Howdy, Stranger!

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

Stella Fantasy, a 'Premium Character Collectible RPG' Built on the Blockchain, Will Launch in August

13»

Comments

  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,173
    Mendel said:

    And on the 'convincing us otherwise' part.  You can be sure their attempts will incorporate FOMO and other methods to convince us we are wrong without actually stating why they think they are right.

    This is a great example of how easily blockchain can be misunderstood. 

    There is an extreme disconnect between the actual technology and its features and what everyone takes away from marketing and media. 

    I can't even imagine a world where developers had to explain why they use a specific database for their games.



  • eoloeeoloe Member RarePosts: 864
    eoloe said:



    Mir4 is a bad game, but still right now there are 40000+ people playing this crap. So may be it is not "good, but it is undoubtedly popular.

    Personally, I think the current implementation of NFT which is based on the false promise of "Pay to Earn" is indeed the worst crap ever.

    However the tech exists and will not go anywhere.

    Let's be honest: the very idea of owning something in a digital world is seducing (even if it's a lie). I would not be surprised, if in its convulated evolutions some dev will find the right balance, the right way to implement the blockchain in a virtual world.

    I think that the first step for it to work is to create a digital world that is worth it. Not seen one yet with blockchain or not.

    PS: I expected a cat on the horse I am disappointed. :(


    Blockchain is not necessary to establish digital ownership (in fact, I'd be willing to bet good money we could find examples of digital ownership rights being transferred without any blockchain or NFT in sight if we did an internet search).

    Solution in search of a problem, which is why so many have no desire to see NFT gaming grow.

    The real worry here is that we're framing this as a matter of having to find reasons this is a bad idea, instead of merely refusing it until someone provides a reason why this is actually a good idea.  To date, I've seen absolutely nothing realistic about NFT gaming that would indicate to me it's a good idea.  Specifically, nothing that couldn't also be served by more traditional methods.

    The responsibility is on those pushing this type of gaming to convince me otherwise.  I don't owe any of these devs my time or attention.  We would all do well to treat every big new thing this way, specifically in today's digital space.

    I entirely agree on this.

    P2E? Entropia was/is doing it without blockchain.
    Owning stuff in a game until the server dies: done and done before blockchain...

    So what could be the use, what is the interest?

    Well, millions are spent on blockchains right now, and even if players are dumb enough to pay for scammy-like games (DI anyone?), in the long term for the blockchain ecosystem to live, it will need more than scammy arguments (P2E).

    You may not see it yet. I may not see it either. But I bet that some brains are/were already at work to find a solution to this problem.

    So yes, everything being didacted by money, there are good reasons to be cautiously pessimistic, but there might something else out there...

    For example:

    Web3 is still currently Web2 (lol). But let's imagine/pretend that you would really have a web3 based MMORPG. There would be no server, the game would served/distributed among all of its users. Now let's pretend something even harder to imagine: the game would be very good!!! Then this game would have a very long longevity, and blockchain would make more sense here.
    However, would the implementation of blockchain mandatory? No. It is even hard to argue that it would be at least more secure. But maybe it would give some form of legitimacy/reliability to assets trading between players? Maybe not really but in the minds of players?
    TheDalaiBombaKyleran
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 16,947
    Mendel said:

    And on the 'convincing us otherwise' part.  You can be sure their attempts will incorporate FOMO and other methods to convince us we are wrong without actually stating why they think they are right.

    This is a great example of how easily blockchain can be misunderstood. 

    There is an extreme disconnect between the actual technology and its features and what everyone takes away from marketing and media. 

    I can't even imagine a world where developers had to explain why they use a specific database for their games.
    Yet for some reason this same feature is the one that is hyped?   
    If it's worth HYPING in each and every article about a game then how can it not be worth an explanation?

    maskedweaselKyleranolepi

    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,173
    Mendel said:

    And on the 'convincing us otherwise' part.  You can be sure their attempts will incorporate FOMO and other methods to convince us we are wrong without actually stating why they think they are right.

    This is a great example of how easily blockchain can be misunderstood. 

    There is an extreme disconnect between the actual technology and its features and what everyone takes away from marketing and media. 

    I can't even imagine a world where developers had to explain why they use a specific database for their games.
    Yet for some reason this same feature is the one that is hyped?   
    If it's worth HYPING in each and every article about a game then how can it not be worth an explanation?

