MTX

KalSereousz

Hey man I’m not a Solutions Architect so don’t ask me to design a fully featured blockchain gaming solution. If you want to store assets on IPFS servers and point to blockchain records then that might be a better way IDK. I don’t believe I am missing the point. I already stated that there are multiple use cases blockchain provides. The biggest one being that it allows players to own their in-game assets. After that you can imagine whatever scenario you want. IMO blockchain gaming will be an improvement on the current MTX model and I believe the shift is inevitable.

CorporateKneelers

Yah I wanna see their alcohol, DoorDash, streaming, and videogame MTX spending receipts

Pixcade

>Because Steam doesn't take tax on in-game MTX's. That's uh, not how it works. 🤣

Pixcade

>Because Steam doesn't take tax on in-game MTX's I don't know where you heard that but it's not true. >Where as Apple is forcing apps to process payments for in-app purchases through them to claim the 30% tax You are not allowed to use anything but Steam for IAPs for games on Steam. And Steam still also has a soft monopoly of a kind on PC gaming due to gamer library lockin. Steam also needs to lower all takes to 5%. That's closer to what's actually fair for what they provide vs their position as the monopolistic PC game distributor. And if they refuse to on their own some lawyer will eventually sue them and in court force them to pay back to devs the excess % they took just like Apple and Google are going to be forced to do.

drunk_pacifist

I’m really into crypto for at least 3 years, but seriously we don’t need more bloat with MTX + Battle passes + Blockchain on games, we don’t want games as a type of investment, if this happens, the game itself won’t have more meaning than grind to make money

everfurry

I’ve been thinking the same thing. Only took a few game design classes in uni but here are my ideas: - Character creation. Allow the selling and trading of accounts on the forums, as items, with certain restrictions (skill-based achievements don’t transfer, like time trials and hi-scores or whatnot) - Governance. Similar to OSRS where devs poll the players on game updates and this sub when we vote. - Simply allowing the players to pay for a game’s MTX in cryptocurrency wouldn’t hurt them or us. Just have it swap the coins into whatever currency instantly. - Could randomize events or procedurally generate environments in matches or instances based off current blockchain activity. - As you said, NFT skins. But do this in the background though without players noticing (they shouldn’t have to even go to OpenSea if they don’t want to). How some of these would be done you might ask? I’m not sure, but figuring out is on my to-do list

gingerthingy

About time. What a skid mark on the entire industry. He literally thought “gamers, the most skeptical and already MTX frustrated will be my target audience for a game with graphics that are 15 years behind and use cases that only fit a covid restricted environment.” This is why you listen to people close to you when EVERYONE tells you to stop.

weallwinoneday

Next they will say to judge: Sam is our boy let him go. He wont do it again. Few days later MTX new super cool exchange will popup.

InsaneMcFries

The most basic premise I’d like to see, is the ability to resell games or ingame items to others in IRL cash. Devs can tuck on a % fee, idk, idc. Something’s gotta shake up the industry that isn’t just more MTX moneysink

God_of_Pride

People will decry NFT's that can be traded from 1 player to another but will then go and buy lootboxes or other generalized MTX from the developers. kekw.

Retrohanska59

Nah, at this point gamers are so hyperfixated on the concept that they would call everything even remotely relatable NFTs even if there was actual difference. That has already happened with plenty of other buzzwords. For example every RNG reward is now lootbox and every reward track system is battle pass even if everything else pointed to contrary. To me to more logical outcome is that eventually plenty of gamers start calling even pre-blockchain era cosmetic MTX NFTs without hint of irony.

matrixus

It will MTX this time totally different and trustablr /s

Fragmented_Logik

People can kick and scream against NFTs but people like customization for their characters. Outside of Gatcha Games cosmetics are the most profitable MTX money makers. Could this have been done with just the Reddit app? Probably? But I love knowing how secure my NFTs are and I am a whole lot more comfortable with bridging/opensea now.

tezzergod

It’s the organic evolution of in-game MTX’s. I don’t get it. In 2013 I spent $10 on fifa points and I still get angry about it.

CornCheeseMafia

Currently crypto games are literally just MTX: The Video Game

GeneralRectum

Idk, MOBAs and card games are funded by MTX and they can be pretty good.

Fragmented_Logik

MTX in games this far and Steams market place have proven it true so far. I'll happily pay 10$ for a gun skin to be able to access whenever/wherever.

