Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Ember Sword's Technical Test: Our 'What's it All About' Preview | MMONFT | MMORPG.com

SystemSystem Member UncommonPosts: 12,599
edited April 2022 in Videos Discussion

imageEmber Sword's Technical Test: Our 'What's it All About' Preview | MMONFT | MMORPG.com

Whether you're a fan of blockchain and NFT's or, more commonly, if you're hesitant to trust anything blockchain related, even you may be curious to find out what state Ember Sword is in. This Technical Test is only available for landowners and badge holders, but luckily, we were able to pop into the game for a time to see what state Ember Sword is in during their first public test.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • k61977k61977 Member EpicPosts: 1,510
    It's very rare I ever lobby for things in gaming to fail, but this is the one time that I do want it to fail just like the ubisoft one did. There is nothing good about NFT for the average gamer.
    maskedweaselMcSleazTokkenScotMendelSamhaeleoloe
  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,188
    k61977 said:
    It's very rare I ever lobby for things in gaming to fail, but this is the one time that I do want it to fail just like the ubisoft one did. There is nothing good about NFT for the average gamer.
    Thats a strange way to look at it. How are any monetization models good for the average gamer?



  • AstropuyoAstropuyo Member RarePosts: 2,178
    It's cool looks like hot trash.
  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,188
    Torval said:
    k61977 said:
    It's very rare I ever lobby for things in gaming to fail, but this is the one time that I do want it to fail just like the ubisoft one did. There is nothing good about NFT for the average gamer.
    Thats a strange way to look at it. How are any monetization models good for the average gamer?

    Is it though? Just because monetization is already egregious and aggressive does that mean we should just throw up our hands and invite even more awful and predatory schemes into the mix? For me, that's moving in the wrong direction.

    Let's instead move in the opposite direction by requiring disclosure, odds of item drops, item distribution, and average cost to obtain chase items; if not banning the entire practice outright. Then we can move on to more transparent disclosure of other revenue streams.

    Until there is thoughtful regulation and oversight for monetizing blockchain technology (crypto currencies and NFTs) in gaming, then I would rather push back against them. At this point there are way too many wild-west shenanigans going on.
    But... what's wrong with the way they are doing monetization in ember sword? That's what I don't get.  

    Do players buy items with real money? Maybe.  Are they pay to win items? Who knows? 

    Right now they sold land plots and token currency,  but aside from that the game is supposed to be free to play... so I guess the question is,  what about this games monetization specifically is worse than other games?
    McSleaz



  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,188
    Torval said:
    The lack of regulation and oversight with blockchain monetization is the problem. We'll see, but I'm not about to give the benefit of the doubt with all the issues and sketchy shenanigans going on in this space. Trust has to be earned and the lack of regulation and oversight or any real consequences for playing dodgy games and shafting players pretty much makes earning that trust impossible at this point.
    It's just a funny thing to see. People may not know how exactly the monetization works. They may not know how much they may spend in the end. They may not know if the game has any features or gameplay they might like. 

    They just know they don't like it because blockchain and NFTs. And they can't state specifically why they hate the blockchain and NFT's in this game. Not any more than they could like or dislike any other monetization practice in another game. 

    The idea that a regulatory process will make things better somehow, isn't really the measure you should be basing your acceptance of any kind of blockchain project. 

    You have to look at a much broader picture. 

    What is the studio putting out? 

    Are they insured for any potential losses, and what rights do the players have? 

    I've seen much larger companies, with incalculable losses to their customers that just seemed to get shrugged off and swept under the rug, and all of that is "regulated", but in the end it doesn't count for much. 



  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,388
    Torval said:
    k61977 said:
    It's very rare I ever lobby for things in gaming to fail, but this is the one time that I do want it to fail just like the ubisoft one did. There is nothing good about NFT for the average gamer.
    Thats a strange way to look at it. How are any monetization models good for the average gamer?