    The way marketing talks about blockchain is the same way developers talk about their free to play models. 

    Blockchain itself has very little to do with actual gameplay, but it can point to what a player expects of its economy. 

    The problem is, there is no one size fits all when it comes to the use of blockchain. 

    There are inherent features in the technology with some benefits, and then there are ways to integrate it into games in ways that entice a certain kind of gamer to play it. 

    There are blockchain games that aren't directly marketed as blockchain, and now we have games that aren't blockchain games that are now transitioning to blockchain. 

    There is a lot more to it than just saying "blockchain bad".  

    Even in the event regulations come and severely reduce decentralized cryptocurrency, there are centralized, backed and audited currencies that are used within games right now that won't go anywhere, and it's highly likely games will prefer the use of those digital currencies. 

    In 5 years people will probably be playing games with blockchain in it and never realize. I would bet there are thousands playing nino kuni crossworlds that have no idea it's a blockchain game right now.
    eoloe



  • TheDalaiBombaTheDalaiBomba Member EpicPosts: 1,493
    eoloe said:



    Mir4 is a bad game, but still right now there are 40000+ people playing this crap. So may be it is not "good, but it is undoubtedly popular.

    Personally, I think the current implementation of NFT which is based on the false promise of "Pay to Earn" is indeed the worst crap ever.

    However the tech exists and will not go anywhere.

    Let's be honest: the very idea of owning something in a digital world is seducing (even if it's a lie). I would not be surprised, if in its convulated evolutions some dev will find the right balance, the right way to implement the blockchain in a virtual world.

    I think that the first step for it to work is to create a digital world that is worth it. Not seen one yet with blockchain or not.

    PS: I expected a cat on the horse I am disappointed. :(


    Blockchain is not necessary to establish digital ownership (in fact, I'd be willing to bet good money we could find examples of digital ownership rights being transferred without any blockchain or NFT in sight if we did an internet search).

    Solution in search of a problem, which is why so many have no desire to see NFT gaming grow.

    The real worry here is that we're framing this as a matter of having to find reasons this is a bad idea, instead of merely refusing it until someone provides a reason why this is actually a good idea.  To date, I've seen absolutely nothing realistic about NFT gaming that would indicate to me it's a good idea.  Specifically, nothing that couldn't also be served by more traditional methods.

    The responsibility is on those pushing this type of gaming to convince me otherwise.  I don't owe any of these devs my time or attention.  We would all do well to treat every big new thing this way, specifically in today's digital space.
    Nobody needs to try to convince you of anything. Things are developed the way they are for a reason.

    If you think everything can be done without blockchain, it's time to ask yourself two questions. 

    Why is it bad to use blockchain then?

    and

    Why are they using blockchain? 

    There are plenty of reasons why companies have chosen blockchain. Whether or not you agree with them or the reasoning behind the use in gaming doesn't really matter. 
    It matters in the context of whether or not I support blockchain gaming.

    So yes, they do need to try to convince me, and as many people as they can, that their game is worth trying.  That's...  Kind of the entire point of marketing.

    And they're doing a piss poor job of it.  So I prefer to ask these questions:

    Why is it the play to earn portion is almost always the most heavily advertised part of adding blockchain?

    Why is "digital ownership" another popular marketing spiel, despite the fact that blockchain is not, *at all*, necessary to create such digital ownership?

    Why do people engage with these games, despite being ready to admit they're relatively piss poor experiences in the context of being an actual *video game*?


    All of those questions provide answers that tell me I'm not interested in blockchain gaming as things stand.


    MendelKyleranIselin
  • TheDalaiBombaTheDalaiBomba Member EpicPosts: 1,493
    Mendel said:

    And on the 'convincing us otherwise' part.  You can be sure their attempts will incorporate FOMO and other methods to convince us we are wrong without actually stating why they think they are right.

    This is a great example of how easily blockchain can be misunderstood. 

    There is an extreme disconnect between the actual technology and its features and what everyone takes away from marketing and media. 

    I can't even imagine a world where developers had to explain why they use a specific database for their games.
    Yet for some reason this same feature is the one that is hyped?   
    If it's worth HYPING in each and every article about a game then how can it not be worth an explanation?

    The way marketing talks about blockchain is the same way developers talk about their free to play models. 