SnooTangerines4321

I agree, I wish all my old video game MTX were NFT so I could sell or trade them easier when I'm done with a game

SpandexPanFried

All hilarious fantasy nonsense. Sure, please let us all know how NFT ticketing is better than the current system. NFTs are not involved in video streaming. No gamers want NFTs in games - plenty of evidence in r/gaming every time an NFT thread appears. You are being disingenuous with the claim that people don't want to see their MTX again. It's the same as saying you don't want to see your groceries again after you eat them. You have already derived whatever value there is to derive from a cod skin when you use it in game. As soon as the next cod comes out, all the old skins are worthless. Making an NFT will not allow you to sell it to anyone else as this would require all game devs to come together and design a universal standard for coding and put every game in existence on the same blockchain, which is never going to happen. The hate boner is the same as for MLMs or ponzis. We are not poopooing magical new tech. We are deriding a proven scam with no useful applications. See the GME nft market launch? Everyone said it would be full of useful stuff and not just crappy jpegs - suddenly the goalposts are moved and this is just a beta, the stock market, Disney, pokemon, they're all coming later. It's so sad how deluded you are.

Fragmented_Logik

You could say the same about a lot of things in life. I have NFTs that were tickets. Went to a playoff game last year. A paper ticket would have been the same. But I like the NFT better. You could drive to rent a movie vs downloading it off Prime. I play some games that use NFTs. I can't wait for call of duty skins and stuff to be on them. Some people just never want to see their MTX again after they out down a game. I'd love a Ripper NFT skin if there was one for nostalgia alone. The hate boner for NFTs is funny. Like why get upset because someone else likes it? Is a highlight a use case? Probably not to you but others enjoy it. The arguments always the same "If X wanted to they could!" or "click save!"

rockystellalight

> They don't make unlimited money when those battlepass items end for that season... No, but they make a fucking ridiculous amount from it and people don't want to buy skins in last year's Call of Duty when they're playing this year's one. > and no 99.9% of them don't depreciate. Yes, they do. Go on the Steam marketplace right now and you'll see the vast majority of CS:GO skins are way, way cheaper to buy off the market than they are to pull out of cases, which is exactly my point. People will spend £2 on a case and key and get a blue skin which is worth 3p on the market forever. That is the vast majority of skins because surprise surprise, the rarer something is, the more expensive it'll be but the less of them there are. The Dragon Lore is worth thousands of dollars but maybe 1 every other month is ever sold. > We also don't know because I'd happily pay a lot of money for some old destiny seasonal armors. Destiny, being a long-lived game is completely different from yearly titles like COD and FIFA. Almost no one wants to buy cards in a FIFA game from 2 years ago, it's completely pointless. > You're also leaving out a person's ability to recoup money. Even if at a loss I'd rather sell an item a year later I no longer what to help supplement a future purchase. Yes, but it isn't the people's decision for this thing to be implemented. It's the company's so their motivation is the only one that matters. > Perhaps you just like to forget about your MTX from previous games or something. Yes, literally. Why would I think about MTX from games which nobody plays anymore? > Idk. Seems like you're trying really hard to justify this being bad when it's mostly a good thing. It seems like you're trying really hard to justify this being the best thing for companies to do when it's mostly no benefit compared with the current systems in place.

Fragmented_Logik

They don't make unlimited money when those battlepass items end for that season... and no 99.9% of them don't depreciate. We also don't know because I'd happily pay a lot of money for some old destiny seasonal armors. You're also leaving out a person's ability to recoup money. Even if at a loss I'd rather sell an item a year later I no longer what to help supplement a future purchase. Perhaps you just like to forget about your MTX from previous games or something. Idk. Seems like you're trying really hard to justify this being bad when it's mostly a good thing.

Braveliltoasterx

I agree that the NFT games right now are worse than MTX but one game that's not is Guild of Guardians soon to be released on Gamestops Marketplace. I'm in the beta and you play for free and aquire NFT heros just by playing the game. You can then use Gamestops marketplace to sell them.

Giga79

I've read dozens of very long debates on how NFTs can improve UX. If you haven't stumbled onto it before you must not lurk here frequently. Think of them like access keys more than jpgs or whatever you think of them, that's 90% what they'll be used for. Something like receive an NFT for play that can be exchanged for an ingame skin that has a fixed price, sell the skin for 5 "game tokens" which can be exchanged for another skin or sold on the market. The same process we already have but with more control in the whole thing. Instead of the game handling the MTX market, they're collecting a revenue off each NFT sale plus ingame skin, then can let it run on its own for engagement purposes. Or something like music where you want to avoid paying iTunes a 75% cut to middle man your mp3's. You could set up a smart contract one time and let it run - which shoots out an NFT per $3 contract execution - that can be redeemed at your site (or used as a password) for the song file. The same with TV shows or anything else that producers take an extreme cut to display it digitally.

aure__entuluva

MUT and really FUT (the bigger product) doesn't really seem amenable to NFTs at the moment. Many people own the same version of the same card. I'm sure they'll just make changes to accommodate them if they think it will be more profitable though. Wonder what it will look like and how they would actually make it enticing. I used to play that stuff, but I don't know what they'll do and what plans they will have to try to make sure it doesn't eat into their MTX transactions. If anybody has any ideas as to how this would work I'm interested to hear.