    Is it though? Just because monetization is already egregious and aggressive does that mean we should just throw up our hands and invite even more awful and predatory schemes into the mix? For me, that's moving in the wrong direction.

    Let's instead move in the opposite direction by requiring disclosure, odds of item drops, item distribution, and average cost to obtain chase items; if not banning the entire practice outright. Then we can move on to more transparent disclosure of other revenue streams.

    Until there is thoughtful regulation and oversight for monetizing blockchain technology (crypto currencies and NFTs) in gaming, then I would rather push back against them. At this point there are way too many wild-west shenanigans going on.
    But... what's wrong with the way they are doing monetization in ember sword? That's what I don't get.  

    Do players buy items with real money? Maybe.  Are they pay to win items? Who knows? 

    Right now they sold land plots and token currency,  but aside from that the game is supposed to be free to play... so I guess the question is,  what about this games monetization specifically is worse than other games?
    I don't like seeing players buy something or other for $80k each way before there is even a playable alpha, with the promise that they'll get some sort of unspecified advantages in exchange for all that money.  That has way too much potential to end badly.
    MendelKidRiskTheDalaiBomba
  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,188
    Quizzical said:
    Torval said:
    k61977 said:
    It's very rare I ever lobby for things in gaming to fail, but this is the one time that I do want it to fail just like the ubisoft one did. There is nothing good about NFT for the average gamer.
    Thats a strange way to look at it. How are any monetization models good for the average gamer?

    Is it though? Just because monetization is already egregious and aggressive does that mean we should just throw up our hands and invite even more awful and predatory schemes into the mix? For me, that's moving in the wrong direction.

    Let's instead move in the opposite direction by requiring disclosure, odds of item drops, item distribution, and average cost to obtain chase items; if not banning the entire practice outright. Then we can move on to more transparent disclosure of other revenue streams.

    Until there is thoughtful regulation and oversight for monetizing blockchain technology (crypto currencies and NFTs) in gaming, then I would rather push back against them. At this point there are way too many wild-west shenanigans going on.
    But... what's wrong with the way they are doing monetization in ember sword? That's what I don't get.  

    Do players buy items with real money? Maybe.  Are they pay to win items? Who knows? 

    Right now they sold land plots and token currency,  but aside from that the game is supposed to be free to play... so I guess the question is,  what about this games monetization specifically is worse than other games?
    I don't like seeing players buy something or other for $80k each way before there is even a playable alpha, with the promise that they'll get some sort of unspecified advantages in exchange for all that money.  That has way too much potential to end badly.
    According to the blog posts,  there is no gameplay advantage for owning land. 




  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,388
    Quizzical said:
    Torval said:
    k61977 said:
    It's very rare I ever lobby for things in gaming to fail, but this is the one time that I do want it to fail just like the ubisoft one did. There is nothing good about NFT for the average gamer.
    Thats a strange way to look at it. How are any monetization models good for the average gamer?

    Is it though? Just because monetization is already egregious and aggressive does that mean we should just throw up our hands and invite even more awful and predatory schemes into the mix? For me, that's moving in the wrong direction.

    Let's instead move in the opposite direction by requiring disclosure, odds of item drops, item distribution, and average cost to obtain chase items; if not banning the entire practice outright. Then we can move on to more transparent disclosure of other revenue streams.

    Until there is thoughtful regulation and oversight for monetizing blockchain technology (crypto currencies and NFTs) in gaming, then I would rather push back against them. At this point there are way too many wild-west shenanigans going on.
    But... what's wrong with the way they are doing monetization in ember sword? That's what I don't get.  

    Do players buy items with real money? Maybe.  Are they pay to win items? Who knows? 