    Blockchain itself has very little to do with actual gameplay, but it can point to what a player expects of its economy. 

    The problem is, there is no one size fits all when it comes to the use of blockchain. 

    There are inherent features in the technology with some benefits, and then there are ways to integrate it into games in ways that entice a certain kind of gamer to play it. 

    There are blockchain games that aren't directly marketed as blockchain, and now we have games that aren't blockchain games that are now transitioning to blockchain. 

    There is a lot more to it than just saying "blockchain bad".  

    Even in the event regulations come and severely reduce decentralized cryptocurrency, there are centralized, backed and audited currencies that are used within games right now that won't go anywhere, and it's highly likely games will prefer the use of those digital currencies. 

    In 5 years people will probably be playing games with blockchain in it and never realize. I would bet there are thousands playing nino kuni crossworlds that have no idea it's a blockchain game right now.
    That's the key difference between us here I think: I've said elsewhere that blockchain has enterprise uses, such as network security.

    That kind of use wouldn't even be advertised as a blockchain game, because advertising has created a specific, commonly accepted definition of blockchain games that requires the blockchain be front and center.

    Just as you say: games that aren't leveraging blockchains for the P2E crypto craze don't advertise themselves as blockchain games.  That's fine- I wouldn't expect a dev to advertise a game to me based on, say, how they secure their server databases.

    But when you hear a game's marketing crow itself as a blockchain game, it's not because they're just using to beef up their internal network security.
    KyleranMendelIselin
  • kitaradkitarad Member LegendaryPosts: 7,885
    I might have a poor understanding of blockchain but from what I read it requires a great deal of computational power. 

    If you use it in a game how much of that would become a player's problem? How much would a player be contributing to the current problem of energy and the future and our responsibility towards reducing energy use.

    I honestly don't like where these games are going.
    Ungood

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719

    Why is it the play to earn portion is almost always the most heavily advertised part of adding blockchain?
    Because stripped of the new tech buzzwords that is what they are actually promoting: It's all about being like Entropia but they claim to be a "new and Improved" version of "P(l)ay to Earn" 'cause of this wonderful new tech.

    Why is "digital ownership" another popular marketing spiel, despite the fact that blockchain is not, *at all*, necessary to create such digital ownership?

    Once again, because they're trying to make it sound like this new tech enables player to player transactions in a way unlike anything that has ever existed, totally ignoring  the fact that Entropia and the Diablo 3 RMAH did it without blockchains, crypto or NFTs.


    Why do people engage with these games, despite being ready to admit they're relatively piss poor experiences in the context of being an actual *video game*?

    Because they have been seduced by the first two points into thinking they're going to get rich by playing literal crap games.

    This is also used by shills for these games to argue that these games are not scams because they actually exist and can be played today... totally ignoring the main scam happening here which is that these games claim to have a technology that allows for "true ownership" (insert Kapitalist flag waving meme here) in a way never before seen with digital goods and that if you adopt this early, you're going to make boatloads of cash.

    Many different ways to scam gamers. 

    You can do it by promising to deliver a game, taking their money, and then not doing it (the KS MMO way) but you can also scam by selling the idea that the new tech in these games will give them a very good chance of earning substantial sums of cash by playing these very shitty games.
    Ungood
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,347
    edited July 2022
    Having blockchain doesn't automatically make a game a scam.  It is, however, the case that if you're a scammer trying to make a gaming scam today, it's probably going to prominently feature blockchain.  That's why blockchain is a red flag.  It's like the old lawyer joke:  the 90% who are crooks give the other 10% a bad reputation.

    If the game really is going to launch in August, then just don't give them any money until the game launches and people can find out if it's any good.  If the game launches and is terrible, or constantly gets delayed so that it's always weeks away from launch but never actually launches, then that's not your problem if you didn't give them any money.  And if the game launches and is really good, then you can play it then and today's skepticism won't matter.
    maskedweaselUngood
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,347
    So I decided to actually look through the game's site.  It has two pages:  a home page and a "whitepaper".  About half of the site is about NFTs and "play to earn".  If it's just a normal game that added NFTs as a minor feature, then they're sure trying to hide that.

    Also, whoever made their whitepaper isn't a native English speaker.  It's generally comprehensible, but there are quite a lot of sentences that are just jarringly wrong.
    maskedweaselUngood
  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,173

    And they're doing a piss poor job of it.  So I prefer to ask these questions:

    Why is it the play to earn portion is almost always the most heavily advertised part of adding blockchain?