_dekappatated

Gamers have been beyond hostile in the past at cosmetic MTXes. NFTs would actually be an upgrade for them as they could resell them. That's the real reason companies don't want to implement it. They want people to pay full price everytime for new skins instead. If they allowed them to sell them and take a cut on secondary sales that might make less. The right mainstream game could potentially make the change, something like fortnite, apex legends or a game MTX heavy if they think they can profit from it.

Mront

> If they can get some integration with main stream games for cosmetic MTX then maybe I'd care more. Why would any publisher agree to that, gamers are beyond hostile towards any NFT implementations.

UncleSlippyFist

I'm glad my typo didn't confuse my intention, I meant it's clearly *not* a good enough game. Mobile games are just the most prominent example of predatory monetization, but it could also be compared to AAA game over-monetization in EA sports games or the latest Halo multi-player. Gamers have seen the model of a subpar game that designs the game around drawing you in early on and then becoming a grind later on. And that's just current MTX, thats before we even get into how acquiring sellable items corrupts game design away from "fun". I mean I didn't have that fun with the game but I'm glad you did. >If the customer thinks this is like mobile games the customer has no idea what they're talking about. Well that's not their problem, it's a problem for whoever is trying to make money on their investment in the game. That's why I brought up that saying, actually, it's a fools errand to just blame customers for not getting it. You have to change/improve your product and/or change/improve your pitch. Gamers just want a fun game. When I hear your pitch, i hear a game that is such a grind you have to try and pay the players to play it.

UncleSlippyFist

Well it's an opinion shared by most gamers at this point, and this is the sense in which "the customer is always right" applies. I'm sure this could take hold as a way to profit off of the existing mobile gaming market, but MTX are still a sour note for gamers after over a decade of bullshit and they haven't been convinced (at best, holding their nose at games they like that contain MTX). You can try and tell people it's a really good game, but it's clearly a good enough game to make people ignore the predatory monetization.

bludgeonerV

I doubt that. AAA titles are infested with worthless money grabs already with traditional MTX, why would you expect that the industry would treat blockchain any differently? Besides, Ghost Recon already tried it and spectacularly failed.

LordTurson

Well, I've definitely spent a lot of money on microtransactions in games in the past, so it's not like I found the idea completely outrageous. I just don't believe that NFTs add any real value to that, and I don't accept the claim that content creators have their MTX they own and wear in game to thank for their popularity as streamers or YouTubers or TikTokers or what have you.

Elerion_

> The games just have to be able to recognize the nft, which requires no engine interoperability, and the nft can do whatever the devs can program into the game and doesn’t have to be a shared item. What’s the incentive for a developer to add in-game assets for an NFT sword skin instead of spending the same development time making and selling their own cool sword skin MTX? Outside of niche social club games whose main draw would be to showcase those NFTs to other NFT enthusiasts, I fail to see how developers are going to make returns on implementing existing NFT assets. It’s not like the lack of ability to use the Zelda Master Sword NFT is going to keep people away from Elder Scrolls 6.

Giga79

>if these (MTX) are already so successful, what is the incentive for a company to cannibalize that revenue stream by implementing a secondary market? > >If Epic sells you a skin, or you earn it in-game, why would they allow you to resell it, if they can do the next best thing which is to sell another copy? Because skins can be created by users (even of other games) while the developer rakes a higher commission for doing less. There's no cannibalzation going on as there are multiple layers to markets, mtx aren't going away. Think of it like Reddit Moon's. You earn a currency to 'play' that you can redeem for a Moon Membership yet people still buy Gold and Memberships using cash because they don't want to post so many times per redemption, whereas lots of people can't or won't pay 'real money' that have access now. Engagement is up. >It’s definitely not something I am counting on to evaluate my LRC investment. Would you mind telling me how you evaluate LRC if not as a rollup foremost? That's basically all it does anyway. The largest benefit LRC has over other ZKrollups is that it's protocol is (a lot more) plug and play from the developer end (DEX, APIs, simple game economies, etc.) leading up to companies like Gamestop using it, otherwise maybe a company like Axie would use it instead. What is your proposition?