    Right now they sold land plots and token currency,  but aside from that the game is supposed to be free to play... so I guess the question is,  what about this games monetization specifically is worse than other games?
    I don't like seeing players buy something or other for $80k each way before there is even a playable alpha, with the promise that they'll get some sort of unspecified advantages in exchange for all that money.  That has way too much potential to end badly.
    According to the blog posts,  there is no gameplay advantage for owning land. 
    Do you really think that those people who paid $80k get nothing in return for all that money?  Color me skeptical.
    maskedweaselScotKidRiskTheDalaiBomba
  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,188
    edited April 2022
    Quizzical said:
    Quizzical said:
    Torval said:
    k61977 said:
    It's very rare I ever lobby for things in gaming to fail, but this is the one time that I do want it to fail just like the ubisoft one did. There is nothing good about NFT for the average gamer.
    Thats a strange way to look at it. How are any monetization models good for the average gamer?

    Is it though? Just because monetization is already egregious and aggressive does that mean we should just throw up our hands and invite even more awful and predatory schemes into the mix? For me, that's moving in the wrong direction.

    Let's instead move in the opposite direction by requiring disclosure, odds of item drops, item distribution, and average cost to obtain chase items; if not banning the entire practice outright. Then we can move on to more transparent disclosure of other revenue streams.

    Until there is thoughtful regulation and oversight for monetizing blockchain technology (crypto currencies and NFTs) in gaming, then I would rather push back against them. At this point there are way too many wild-west shenanigans going on.
    But... what's wrong with the way they are doing monetization in ember sword? That's what I don't get.  

    Do players buy items with real money? Maybe.  Are they pay to win items? Who knows? 

    Right now they sold land plots and token currency,  but aside from that the game is supposed to be free to play... so I guess the question is,  what about this games monetization specifically is worse than other games?
    I don't like seeing players buy something or other for $80k each way before there is even a playable alpha, with the promise that they'll get some sort of unspecified advantages in exchange for all that money.  That has way too much potential to end badly.
    According to the blog posts,  there is no gameplay advantage for owning land. 
    Do you really think that those people who paid $80k get nothing in return for all that money?  Color me skeptical.
    Well, they get something, it just isn't a "gameplay advantage ". 

    So landowners get a small % of the fee of whatever gets sold from the materials on their land. At least that's how I understand it from what I've read. 

    So if there's a 10% fee on an in game transaction 5 would go to the developers 5 would go to the land holders,  or some sort of stake around that percentage. 

    They also control what happens on the land,  like mobs and some resources.  They can't bar anyone from using the land. 

    Take all that with a grain of salt though.  This is how it's described,  not what it will eventually be in practice.  And anyone who has been into this genre for any bit of time knows it can all change the moment things get real.  I get the skepticism though.  But most people don't know the monetization plan to begin with or know the amount anyone has spent on land,  so usually it's just disliking the game based on the word blockchain. 



  • k61977k61977 Member EpicPosts: 1,510



    Quizzical said:




    Quizzical said:




    Torval said:




    k61977 said:

    It's very rare I ever lobby for things in gaming to fail, but this is the one time that I do want it to fail just like the ubisoft one did. There is nothing good about NFT for the average gamer.


    Thats a strange way to look at it. How are any monetization models good for the average gamer?



    Is it though? Just because monetization is already egregious and aggressive does that mean we should just throw up our hands and invite even more awful and predatory schemes into the mix? For me, that's moving in the wrong direction.

    Let's instead move in the opposite direction by requiring disclosure, odds of item drops, item distribution, and average cost to obtain chase items; if not banning the entire practice outright. Then we can move on to more transparent disclosure of other revenue streams.

    Until there is thoughtful regulation and oversight for monetizing blockchain technology (crypto currencies and NFTs) in gaming, then I would rather push back against them. At this point there are way too many wild-west shenanigans going on.


    But... what's wrong with the way they are doing monetization in ember sword? That's what I don't get.  

    Do players buy items with real money? Maybe.  Are they pay to win items? Who knows? 

    Right now they sold land plots and token currency,  but aside from that the game is supposed to be free to play... so I guess the question is,  what about this games monetization specifically is worse than other games?


