing game and have it be a car skin, that would add value. I think you're current perspective is narrow because it's based on your experience with current blockchain gaming, which is shit. In the not so distant future it will benefit the player and the developer.
I disagree. There will be trash and failures but through the ashes there will be some games that do it right and it could be amazing. It will increase the number of shitty games sure, but we already headed that way anyways with microtransactions. When companies like EA try to do NFTs too it will just push them quicker into failure ls than before. They will farm the wales but more and more people will recognize the shitty games and move towards the better ones. There will be diamonds in the rough and the potential is Huge. This is obviously the optimistic possibility but i don’t want innovation to be shut down because of fear of big companies exploiting when they already are anyways. Again just my very optimistic opinion but i think the potential of blockchain technology in gaming is immense. But we will get very shitty uses on the way to greatness. (Hopefully)
Oh yeah right because if the last years of gaming has shown anything is that big studios don't care about money and make sure to finish their products and sell them at a fair price. No thanks, at least when EA adds loot boxes to games now, you can sell what's in them. Don't see how that's a bad thing. Look at the Steam Community Market. It worked super well for Dota and CS.
Here is what I have learned over the years. Between EA and Activision, we will learn how NFT and Crypto and Gaming combined can be bad. Sure, it could be great for gamers and industry if done right and we can all think of how it could be equitable and genre changing. But it won't, because EA and Activision will show us just how bad it can be when done wrongly and they wreck yet another AAA. The best we can hope is some Indie comes along, does it right, and does not get purchased / sued / manipulated by EA or Activision.
I'd say the amount of GOOD games did not substanitally change (maybe even slightly increased) over the last 20 Years. The sheer amount of mediocre and shitty games just skyrocketed. If I don't like the way Publisher earning money with there games, I won't be a customer for long. EA or Activision? haven't bougth there for years. IMO the most negative impact on gaming had mobilegames. Bringing addictive, predatory games directly into the hands of everybody, no matter how vulnerable those are to these tactics, really hurt many people and the reputation of the industry.
Wouldn't you like to sell your collection in games you don't want to play anymore? Gaming is not the same today as it was just 5-10 years ago. Games don't get sequels, they get updates. Hearthstone players are collecting thousands of cards only to get them thrown away once they finish playing the game. Wouldn't it be better if you could sell all of that to new players that don't want to bring but want to play right away? There is room for a healthy economy here and no need to pass on it because game companies are the only ones profiting right now. Yea, EA, Blizzard, and the rest of them will try to cash in on this fad but good ideas will withstand the test of time, and expecting your players isn't a very evergreen idea, at least for me.
I'm hoping that NFTs disrupt gaming in a big way. Fuck the loot boxes, monetization and exploitative nature of the gaming publishers. EA, Activision especially. At least if we had decentralized ownership of the items, skins, virtual real estate that we spent hard earned time and money on, we'd be able to reap some benefit from it, rather than just the gaming publishers.
Itll just turn into the EA model of buying in game items. All the ideas you're speaking about work with smart contracts and block chain tech. They dont require nfts at all. The large majority of people arent anywhere near understanding the concepts you're talking about. They are good ideas though. However gaming companies will always want to try and keep the GAAS model. Jesus even toyota just went and did it with remote start keyfobs. Theres gonna be a lot of fuckery and greed on all sides for quite some time.
Yea Cardano would be a much better investment if it was actually valued much lower It just doesn’t make sense when other crypto’s, like Polygon or Algorand, are already scaling dApps and are much, much further along. Saying Cardano should be worth what it is is like saying a startup videogame company might as well have EA’s market cap.
I totally agree with you. We've already seen Ubisoft integrating NFT, soon others like Tencent, EA will follow. I currently enjoy fantasy football league on Sorare and I'm excited about Rario launching their cricket fantasy league soon.
Why would EA et al. go through all of the trouble doing that (except hype from idiots) when they are pushing their centralized RMT cash shops already that earn them billions without extra def effort **for no additional benefit to them**? You see how gamers dunk on Ubi's attempt.