fanhorcas

More great points. Thanks. > Gamers are not in love with the idea of microtransactions, or paid DLC, or publisher accounts, but each are prevelant anyway because they bring big numbers. For gamer the problem isnt MTX or DLC. The problem is greed. And yes, a few people buy them and it’s a huge market, just look at Fortnite. But here is my question: if these are already so successful, what is the incentive for a company to cannibalize that revenue stream by implementing a secondary market? If Epic sells you a skin, or you earn it in-game, why would they allow you to resell it, if they can do the next best thing which is to sell another copy? > But gamers are outraged at everything anyway, their opinion is moot (see microtransaction revenues). I agree that the size of the MTX market is relevant. So why change it? What will NFTs do that improve the bottom line for these companies? The whole point of digital licenses was so they could neuter physical copy reselling while providing utility to users. NFTs would invert that scenario. > Engagement. GTA is a great example since they have an app for your phone you can manage your business with. People play how many hours until they get bored then turn it off, go on their phone and start playing again. The more time invested a player is the more financially invested they are too. This is a good point since I’ve experienced this with Forza where you can earn in-game currency by selling car designs on a auction-like system. The question is, if this is abou me getting real money for those designs, then how will the Forza developers earn from it? Certainly this could easily be done just by using standard FIAT. > You’ll probably only be able to resell your game license back to Gamestop for the like $2 they offer for used games. I just can’t imagine Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo literally handing the keys to their digital kingdom to Gamestop. There is absolutely no reason why they would give GME that amount of power. Since the rest of your comments are predicated on this, I won’t comment any further. As far as I can tell, NFTs don’t solve any particular problem for gaming companies and marketplaces. They may actually create more issues than it’s worth. It’s definitely not something I am counting on to evaluate my LRC investment.

HurtsFlyerin21

If you’re F2P in a P2E game, does that imply other players can be P2W? Like you spent months gaining $150 worth of cards and coins. Can an experienced card player just spend $150 and build insane top rank decks? Hearthstone at least had arena mode where deck building was random and good free to play players could generate “infinite” paid resources if they averaged about 5-7 wins per arena run. Any game with P2W mechanics won’t go far. The poor players realize they are fodder for whales. These games never last. The poor players leave and whales have nobody to crush so they stop spending. MTX on works with cosmetics.

KegelsForYourHealth

Dude, this is every Web3 startup. It's why VCs are tripping over their dicks to fund Web3 projects. They're all going to aggressively extract money in far more nefarious and obfuscated ways. Say what you will about MTX and loot boxes, but they are in the open.

Radulno

Zuck bucks is an internal name, not the real one. Also, it's not a cryptocurrency but just a system of in-platform currency. Like so many things have (Roblox and any games with MTX for example). Please read the article before commenting on something just because you don't like FB/Zuckerberg

Walternotwalter

If you look Gran Turismo 7 is definitely positioned to be a sort of car collector metaverse. Or was designed that way. $70 purchase price then the need to buy credits for insanely expensive cars as a sort of MTX treadmill. The reality is that Sony/Polyphony's greed has absolutely clobbered the player base, as reflected by reviews. The metaverse should simply be called the micro transaction verse imo, and only functions on the vanity of the participants in lieu of tangible benefit. Until you can build a fucking functional holodeck you have to be pretty damned dumb to get sucked into bullshit hype like this.

HurtsFlyerin21

The game needs to be successful and fun on its own even without NFTs or blockchain. The gaming industry was chasing the “MTX whales” for 10-15 years from the birth of Candy Crush. For every Fortnite, there was 100s of failures. Gamers got free “live service” games with the pitfalls of slot machines being in every lobby. World of Warcraft or other MMOs seem to make sense with virtual economies. But it can’t be as simple as real life trading, or gold for cash exchanges. Players soon realize their “working hours” playing is garbage (like $0.50/hour or less) and just spend cash to get ahead. For maybe $100 you can be 1 week ahead of the pack. Diablo 3 was a massive failure with real money auction houses. The best item you found in 100 hours was worth $2.75. So the game needs to just be fucking good without the outside noise. If MtX or crypto makes sense, then it should be utilized. The objective of making great games seems to sometimes be lost on the industry. They’re just smashing as many addictive and cash stream elements as possible and lose sight of what truly keeps gamers playing; an actual great game.

sportspadawan13

I hate MTX. I know they are very similar in their goals but my *hope* is that NFTs allow more freedom for individual artists that want to sell unique characters or skins. Something tells me that won't happen but I really hope so.

KilzzoneXD

I think a gaming metaverse could be cool if it was like AAA quality and not a cluster fuck of MTX Atm it definitely will not be AAA quality but bet your ass its a load of MTX

walter_midnight

Crypto is only a shitshow if you focus on the same old boring, scammy stuff. It's like saying gaming is a shitshow because, well, "gamers" being a meme themselves. Or MTX. Or any of the heinous shit going on in too many companies, starting with basically exploiting workers and ending with sexual abuse and more. Still flourishing, still better than it ever was in many ways - and so is crypto. Just because two sets of people entirely miss the point of the other side ("NFTs can only be a 'receipt' for some kind of container" vs. "NFTs are only used for scams") doesn't mean the underlying tech - in any scope - needs to be shot or anywhere close to a shitshow. I mean, it is, any moving thing is. Storage media improving over the years is 100 % a shitshow by that measure... but not more so than anything else. Granted, crypto combines two super volatile aspects together into one crack-addled tech package increasingly appealing to normal folks, but it still is the tip of the iceberg. What's really wild is how hard many people are working on everything vaguely related to this.