    I don't like seeing players buy something or other for $80k each way before there is even a playable alpha, with the promise that they'll get some sort of unspecified advantages in exchange for all that money.  That has way too much potential to end badly.


    According to the blog posts,  there is no gameplay advantage for owning land. 


    Do you really think that those people who paid $80k get nothing in return for all that money?  Color me skeptical.


    Well, they get something, it just isn't a "gameplay advantage ". 

    So landowners get a small % of the fee of whatever gets sold from the materials on their land. At least that's how I understand it from what I've read. 

    So if there's a 10% fee on an in game transaction 5 would go to the developers 5 would go to the land holders,  or some sort of stake around that percentage. 

    They also control what happens on the land,  like mobs and some resources.  They can't bar anyone from using the land. 

    Take all that with a grain of salt though.  This is how it's described,  not what it will eventually be in practice.  And anyone who has been into this genre for any bit of time knows it can all change the moment things get real.  I get the skepticism though.  But most people don't know the monetization plan to begin with or know the amount anyone has spent on land,  so usually it's just disliking the game based on the word blockchain. 



    Not a huge fan of crypto to begin with which is what NFT is based on. The no regulation thing is a huge issue.

    Basically people should look at NFT's as a stock market of types. Today your item might be worth something because it is rare and the devs said that it would be a limited item, but what happens when the devs decide lets have a sell of said item because they need more funding, now your item is worthless as the devs themselves flood the market.

    We don't need NFT's in gaming period. It isn't something that helps the average player at all. What it does is give the devs another way on top of in game stores to nickle and dime people.

    Sure it will start as you don't have to have anything that you can only acquire through NFT's then a few months later it will be if you don't have this or that which can only be acquired by using NFT transactions you can't do anything. Let all the blockchain and NFT games die a horrible and costly death.
    maskedweaselMendelKidRiskMcSleaz
  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,188
    k61977 said:


    Not a huge fan of crypto to begin with which is what NFT is based on. The no regulation thing is a huge issue.

    Basically people should look at NFT's as a stock market of types. Today your item might be worth something because it is rare and the devs said that it would be a limited item, but what happens when the devs decide lets have a sell of said item because they need more funding, now your item is worthless as the devs themselves flood the market.

    We don't need NFT's in gaming period. It isn't something that helps the average player at all. What it does is give the devs another way on top of in game stores to nickle and dime people.

    Sure it will start as you don't have to have anything that you can only acquire through NFT's then a few months later it will be if you don't have this or that which can only be acquired by using NFT transactions you can't do anything. Let all the blockchain and NFT games die a horrible and costly death.
    I don't feel like people should look at NFT's as a stock market at all. At least, not when it comes to NFT's with utility or commodity. In that case it's a simple case of supply and demand. 

    The thing is, where is the basis of comparison for any NFT game? Who institutes the rule of what it is, what it has been or what it can be? 

    Axie Infinity? That game forces you to drop nearly a grand just to get started. Ember Sword says it will be free to play. 

    The truth is, we don't know what to expect. According to Ember Swords site the ember tokens players pay real money for can only be traded for cosmetics, which are craftable by other players. (probably the devs will sell mints of cosmetics too, because, it makes sense to do it). 

    So most of the items that flood the market are player crafted, with materials you farm in game. The materials you use to craft NFT's are considered "rare drops". The cosmetic items you create have passive bonuses like magic find on them. 

    There are some things I disagree with when it comes to selling NFTs in games. I'm completely against a limited number of mints for an item. As a player of Blankos Block Party, I've witnessed first hand how awful it can be. I prefer the limited time runs, where an item will stay on the market for maybe a week, and there are mint numbers but anyone can buy however many they want.

    Initially it takes the competition out of trying to simply buy the item, and in the long run the item is still considered rare because no more can be obtained, but at least it's not a situation where you sit there the minute it gets launched and they all get bought out by speculative investors, and the real players lose out so they have to buy it on third party markets for 5 times the markup. 