    Why is "digital ownership" another popular marketing spiel, despite the fact that blockchain is not, *at all*, necessary to create such digital ownership?

    Why do people engage with these games, despite being ready to admit they're relatively piss poor experiences in the context of being an actual *video game*?


    All of those questions provide answers that tell me I'm not interested in blockchain gaming as things stand.


    Those questions would probably provide answers as to why you wouldn't want to play a specific game. I don't think it answers "why blockchain" 

    The digital ownership question kind of cancels itself out. You can say it's not necessary to use blockchain for digital ownership, but you're not answering why they shouldn't use blockchain for digital ownership.

    Aside from the fact that blockchain has more secure (somewhat industry standardized) transactions and a larger integrated network with a predefined API so that it can be implemented more easily, the functionality probably would be similar as a non blockchain solution. But if we're talking about digital ownership, why does it matter if its blockchain or not blockchain?

    There are some really bad blockchain games out there and the answer is pretty simple. Most players expect to make real money while playing. Games like mir4 are mostly botters. Not all blockchain games are this way. A lot of games are using play to earn as a way to add another way to monetize their games.  

    There are instances where this is beneficial to players. But you have to keep in mind that for it to make sense... the game has to be good and the player has to see value in the assets they own. If the only value of the asset is that they can sell it later for more money, it's not sustainable. 

    But that's why you have games that have every monetization model and play to earn tacked on. 

    There will be some good games that also use blockchain. They may advertise it, and they may not. 

    Back to the topic, this game might be really good, or it could really suck. 

    If it's like genshin though, I seriously doubt we're going to see a lot of botters. Especially since they say theres an abyss that gives rewards. The abyss in genshin is pretty tough unless you're way OP. 

    The days we start to see blockchain games that don't artifically pump their numbers with bots will be when we start to see worthwhile blockchain games we might like to play.




  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 7,517

    And they're doing a piss poor job of it.  So I prefer to ask these questions:

    Why is it the play to earn portion is almost always the most heavily advertised part of adding blockchain?

    Why is "digital ownership" another popular marketing spiel, despite the fact that blockchain is not, *at all*, necessary to create such digital ownership?

    Why do people engage with these games, despite being ready to admit they're relatively piss poor experiences in the context of being an actual *video game*?


    All of those questions provide answers that tell me I'm not interested in blockchain gaming as things stand.


    Those questions would probably provide answers as to why you wouldn't want to play a specific game. I don't think it answers "why blockchain" 

    The digital ownership question kind of cancels itself out. You can say it's not necessary to use blockchain for digital ownership, but you're not answering why they shouldn't use blockchain for digital ownership.

    Aside from the fact that blockchain has more secure (somewhat industry standardized) transactions and a larger integrated network with a predefined API so that it can be implemented more easily, the functionality probably would be similar as a non blockchain solution. But if we're talking about digital ownership, why does it matter if its blockchain or not blockchain?

    There are some really bad blockchain games out there and the answer is pretty simple. Most players expect to make real money while playing. Games like mir4 are mostly botters. Not all blockchain games are this way. A lot of games are using play to earn as a way to add another way to monetize their games.  

    There are instances where this is beneficial to players. But you have to keep in mind that for it to make sense... the game has to be good and the player has to see value in the assets they own. If the only value of the asset is that they can sell it later for more money, it's not sustainable. 

    But that's why you have games that have every monetization model and play to earn tacked on. 

    There will be some good games that also use blockchain. They may advertise it, and they may not. 

    Back to the topic, this game might be really good, or it could really suck. 

    If it's like genshin though, I seriously doubt we're going to see a lot of botters. Especially since they say theres an abyss that gives rewards. The abyss in genshin is pretty tough unless you're way OP. 

    The days we start to see blockchain games that don't artifically pump their numbers with bots will be when we start to see worthwhile blockchain games we might like to play.


    I am going to start this off by saying, I am not against NFT or Blockchain, in fact, when I looked into them, they seemed to have a huge amount of potential to truly redefine gaming.

    So, for me, I guess my biggest sore point with them right now, is that this tech allows for a freeform Gameworld, that just exists, a game world that exists across the web, as opposed to a single server, where any developer could build their own setting, their own style of game, and have it all inter connect in this massive truly virtual world.