Agent0fChaos

Oh hell yeah just in case bro. I put my MTX/Game money for a month into it. Not alot but $100 is $100 as they say. Mean while its 40hrs a week and starting a side hustle soon. Fun time to be alive.

nightfend

I guess keep the faith. But I work in the game sector and the only reason anyone is pushing NFTs in games currently is so they can 1.)say they are using the latest buzzword technology and 2.)so they can find another way to charge players for MTX in their games.

Iulian_TechNewb

This App will need to sustain itself so it will need to have some microtransactions. I will not hide any functionality behind a paywall and all MTX will be cosmetics only. I am still thinking on how to implement the app economy with the coin but shouldn't be very hard.

alexisaacs

MTX in my opinion is only acceptable in free to play games with a dev cycle that continues in perpetuity (like League or Fortnite). The WORST offenders are games like Call of Duty that cost significant money upfront, have 12 month dev cycles, and very expensive MTX. I'm also again P2W and any form of it, as well as against Play 2 Earn games which are just omega cringe. NFTs can be done right, but I don't think we'll see any of that for a while.

DavidSox

As a gamer I can confirm that there's a lot of distrust on the developers and NFTs are seen as another way to push MTX. If you want to know how bad things can get, investigate about Star Wars Battlefront II, also you can just watch the Internet Historian's video "The fall of 76". The game had many problems, but it would show you how bad things can get. Also, I'm a console player, so the GPU thing doesn't affect me personally, but I've friends who prefer PC gaming and some of them dislike crypto because of the costs, so yeah, it's part of the problem, but not the only thing. I'm also a crypto investor and honestly I understand the market opportunities some people see, but I also think some people should give a research on the gaming market and how it works, before declaring NFTs are perfect for that industry. Many of the things proposed are already there or can be done without crypto. Also some other things are incredibly hard to implement due to the way games are made or how IPs work.

JeffersonsHat

EA way more than Activision. The MTX power creep is real.

aducknamedjafar1

Exactly. NFT's have alot of potential but sadly most companies in gaming will just use them to fleece customers with MTX.

maleia

Companies will very quickly realize that NFTs just takes away a layer of control. They can already do all of the tech level stuff minus the "let users sell it outside of the game" portion; since you know, a lot of them have already been doing that with MTX for a decade now. I can't imagine that NFTs in any form take root in the gaming sphere. I mean at the absolute BEST it's a premade system, but 🤷‍♀️ it just doesn't really add anything unique that's not already being done, that game companies will want to take advantage of. I mean unless there's something fundamental that I'm missing.

All_Of_The_Meat

That is something I could see Epic or EA trying, being that they have so much money being churned out by their MTX and P2W features. I can imagine that they see NFTs and Blockchain integrated game features being worth the gamble and worth the resources to invest in, and may be the next logical step from some of the systems they already use in their current titles.

AlistarDark

Look at Ubi with Ghost Recon. Last I checked they were around $400 split between them and Rarible/Objkt for their NFT sales. They spent more money making the assets and implementing the NFT system in their game than they have made with these NFTs. It was a failure for them. If they wanted to make money, the traditional MTX route would have been much better for them.

Maswasnos

> However, these NFTs serve what purpose? Well, none. They're collectibles. Like I tried to say, I don't think Gamestop is catering to gamers or games with their move towards NFTs. I think Gamestop is catering to collectors of pop culture memorabilia and more broadly collectors of NFTs. You're right that OpenSea basically does the same thing, but Gamestop has plenty of brand momentum behind it and could compete with OpenSea in the same market on name recognition alone. It also helps that Gamestop would (theoretically) be on an L2 like LRC where fees are much cheaper while OpenSea still mostly trades on mainnet. There are tons of OpenSea competitors out there and OpenSea is far from perfect itself. The NFT marketplace field is very open for competition. I actually agree with your first paragraph- I don't think in-game cosmetics are a great fit for NFTs. I don't really see the point. > Why would any of these marketplaces partner with a competitor and have game developers potentially bypass their ecosystem since Gamespot can literally undercut them? You've lost me here, I don't know what you're referring to. I don't mean that Gamestop should sell cosmetic MTX as NFTs. I think that's a dumb use-case and makes little business sense. I also don't think that's what Gamestop is trying to do.