    But I'm going off topic. In my opinion, NFTs do have worth to them and add to the game, in very specific circumstances. 

    For example, look at mobile games. There is a statisic saying about 10 percent of the players fund something like 90% of the game. There are a ton of free to play players out there, that may never spend a dime. 

    But in an NFT market place, you kind of turn free to play players into a real money generating opportunity, and they never have to spend anything. If anyone can log on and farm a rare drop, and then sell it on the marketplace for "real money", and 10% of that sale goes to the developers, a free to play player just contributed to funding the game, and they did it selling an item for "real money". 

    Now if you take away the prospect that players go into these games believing they can make it rich, and instead go into the game expecting to have fun, and if they sell something trivial they won't use, so be it, that's the sweet spot where NFT's don't cost much, so transactions are more frequent, and monetization happens organically in a way that isn't intrusive, like the predatory pay to win models. 

    That's kind of a pipe dream at this point, but it's completely possible. 



  • k61977k61977 Member EpicPosts: 1,510



    k61977 said:




    Not a huge fan of crypto to begin with which is what NFT is based on. The no regulation thing is a huge issue.



    Basically people should look at NFT's as a stock market of types. Today your item might be worth something because it is rare and the devs said that it would be a limited item, but what happens when the devs decide lets have a sell of said item because they need more funding, now your item is worthless as the devs themselves flood the market.



    We don't need NFT's in gaming period. It isn't something that helps the average player at all. What it does is give the devs another way on top of in game stores to nickle and dime people.



    Sure it will start as you don't have to have anything that you can only acquire through NFT's then a few months later it will be if you don't have this or that which can only be acquired by using NFT transactions you can't do anything. Let all the blockchain and NFT games die a horrible and costly death.


    I don't feel like people should look at NFT's as a stock market at all. At least, not when it comes to NFT's with utility or commodity. In that case it's a simple case of supply and demand. 

    The thing is, where is the basis of comparison for any NFT game? Who institutes the rule of what it is, what it has been or what it can be? 

    Axie Infinity? That game forces you to drop nearly a grand just to get started. Ember Sword says it will be free to play. 

    The truth is, we don't know what to expect. According to Ember Swords site the ember tokens players pay real money for can only be traded for cosmetics, which are craftable by other players. (probably the devs will sell mints of cosmetics too, because, it makes sense to do it). 

    So most of the items that flood the market are player crafted, with materials you farm in game. The materials you use to craft NFT's are considered "rare drops". The cosmetic items you create have passive bonuses like magic find on them. 

    There are some things I disagree with when it comes to selling NFTs in games. I'm completely against a limited number of mints for an item. As a player of Blankos Block Party, I've witnessed first hand how awful it can be. I prefer the limited time runs, where an item will stay on the market for maybe a week, and there are mint numbers but anyone can buy however many they want.

    Initially it takes the competition out of trying to simply buy the item, and in the long run the item is still considered rare because no more can be obtained, but at least it's not a situation where you sit there the minute it gets launched and they all get bought out by speculative investors, and the real players lose out so they have to buy it on third party markets for 5 times the markup. 

    But I'm going off topic. In my opinion, NFTs do have worth to them and add to the game, in very specific circumstances. 

    For example, look at mobile games. There is a statisic saying about 10 percent of the players fund something like 90% of the game. There are a ton of free to play players out there, that may never spend a dime. 

    But in an NFT market place, you kind of turn free to play players into a real money generating opportunity, and they never have to spend anything. If anyone can log on and farm a rare drop, and then sell it on the marketplace for "real money", and 10% of that sale goes to the developers, a free to play player just contributed to funding the game, and they did it selling an item for "real money". 

    Now if you take away the prospect that players go into these games believing they can make it rich, and instead go into the game expecting to have fun, and if they sell something trivial they won't use, so be it, that's the sweet spot where NFT's don't cost much, so transactions are more frequent, and monetization happens organically in a way that isn't intrusive, like the predatory pay to win models. 