    And what I get are these, stale, boring style games, that have been done better already, on private servers.

    So I am seeing no advantage to these games, and it comes across as them using Blockchain like a marketing gimmick as opposed to using blockchain to make a deeper game system.

    It's like making a fuss about the tech for the sake of the tech, and still giving you a pile of shit.

    Like if someone sold you golf cart, trying to pass it off as an electric car, and their only sale point is "It's Electric" well yah, thanks, but I kind of want a car, like an EV that can compete with my Mustang in the coolness factor, not a glorified golf cart that makes me feel like I need to start wearing ugly shoes and a fanny pack.

    So, for me, I think these game developers should focus on making a fun game as opposed to expecting the tech alone to sell a pile of shit.
    MendelmaskedweaselKyleran
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • TheDalaiBombaTheDalaiBomba Member EpicPosts: 1,493
    edited July 2022
    Those questions would probably provide answers as to why you wouldn't want to play a specific game. I don't think it answers "why blockchain" 

    The digital ownership question kind of cancels itself out. You can say it's not necessary to use blockchain for digital ownership, but you're not answering why they shouldn't use blockchain for digital ownership.

    Aside from the fact that blockchain has more secure (somewhat industry standardized) transactions and a larger integrated network with a predefined API so that it can be implemented more easily, the functionality probably would be similar as a non blockchain solution. But if we're talking about digital ownership, why does it matter if its blockchain or not blockchain?

    There are some really bad blockchain games out there and the answer is pretty simple. Most players expect to make real money while playing. Games like mir4 are mostly botters. Not all blockchain games are this way. A lot of games are using play to earn as a way to add another way to monetize their games.  

    There are instances where this is beneficial to players. But you have to keep in mind that for it to make sense... the game has to be good and the player has to see value in the assets they own. If the only value of the asset is that they can sell it later for more money, it's not sustainable. 

    But that's why you have games that have every monetization model and play to earn tacked on. 

    There will be some good games that also use blockchain. They may advertise it, and they may not. 

    Back to the topic, this game might be really good, or it could really suck. 

    If it's like genshin though, I seriously doubt we're going to see a lot of botters. Especially since they say theres an abyss that gives rewards. The abyss in genshin is pretty tough unless you're way OP. 

    The days we start to see blockchain games that don't artifically pump their numbers with bots will be when we start to see worthwhile blockchain games we might like to play.


    No one is disagreeing with you that it's technically possible to make a good game and integrate blockchain.

    But what's possible and what's reality don't always match up, and they REALLY do not match up here.  And this isn't a matter of "they're just trying to find the best way to do it," this is a bunch of folks pumping blockchain to sell half-assed games.

    Until what's possible matches up with reality, everything you described above isn't really applicable.  It would be a nice goal for devs considering blockchain to have, but that's about it.

    We'll all wait on that "good" blockchain game that uses the blockchain craze to advertise itself.  I'm willing to bet the nature of the schemes themselves discourage the scrupulous from integrating it, though.  We've actually already seen this.

    Maybe some revolutionary game will come along and change that, but it is *absolutely not* a given like you seem to imply.  Blockchain gaming, as games like MIR4 define it, likely will remain in the realm of the unscrupulous, the desperate, and the dodgy.

    As for the question of digital ownership: back to my original point.  We have methods of imparting digital ownership that work just fine compared to NFTs.  So convince me why I should support a move to blockchain.  The technology does, indeed, need to prove itself, specifically when previous technology is still serving that purpose just fine.
  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,173



    No one is disagreeing with you that it's technically possible to make a good game and integrate blockchain.

    But what's possible and what's reality don't always match up, and they REALLY do not match up here.  And this isn't a matter of "they're just trying to find the best way to do it," this is a bunch of folks pumping blockchain to sell half-assed games.

    Until what's possible matches up with reality, everything you described above isn't really applicable.  It would be a nice goal for devs considering blockchain to have, but that's about it.

    We'll all wait on that "good" blockchain game that uses the blockchain craze to advertise itself.  I'm willing to bet the nature of the schemes themselves discourage the scrupulous from integrating it, though.  We've actually already seen this.

    Maybe some revolutionary game will come along and change that, but it is *absolutely not* a given like you seem to imply.  Blockchain gaming, as games like MIR4 define it, likely will remain in the realm of the unscrupulous, the desperate, and the dodgy.