mannix_marauder

Interesting point. However, these NFTs serve what purpose? In-game items? Because looking at current licensing agreements it seems you don’t actually own anything, even the games in the current format. How would companies benefit from having a marketplace where their assets are traded outside their ecosystem? This is literally why they are trying to move away from physical copies, to eliminate secondary markets where their profit is zero. If the only utility in having a gaming related NFTs is exclusive artwork, then I just don’t see how Opensea can’t do the same. There is nothing unique in that proposition. > Gamestop is moving to meet that demand regardless of what a few angry gamers on Reddit and Twitter think about it Well this is certainly downplaying the role that gamers have in the direction of games, so I don’t agree with it at all. And if you principal customer base is not aligned > Reddit gamers also hate pay-to-win and MTX, but P2W games are still incredibly popular and MTX is raking in millions. Well I’m talking about gamers in general and although I agree MTX are popular it is because they are served in context with the product being sold: games. I open a game and I can purchase items in the marketplace where this game runs: Steam, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo. Why would any of these marketplaces partner with a competitor and have game developers potentially bypass their ecosystem since Gamespot can literally undercut them?

Maswasnos

With all the hubbub earlier this year about GME I think their "fanbase" extends a little further than just gamers. Gamestop has also been leaning heavily into "nerd culture" collectibles since they acquired ThinkGeek in 2015. It only makes sense that GME would want to get in on digital collectibles, too. Assuming they are actually partnered with Loopring they're probably going to try to become what Veve is to ImmutableX, basically a go-between with major brands like Disney and an underlying rollup service. Gamestop creates the trading platform (or partners with LRC to do it) and then uses their existing brand relationships to get official NFT deals. Evidently there's demand for it, so Gamestop is moving to meet that demand regardless of what a few angry gamers on Reddit and Twitter think about it. > Look into any post that mentions NFTs in a gaming sub and watch the hate flow. Reddit gamers also hate pay-to-win and MTX, but P2W games are still incredibly popular and MTX is raking in millions. IDK how successful the Stalker NFTs would have been but there's absolutely a market for game NFTs. There's way more overlap in the NFT and gaming communities than Reddit would have you believe.

Richard-Cheese

I think NFT technology could conceivably have a use case but I've yet to see a good one for videogames, music, or movies. "Much larger market" - they already make a majority of their profits from MTX, and reselling cosmetics would cut sales and profits more than it'd open it up to fringe parts of the market like yourself. There might be some niche games, like digital card games, where NFTs take off - but big blockbusters like COD or Halo? They offer nothing of value. Music and movies have already been dominated by streaming services and I don't see the market changing back to wanting digital ownership without some wild, *wild* changes in the market. This shit would've been great during the Napster era, prior to Netflix and Spotify upheaving their relative markets, but I don't see everyone suddenly scrambling to own a bunch of movies when it's overwhelmingly easier to maintain a handful of subscriptions.

Ifelsethis

The backlash is from a minority. Ubi knows this. Majority of “Gamers” will eat it up in spoonfuls when released. Look at where we are with their games now. Nothing but massive map markers with loads of busy work so that Ubi can keep you playing longer and buying worthless digital items and conveniences in the game’s MTX store.

Nearby-Look-6646

just look at halo infinite lol. reeeeeee during launch about MTX but now everyone has cat ears. and this is before NFT implementation. ubisoft is not dumb but they know their consumers are

walter_midnight

You clearly are missing all the points then. First off, even if we were talking about in-game assets we used to call MTX, you wanting to buy the game and the game alone is barely something you're representing the majority of gamers with. Many would agree, but you stopped representing the average gamer a long fucking time ago. More importantly, you have been sleeping under a rock if you can't see how persistent and transferrable licenses is good for the consumer. Ever followed Nintendo's bullshit? Well fuck, there you go. Establishing standards that can be adopted internationally is as good an attempt as any at getting rid of the worst actors in the industry, as ironic as regulation may sound to people. It's not a matter of appeal - we already know we're better off for being able to transfer licenses. Just look at how vsts work.

Pawx8

I believe NFTs are going to be good for the industry but the game needs to be built around it or otherwise the implementation will fail. And definitely even if you resell your skin or MTX later for more $$$. The game developer could still get some royalties. MTX probably won't be worth millions in the future unless game developers can come up with more unique ways to spice things up, I think the current pricing is due to short term greed. It will probably crash and price will go down quite a lot. Some games will be better for NFT than others depending how you build your game. Influencers will become more rich etc.

CVV1

Gamers don't like MTX. The gaming journalism "establishment" is incredibly against NFTs. Take a look at STALKER 2 and Ghost Recon. It's going to be a while before NFTs are in mainstream games AND become accepted. Gamers are a fickler and whiny bunch. Expect there to be a lot of drama.

ArtezOne

From what I've gathered, it was simply an NFT in-game MTX scheme. Why would anyone want that? I'd understand if it was a dungeon crawler with droppable items with random stats getting minted as NFTs for you to trade with other players, but this is a single-player game, a shooter basically, so it does not really belong here.