    That's kind of a pipe dream at this point, but it's completely possible. 



    Things always look good when they start out. You say that NFT's don't cost much but without a regulatory law of some kind devs basically can do whatever they want to. They can do the old bait and switch whenever they feel like it and basically say it is because of this or that on why they are raising prices for their particular NFT's after they have established a base.

    Any time you start attaching real money to in game items you start to have problems, especially in a F2P game. Just imagine the amount of bots that will show up in a game where playtime equals real money. Even if that money is pennies on the dollar per say. Do you really think it will be fun to fight with things similar to gold sellers who are running trains of bots for mats or farming spaces. I mean they could get around farming areas by selling access to your own plots that only you can do stuff on but that is the start of the worst case things they can do.

    If all games had to use the exact same tokens, I mean where they are the same across the board in every single game made, maybe just maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea. But having every single dev come up with their own tokens that become worthless if the game shuts down is just a bad design and idea.

    You already like NFT's so nothing anyone can say will change your mind about it. From what you said you already spent time around games trying to do the NFT route. I do not like the idea of NFT's in my games. I see the things that can go wrong, and most of the time do when thinking of the parent gaming companies. Greed wins almost every time. Not all devs want to be greedy asshats but most don't have say because they don't actually own the companies they are working for. Also don't assume though that the people that don't like them don't understand them we do and we don't like the ways we can see it abused by the greedy parent companies in the future.
  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,188
    k61977 said:



    k61977 said:




    Not a huge fan of crypto to begin with which is what NFT is based on. The no regulation thing is a huge issue.



    Basically people should look at NFT's as a stock market of types. Today your item might be worth something because it is rare and the devs said that it would be a limited item, but what happens when the devs decide lets have a sell of said item because they need more funding, now your item is worthless as the devs themselves flood the market.



    We don't need NFT's in gaming period. It isn't something that helps the average player at all. What it does is give the devs another way on top of in game stores to nickle and dime people.



    Sure it will start as you don't have to have anything that you can only acquire through NFT's then a few months later it will be if you don't have this or that which can only be acquired by using NFT transactions you can't do anything. Let all the blockchain and NFT games die a horrible and costly death.






    Things always look good when they start out. You say that NFT's don't cost much but without a regulatory law of some kind devs basically can do whatever they want to. They can do the old bait and switch whenever they feel like it and basically say it is because of this or that on why they are raising prices for their particular NFT's after they have established a base.

    Any time you start attaching real money to in game items you start to have problems, especially in a F2P game. Just imagine the amount of bots that will show up in a game where playtime equals real money. Even if that money is pennies on the dollar per say. Do you really think it will be fun to fight with things similar to gold sellers who are running trains of bots for mats or farming spaces. I mean they could get around farming areas by selling access to your own plots that only you can do stuff on but that is the start of the worst case things they can do.

    If all games had to use the exact same tokens, I mean where they are the same across the board in every single game made, maybe just maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea. But having every single dev come up with their own tokens that become worthless if the game shuts down is just a bad design and idea.

    You already like NFT's so nothing anyone can say will change your mind about it. From what you said you already spent time around games trying to do the NFT route. I do not like the idea of NFT's in my games. I see the things that can go wrong, and most of the time do when thinking of the parent gaming companies. Greed wins almost every time. Not all devs want to be greedy asshats but most don't have say because they don't actually own the companies they are working for. Also don't assume though that the people that don't like them don't understand them we do and we don't like the ways we can see it abused by the greedy parent companies in the future.
    I think a lot of people understand something about NFT's and blockchain, but they don't understand most things about them. You can say you see how things go wrong in NFT's, but the same things that go wrong in NFT's go wrong in games all the time. 

    There is NO regulation in games at all. Developers can charge whatever they want, whether it's a 100 dollar mount, or a 1000 dollar star citizen "ship", where's the regulation? 