I'm still not convinced. NFTs are just monetised assets. Decentralized monetised assets. Gaming is mostly a centralised service. Blizzard runs Warcraft servers, Epic runs Fortnite, EA runs FIFA, etc. Those companies can already (and do) run monetetised assets managed centrally. The only reason for NFTs to enter the space is if either the game is decentralised, or the centralised game wants access to decentralised assets. Decentralised games (so far) are very much in their infancy. The work required to produce a AAA game is huge. Thousands of staff, many man-years of effort. It's possible that something like that could emerge organically for a decentralized game, but we are a long way off. And for Centralised games using decentralised assets - what is the appeal for them? Unless they are the ones minting and selling them, they miss out on the revenue. And if they are minting the decentralised asset, why would another centralised game want to make use of it?
Just wait until EA does something similar with Ultimate Team where wales spend thousands of dollars to try and get Ronaldo and get some Dutch striker from the Portuguese league instead. Gamers can hate it but they’re not the ones spending moneys on MTX’s anyway so devs don’t care
The good thing though is that indie developers could collaborate in ways that add value to all of their games. Don't focus so much on the negative. The concept of using NFTs in games shouldn't be discredited just because EA / Activision are trying to get in on it. That's like saying ALL games suck just because a couple publishers do.
I don't know about the future value. I was simply saying it's better than microtransactions to a company like EA, because you were wondering if you were missing something. Well, that is currently the appeal for some folks, a potentially appreciable asset. I agree with you though, I don't think it's going to be worth much, but I think other people do, thus the current appeal of the space.
I think NFT minting of DLC and games is a bit far, but cosmetic accessories (skins, novelty stuff) it would have value. Having the option to sell a skin for money (CSGO) when one you like more comes along, is not a bad thing. I'm suprised the Steam market place (for ingame items etc) isnt running off of a blockchain. I dont think their market place would change much to the user, but the backend would. Steam could do this and even release a Steam Coin. Imagine getting 2% (or whatever) back from every store purchase and then using these coins on the market for skins or whatever they had as an option. I agree about NFT for the issue of digital games. It essentially brings digital gaming to the same level as owning physical and I imagine it would inflate the costs of games because the developers lose front end sales because people are buying used digital games. NFT/Blockchain will have a place in most digital media (as first point or even a kind of DRM), but we'll have to face through the challenges of EA and Ubisoft trying to charge you 1BTC just to reload your gun in an online shooter.
Exactly! That’s why microtransactions have completely decimated the gaming industry and why EA is hemorrhaging revenue. I just feel bad for the devs and more importantly the executives of the publishers for games like Fortnight who alienated their player base by offering their base game for free and then preying on children to spend their parents money on new skins, weapons, maps, etc. they just never gained any traction /s …un-fucking-fortunately
Ummm, the value of the game comes back into the hands of the players through governance token. Instead of it all going back into big companies like EA which make huge profits. And through ownership of tokens can ideally have votes and a say in what happens in the game etc. Instead of getting shafted by big companies. So how is that a bad thing
I think this is cynical. blockchain based gaming is not only about gaming rewards. I think the hook for this tech is that u can create a unique gaming profile, that works across a plethora of games. think u could use the same avatar for CoD, Fortnite, etc... also imagine a world where EA can no longer rinse us with their shitty year on year remakes and their crazy pay to play. blockchain gaming is a very real thing and its coming. gaming already a billion dollar industry. Big things are coming
Major public companies like Activision and EA will almost certainly leverage blockchain in a way that could be construed as predatory towards consumers. That's corporate America at work and should surprise no one. That doesn't need to be the whole story though. We could apply defi principles to game development, essentially open sourcing and crowd funding both single player and online games. There could be skin ecosystems where you could pay for an NFT that works in all Unreal engine games (EA et al could likely mess with this) so that you can put the same costume on Aloy, Eivor, and Lara Croft while the money goes to the creator of said skin. I'll leave it there, but I'm essentially trying to say that gaming doesn't start and end with the AAA companies. If done properly, blockchain can threaten their model in the same way defi is starting to threaten the old guard of banking.
VR chat, a much more polished experience, is only valued at about 1bil. Decentraland, a project with not even 1000 active users at a times and very basic, is x9 in valuation. Wait until big greedy name like EA and Activision start getting their hand on this, read: require thousand dollar NFT to play a game. I fear of that future happening