    As for the question of digital ownership: back to my original point.  We have methods of imparting digital ownership that work just fine compared to NFTs.  So convince me why I should support a move to blockchain.  The technology does, indeed, need to prove itself, specifically when previous technology is still serving that purpose just fine.
    I already think there are good blockchain games available. Good and popular are different though because the blockchain games I like aren't the most popular blockchain games. Mostly because the biggest blockchain games are easy to bot, and the ones I like to play can't be automated, and even if you could it wouldn't earn you any money doing it. 

    Theres a few in development too that are shaping up to be really good. It might just be a matter of time. 

    Now for your original point, there's really only one answer that matters for me to "convince" you why you should support a "move to blockchain"

    The developers built it that way. 

    You don't have to support it... but the developers built it on blockchain. They aren't doing digital ownership without blockchain. They could have done it that way for decades, but they didn't. 

    There's reasons why they chose blockchain to do it. A lot of those reasons aren't going to convince you of the move. They aren't reasons that are beneficial to gamers on the surface. Reasons like smart contracts with inherent fee structures, and direct profit from grey markets and various protocol and app/wallet integration are all things that developers want for their assets to have when someone owns them. 

    To mimic blockchain without using blockchain just doesn't make sense. 



  • TheDalaiBombaTheDalaiBomba Member EpicPosts: 1,493



    No one is disagreeing with you that it's technically possible to make a good game and integrate blockchain.

    But what's possible and what's reality don't always match up, and they REALLY do not match up here.  And this isn't a matter of "they're just trying to find the best way to do it," this is a bunch of folks pumping blockchain to sell half-assed games.

    Until what's possible matches up with reality, everything you described above isn't really applicable.  It would be a nice goal for devs considering blockchain to have, but that's about it.

    We'll all wait on that "good" blockchain game that uses the blockchain craze to advertise itself.  I'm willing to bet the nature of the schemes themselves discourage the scrupulous from integrating it, though.  We've actually already seen this.

    Maybe some revolutionary game will come along and change that, but it is *absolutely not* a given like you seem to imply.  Blockchain gaming, as games like MIR4 define it, likely will remain in the realm of the unscrupulous, the desperate, and the dodgy.

    As for the question of digital ownership: back to my original point.  We have methods of imparting digital ownership that work just fine compared to NFTs.  So convince me why I should support a move to blockchain.  The technology does, indeed, need to prove itself, specifically when previous technology is still serving that purpose just fine.
    I already think there are good blockchain games available. Good and popular are different though because the blockchain games I like aren't the most popular blockchain games. Mostly because the biggest blockchain games are easy to bot, and the ones I like to play can't be automated, and even if you could it wouldn't earn you any money doing it. 

    Theres a few in development too that are shaping up to be really good. It might just be a matter of time. 

    Now for your original point, there's really only one answer that matters for me to "convince" you why you should support a "move to blockchain"

    The developers built it that way. 

    You don't have to support it... but the developers built it on blockchain. They aren't doing digital ownership without blockchain. They could have done it that way for decades, but they didn't. 

    There's reasons why they chose blockchain to do it. A lot of those reasons aren't going to convince you of the move. They aren't reasons that are beneficial to gamers on the surface. Reasons like smart contracts with inherent fee structures, and direct profit from grey markets and various protocol and app/wallet integration are all things that developers want for their assets to have when someone owns them. 

    To mimic blockchain without using blockchain just doesn't make sense. 
    They aren't, though.  At least, I haven't seen a AAA studio in attempting to advertise digital ownership via blockchain to sell an actual new game release.  Of the ones who suggested a move towards including NFTs and such in existing or future products, the response was swift and negative.

    We've seen a lot of *failed* games try to use them to stay afloat.  We've seen Richard Garriott do it to sell his new project.  We've seen games fold up as the blockchain they based their pitches on (or the game development itself) implodes, leaving many users out in the cold.

    This is why nobody cares about the reasons devs want to include them front and center.  That is what the technology needs to change, that's what it needs to prove.  It's already lost the faith of the market, and that's not for no reason.  It will have to rebuild that faith to get taken seriously by gamers at large.
  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,173



    No one is disagreeing with you that it's technically possible to make a good game and integrate blockchain.