    The more important factor is that, with NFT's the developers in most cases aren't setting the price. If you look at a lot of cases where NFT's are in use, not the stupid cases like Axie, but in cases like Skyweaver or Blankos, the majority of players are selling most items for anywhere from a few dollars to around 25 dollars.  Lower mints can go for thousands, but the thing is, those rarely sell. 

    That's the main difference, I'm not pro NFT, I'm not against NFT's either. I'm open to the use of blockchain in a lot of different ways, and I'm not afraid to try games that use it. 

    I rarely spend much money on assets, and so far I've never sold a single item in any game I've played that allows me to sell them. I have put up items for sale, but they don't sell, because I put the prices so insanely high I know they will never sell, but I'm not using them and if someone is stupid enough to buy them I won't complain -- but the same items I'm selling generally sell for MUCH less, and they transact pretty often, so it's not lack of demand, I could sell the items if I priced them right, but I don't. Others do, and they sell. 

    Nobody has to like NFT's, most people don't. Most people also don't understand what they don't like either. There's a lot of talk about the cases where something could go wrong, or something went wrong in another case, in another game, in another situation, and there's cases like that in every industry everywhere. 

    I'm more interested in how it's being implemented in THIS game right now. It's probably one of the most promising in development. I guess we'll see when it hits alpha.



  • cheyanecheyane Member LegendaryPosts: 9,198
    The problem is the conversation is all about the NFT. What about the game itself? Is it a good game? Is it good enough for a person who isn't interested in NFT to play?

    I don't care about the NFT and I don't intend to quarrel about its inclusion. My worry is that there is a shallow game underneath the NFT.
    Mendelmaskedweasel
    Garrus Signature
  • MMOgamerdad666MMOgamerdad666 Member UncommonPosts: 34
    I don't understand all this Digital currency stuff at all. But what I do understand is I play alot of video games and if the game is good and I have a chance of acquiring the sword of unbelievable value +10 and become enriched in RL from it, I really don't see a problem. My son sold a dagger in Diablo 3 once for like 200 dollars when the real money auction house up and running. Thought it was really cool and was kind of perplexed as to why they got rid of it.
    maskedweasel
  • TalinTalin Member UncommonPosts: 919
    There is a VERY fine line between creating an environment by which players can exchange items under a real-money auction house (which is effectively a service independent of the game) and game whose fundamental purpose is to get people to spend money under the hope that the money they spent will cascade into "commodities" that can eventually be sold to others for monetary gain.

    I remember buying currency offline back in Eq1 (a million years ago) to fast track being able to buy an Iksar chestplate from another player. I knew what I was spending, I knew what it was worth, and I knew how it would help me in game. The purpose of the purchase was to help me advance, not for the sake of the value of the item in the hopes it would someday be worth more.

    I have no problem with players making money by investing their time to obtain items, currency, etc. and then selling them to other players to help them advance faster. It is fundamentally no different from buying boosts or comparable - which is more important to an individual, money or time. Again, you know exactly what you are spending.

    Loot boxes and all of the ridiculous monetization that has plagued many games for years are the the problem. It is all about giving away money in the "hope" you get something helpful, while holding back the ability in many cases to get it from the actual gameplay itself.

    These NFT nonsense type games stand to do a lot of the same. They will be abused by bots and low socio-economic "camps" of players faming everything they can do try to turn a profit, many of which have sweatshop-style working conditions.

    Give me a game I can pay for, a defined subscription, or a free game with an optional pass where I know exactly what I get based on what I pay and the time I put in actually playing the game. Everything else is just a thinly veiled excuse to exploit players and capitalize on FOMO in ways that are not healthy or morally justifiable.
    kitarad
  • TalinTalin Member UncommonPosts: 919
    edited April 2022
    I'm sure you realize this, but regardless of how they are implementing anything "right now", this can change at their sole discretion, players will have no discernable rights, and if the endeavor fails they can walk away without any other financial implications, right?
    maskedweasel
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,388
    k61977 said:

    Not a huge fan of crypto to begin with which is what NFT is based on.
    There's nothing wrong with encryption or hash functions.  That it can be used for dumb things isn't a problem of crypto.  That some awful mobile game might be coded in Java isn't a problem with Java.
    maskedweasel
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,388
    I don't understand all this Digital currency stuff at all. But what I do understand is I play alot of video games and if the game is good and I have a chance of acquiring the sword of unbelievable value +10 and become enriched in RL from it, I really don't see a problem. My son sold a dagger in Diablo 3 once for like 200 dollars when the real money auction house up and running. Thought it was really cool and was kind of perplexed as to why they got rid of it.
    If you thought account hacking was bad when there were only a handful of dollars involved, wait until you see what happens when hackers think that they can get tens of thousands of dollars by hacking an account.
  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,188
    Quizzical said:
    I don't understand all this Digital currency stuff at all. But what I do understand is I play alot of video games and if the game is good and I have a chance of acquiring the sword of unbelievable value +10 and become enriched in RL from it, I really don't see a problem. My son sold a dagger in Diablo 3 once for like 200 dollars when the real money auction house up and running. Thought it was really cool and was kind of perplexed as to why they got rid of it.
    If you thought account hacking was bad when there were only a handful of dollars involved, wait until you see what happens when hackers think that they can get tens of thousands of dollars by hacking an account.
    Single accounts aren't really the issue. You need to look at the security of bridges and the companies themselves. A second "hack" just occurred where a game had their encrypted signing keys copied. That means that whoever took the signing key could mint however many of their token as they wanted. 

    Many games don't have this issue when they "close" the token pool, which only allows for the original mint number to be circulated, but when you keep it open as this game did, and then you lose your signing key, whoever holds it can basically print money. 


    And while the token for that game itself isn't worth much, even if a token is worth, .0001 cent, you can mint say... 800,000,000,000 if you wanted, cash out in the market, and watch the token flood tank the price further. 

    In the end the game had to suspend operations until they could figure out what to do, because honestly, you lose the key, and the market is flooded, you're pretty much screwed. Basically you're looking at salvaging what best you can with a new token and hoping that the players will be okay with issuing the same amount to all of them. 

    In the grand scheme of things, it's not a lot of money that was "stolen", and technically it wasn't really "stolen" per se, they just basically created fake Disney Dollars and then sold them to people outside the theme park. But still. 

    These are the questions that really need to be asked when developers want to get into making blockchain games work. How are they going to keep themselves safe? What are their safeguards? What is the remediation plan? Are they insured so they won't go bankrupt if they screw up? 

    Personally, I don't even think games need token sales. I don't mind if they want to sell and NFT because there's utility there, but on-chain currencies aren't self sustaining, and don't really offer anything apart from the ability to cash them out. NFT's at least can add some kind of viable use... currency, not so much.



  • kitaradkitarad Member LegendaryPosts: 8,031
    Sounds like a security nightmare and we probably have not scratched the multitude of ways this can go wrong. Well good luck but no thanks.
    maskedweaselMcSleazcheyaneMendel

  • SubzaSubza Member UncommonPosts: 5
    edited April 2022
    Not a fan of land owner-ship with taxes & stuff in games in general tbh. And all these NFT games have it, before the game's even out, before anyone's even heard of it, that you need to pay real money for.

    It's clear the whole reason these games are created is to sell plots of land & not to make an actual good game.
  • TheDalaiBombaTheDalaiBomba Member EpicPosts: 1,493
    edited April 2022
    I think the NFT evolution smells a lot like the microtransaction/loot box evolution to many of us, and not many of us particularly like how that ended.  In particular, the loot boxes and how the microtransactions changed game development paradigms and player behavior.

    Now, we're trying to throw real money stakes for players into that mix.  It's rightfully off-putting to many, and will have to prove it's somehow immune to the pitfalls of the previous evolution to change that in a big way, I think.
    maskedweasel
Sign In or Register to comment.