Nomore_Foreplay

Worked for me on MTX. Doubled my money then decided to exit. Not sure why it pumped so high. There must be a lot of matrix fans.

WheresTheButterAt

That would be amazing. I can't imagine how they would butcher it with modern gamings typical feature set though. DLC, MTX, all that jazz.

WheresTheButterAt

Yeah the current vision of NFTs in games isn't appealing to regular gamers. It just sounds like MTX mixed with crypto and most of them hate both.

FacetiousInvective

I would love the idea that the MTX for which I spent a ton of money could be sold so I can buy something else if I feel like it. Also that you could gain some token which can be exchanged between different games. Remember d2jsp? That thing is awesome, you can sell stuff in path of exile for forum gold and buy stuff in diablo 2, or other games. I love this idea. Soulbound items is a bad choice in my opinion and it's partially why i like D2 and POE more than D3.

tezzergod

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

misa7998

Many people just don’t like MTX, live service games, shitty skins, loot boxes, and paywalls. It sheds a bad light on the crypto community.

Lenaweston

When rugpull on MTX?

Parties_naked

Throwing $50 at MTX because I hate money

galvingreen

Probably because it is a marketing strategy. If you look at the way Ubisoft changed over the last 10 years I don’t wonder at all. I loved many of their games like 15 years ago. Prince of Persia, splinter cell or games like XIII were awesome. I remember when the first assassins creed came out and everybody wanted to try it out. When a game was published by Ubisoft I had positive thoughts. Then they discovered open world games and MTX. They stepped away from great single player games. Everything they do is to maximize profits. Nowadays when a game is from Ubisoft I instantly get bad vibes. Just the latest example: they develop a new splinter cell but instead of taking the old formula they make it open world and probably with a lot of MTX. Terrible. With the NFT hype they clearly try to monetize even more. And with smart contracts they probably can. I guess other publishers and developers will go a similar way. Money became to big in this Industrie and I hate the direction we are heading here. Gone are the days you bought a game for your console without a day one patch and MTX.

meerkat23

It's such a circle jerky thing for gamers. It's a perfect discussion for them. MTX and NFT's. They'll beat that dead horse to within an inch of its life

Menonstilts

They'll come around when they stop being salty and realize how much better NFT exchange is than the current MTX model

xdsm8

Play to earn is not novel, and again, it is literally just MTX with extra steps. It used to be that you would play and randomly earn lootboxes. Now, you play and randomly earn crypto that you can use to buy lootboxes! How novel. The only advantage is that NFTs mean they can be more easily sold by the player, but that isn't fully utilized because game publishers still have to recognize your NFT for it to have value (centralized) or, if they don't somehow, then they are just wasting potential profit and game publishers don't typically do that. Basically, there are fundamental aspects of the model that make it not really work very well right now.

reddit_oar

No this is saying that for tipping and other small transactions, feeless coins like nano which are purely transfer of value coins are superior. Any coin with fees doesn't work in long run. $1 in fees may seem small to American but is crippling to 3rd world. There doesn't need to be one coin that does it all multiple coins can exist. Don't tip or MTX in Eth, use nano.

BigGoering

Yeah you don't need to be an expert to say that really. There are people selling clips from Twitch as NFTs by pretending to be streamers. NFTs will be here to stay but more than likely will eventually move towards an actual use case. Something like trading cosmetics in gaming for example especially as gaming continues to become a bigger market with more MTX. Eventually the phase of people purchasing pictures of cartoon animals will probably just fade away.

Hommexxx

Definitly look into matrix protocol $MTX

vegoonthrowaway

Unpopular opinion: NFT:s being used as proof of original ownership of digital art makes more sense than NFT:s as in-game items for games. NFT in-game items are just MTX on steroids, pretending to be investments.

nubbiecakes_

Today I purchased something in War Thunder via micro-transaction (well, idk if $60 is still "micro"), and it kind of helped me realize the utility of NTF in gaming. If the plane/tank I bought was an NFT, I could resell/trade it as desired, and the devs can mint more as desired. This would be bad for the dev, but good for the customer. The new buyer could get it cheaper than from the dev, and the seller could recoup some of their spending to potentially buy another, or simply barter for another. I'm sure most of this is obvious, but going through the process of deciding if I wanted to spend the money would've been simplified if I could trade/sell it as desired in the form of NFT. That said, I don't think good games can run on a blockchain in any near future. The best use would be for DLC/MTX in a traditional game. All of that being said - I don't understand NFT-art as you've described it. I've seen the arguments that "art doesn't have logical value", but even still I don't get it. I don't plan to buy any highfaluting art in my lifetime, and thereby I'll never understand art in the form of NFTs. Seems like racket to me.