    But what's possible and what's reality don't always match up, and they REALLY do not match up here.  And this isn't a matter of "they're just trying to find the best way to do it," this is a bunch of folks pumping blockchain to sell half-assed games.

    Until what's possible matches up with reality, everything you described above isn't really applicable.  It would be a nice goal for devs considering blockchain to have, but that's about it.

    We'll all wait on that "good" blockchain game that uses the blockchain craze to advertise itself.  I'm willing to bet the nature of the schemes themselves discourage the scrupulous from integrating it, though.  We've actually already seen this.

    Maybe some revolutionary game will come along and change that, but it is *absolutely not* a given like you seem to imply.  Blockchain gaming, as games like MIR4 define it, likely will remain in the realm of the unscrupulous, the desperate, and the dodgy.

    As for the question of digital ownership: back to my original point.  We have methods of imparting digital ownership that work just fine compared to NFTs.  So convince me why I should support a move to blockchain.  The technology does, indeed, need to prove itself, specifically when previous technology is still serving that purpose just fine.
    I already think there are good blockchain games available. Good and popular are different though because the blockchain games I like aren't the most popular blockchain games. Mostly because the biggest blockchain games are easy to bot, and the ones I like to play can't be automated, and even if you could it wouldn't earn you any money doing it. 

    Theres a few in development too that are shaping up to be really good. It might just be a matter of time. 

    Now for your original point, there's really only one answer that matters for me to "convince" you why you should support a "move to blockchain"

    The developers built it that way. 

    You don't have to support it... but the developers built it on blockchain. They aren't doing digital ownership without blockchain. They could have done it that way for decades, but they didn't. 

    There's reasons why they chose blockchain to do it. A lot of those reasons aren't going to convince you of the move. They aren't reasons that are beneficial to gamers on the surface. Reasons like smart contracts with inherent fee structures, and direct profit from grey markets and various protocol and app/wallet integration are all things that developers want for their assets to have when someone owns them. 

    To mimic blockchain without using blockchain just doesn't make sense. 
    They aren't, though.  At least, I haven't seen a AAA studio in attempting to advertise digital ownership via blockchain to sell an actual new game release.  Of the ones who suggested a move towards including NFTs and such in existing or future products, the response was swift and negative.

    We've seen a lot of *failed* games try to use them to stay afloat.  We've seen Richard Garriott do it to sell his new project.  We've seen games fold up as the blockchain they based their pitches on (or the game development itself) implodes, leaving many users out in the cold.

    This is why nobody cares about the reasons devs want to include them front and center.  That is what the technology needs to change, that's what it needs to prove.  It's already lost the faith of the market, and that's not for no reason.  It will have to rebuild that faith to get taken seriously by gamers at large.
    Not sure what exactly you're looking for. 

    Digital ownership is part of what's inherent in games that incorporate NFTs. 

    Failed games that transition to use NFTs are one instance of studios trying to use blockchain to stay afloat. It's not going to make the games any better, but it is an added monetization model so its possible it might help. 

    But there are a lot of blockchain games that are doing really well and those games are also pretty good. Blankos is still doing pretty good, and they have nfts and a cash shop. trade volumes are pretty healthy. 

    Most blockchain games haven't outright failed or shut down even when they aren't particularly popular. The only reason that F1 game closed was because the license was pulled, and NFTs were reissued for other games, that's something that was never on the table for games that shut down in the past. 

    What we see with AAA studios is different. Most AAA companies are funding projects from other studios. It just makes more sense that way. 

    It's really only a matter of time before more games attempt to create NFT economies, whether or not they advertise them. It's an easy form of sustainable monetization with no ongoing development costs. 

    Players don't like it now. They may never like it. But just like gacha games, people can hate it all day, but they still take part in it.




  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 43,435
    Wargfoot said:
    Ungood said:

    So, for me, I think these game developers should focus on making a fun game as opposed to expecting the tech alone to sell a pile of shit.
    Let's just adopt the rule that any game that leads with the technology it is built upon automatically has a cap of 2/10 for rating.
    So if they lead with their monetization strategy automatically a 1/10, inclusion of NFTs or crypto an immediate 0/10?

    Works well for me.