Jotun35

Because each and every BS the gaming industry has been pushing has been crap. Remember when people were outraged when Bethesda was selling horse armor for Oblivion for 5 bucks? Today it would almost sound like a good deal (while it's still a bad one) because of all the ridiculous MTX. Remember when you had to pay 15-30 bucks for a great add-on? Now it's season pass at the same time as pre order with 0 guarantee of having a decent add-on in the end. Remember when games didn't need online connection to push whatever BS and collect data aggressively? Remember when gaming as a live service (which, to the surprise of no one with two brain cells to rub together, cannibalize itself) wasn't a thing? No one of these "innovations" made gaming a more enjoyable experience. It just made it worse and allowed massive publishers to line their pockets. No doubt NFT in gaming will allow more scummy practices in gaming and very little else.

Elerion_

> (imagine people in Fortnite or CS:GO wielding THE original Legend of Zelda sword or something) Why would Epic or Valve spend resources modelling THE original Zelda sword so a tiny number of people can use the rare NFT they already own in their game instead of selling an MTX sword to their whole userbase?

Think_Positively

All gaming companies should be exploring NFT additions, especially MTX leeches like Ubisoft. If they were smart, they'd pump out an app for skin and weapon design for games like Valhalla and charge a vig for content creators to sell their skins in an open marketplace. They're more greedy than smart though and I have low hopes for how this unfolds. It's still good for crypto overall at the end of the day.

ragnarokfps

> As an -ex CallOfDuty competitive player I'm really looking forward for what's about to happen and I won't find myself unprepared this time. Are you? Hell no. Keep all that MTX away from my games. We have enough of that shit already.

WheresTheButterAt

NFTs at least give players an opportunity to get their money(or even a portion of it) back in the end by selling it. MTX are just burnt money when you stop playing a game. When I stop playing one game I could sell all my NFTs to get a headstart on the next game. It's gonna take a lot of thought and work to make games fun, not TOO P2W but also have items that retain value but I think the balance will be found.

notrealmate

I play games to have fun, not make money. Don’t need that shit. Blockchain doesn’t have to be a part of everything. MTX are bad enough

tolbolton

> Like robbing modders of their income? ? >Monetizing the community just because they can? What exactly does that suppose to mean? Valve having MTX in free to play titles or what?

0xKIPARIS

Theres propably no need for that. Fancy sound effects or haptic vibration feedback giving you false satisfaction is a marketing trick to sell MTX, propably wont apply if its a strip club using this. ​ I mean, in such an establishment youre gonna leave at least somewhat satisfied and out of more money than you intended to spend anyway, right?

tezzergod

When I clicked the sauce I didn’t expect to find 3 day old mayonnaise. Also, what if they’re literally just calling their MTX’s crypto? I really think it’s too early for AAA developers to do anything else than that cause at the end of the day they just want money, I guess now they want that money directly in crypto. I genuinely doubt they’ll implement crypto in that game with benefits for the players.

tezzergod

Surprised not to see EA titles on there, if they were to implement Ultimate Team style trading cards through crypto or blockchain they could rip off their customers even in countries where the game mode is banned for having elements of gambling in it. It’s crazy how much money goes into EA’s MTX’s…

Bricktrucker

Anyone here buy MTX in games? Anything similar that you could instead say "wait, ima put this in crypto!" That helped me out

0mantara0

Finally looked into it after reading this thread, smash bought 200 at under 95¢ and swapped my DCA from ADA to ALGO for the foreseeable future. Definitely looks like the perfect addition to my bag collection. I like CTSI (love its lynux usability) and XLM (definitely see viability for in app/gaming MTX) but ALGO looks to be way ahead of the game and under valued. I love this subreddit, thanks for all the info!

insanemetal187

And that’s created the rise of the MTX and loot boxes for developers can make money on their games. Sure, f2p model has its perks but there’s been many drawbacks to it. This could give developers the option to try and make all their money off sales. As well as being able to make money off the second hand market which was only for stores previously. That’s an entirely new thing for developers to care about. Also, GameStop made its name more as a reselling store. I found myself in there more often to sell games than to buy. If they can keep the old feeling with new technology it seems like they are evolving rather than pivoting. Making their business model relevant in a new area rather than bending to what everyone else is doing. This isn’t an automatic home run but it’s someone making something new rather than copying everyone else. I love innovation and I hope (as a share holder too) that it works well because we all benefit if crypto has non-investing uses in the real world.

PLZBHVR

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism so you can morally oppose a company while still buying from them. No one else makes COD, despite me hating Activision Blizzard on almost every level. Then again I guess WZ is free and I haven't bought any MTX so I'm not giving much support anyways lol

Slayerofgondor

The bepro shill man is to busy shilling MTX atm to help convince you