    UngoodUwakionna

    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,347
    Wargfoot said:
    Ungood said:

    So, for me, I think these game developers should focus on making a fun game as opposed to expecting the tech alone to sell a pile of shit.
    Let's just adopt the rule that any game that leads with the technology it is built upon automatically has a cap of 2/10 for rating.
    Not necessarily.  It depends on what the tech is.  If they're just grabbing some off-the-shelf thing that a lot of other games have used, then sure.  But if you're creating some innovative tech that makes it possible to do something interesting that games couldn't do before, that's a very different matter.

    Suppose that some developers figure out how to make an enormous, procedurally generated world with extremely fast but continuous and not instantaneous travel, such that most of your time adventuring will be spent wandering into areas where literally no one else has gone before and you don't know what is there.  Meanwhile, the world is persistent, and you can make changes that will still be there a day or a month later, and see the effects of what others have done, even if it was months earlier.  Also, the underlying world assets are streamed to you as you play so that the game can be rendered locally with no perceptible loading times.

    If the developers lead off their explanation of a game with "this is some tech we've created and this is what we're going to use it for", would you really say that deserves a cap of 2/10?
  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,173
    Stizzled said:



    No one is disagreeing with you that it's technically possible to make a good game and integrate blockchain.

    But what's possible and what's reality don't always match up, and they REALLY do not match up here.  And this isn't a matter of "they're just trying to find the best way to do it," this is a bunch of folks pumping blockchain to sell half-assed games.

    Until what's possible matches up with reality, everything you described above isn't really applicable.  It would be a nice goal for devs considering blockchain to have, but that's about it.

    We'll all wait on that "good" blockchain game that uses the blockchain craze to advertise itself.  I'm willing to bet the nature of the schemes themselves discourage the scrupulous from integrating it, though.  We've actually already seen this.

    Maybe some revolutionary game will come along and change that, but it is *absolutely not* a given like you seem to imply.  Blockchain gaming, as games like MIR4 define it, likely will remain in the realm of the unscrupulous, the desperate, and the dodgy.

    As for the question of digital ownership: back to my original point.  We have methods of imparting digital ownership that work just fine compared to NFTs.  So convince me why I should support a move to blockchain.  The technology does, indeed, need to prove itself, specifically when previous technology is still serving that purpose just fine.
    I already think there are good blockchain games available. Good and popular are different though because the blockchain games I like aren't the most popular blockchain games. Mostly because the biggest blockchain games are easy to bot, and the ones I like to play can't be automated, and even if you could it wouldn't earn you any money doing it. 
    Which blockchain games do you think are good? I'd like to take a look at them. It'd be nice to see some games using blockchain and NFTs in some novel and interesting way instead of just for speculative trading and gambling.
    I like Skyweaver as a card game. 

    https://www.skyweaver.net/

    They don't use NFTs in a novel way necessarily. They do have some features I like.  They sell in USDC on polygon instead of ethereum. That means sales are a lot easier to understand. 

    All purchases are cosmetic, which means you earn the same cards even if you don't spend money. 

    I like card games. It's not my favorite card game but I'll play it from time to time. 

    Other games I don't play as much anymore but I do approve of are

    blankos block party. It's a party style, content creation game like Minecraft/roblox. NFT's can be bought or earned, but you can't farm them or anything. I like the race modes and some of the worlds that people create.  I only log in maybe once a month or when they add on to the player hub. 

    https://blankos.com/

    Some of the novel uses of blockchain that you might be interested in are really more proof of concept. Stuff like Nine Chronicles. I don't know how popular it is. It says it's an MMO too, but it isn't. The game is stated as running completely on blockchain, which means there are no servers... so as long as people play it the game can never die. Ubisoft is also an investor in the game.

    https://nine-chronicles.com/chapter3.html#hero-section-9c

    But nine chronicles isn't really my thing. The other two games listed are still considered in beta or development. Neither game has launched yet. 
    [Deleted User]Kyleran



  • TalinTalin Member UncommonPosts: 918
    When I seek to make money, I like to have an understanding and agreement on the value of my time. If I work a certain amount, I make a certain amount of money.

    When I seek to invest, I like to understand the value, history, and prospects of the assets I am investing in, so I can make decent decisions on how to try to increase the value of the money I save (well, a % of it anyhow).

    When I play a MMO, I like to have fun and enjoy the content, experiences, and progression over time. I also like to understand what it costs and that I will get good value for my money in terms of what it unlocks for me in the game or allows me to do.

    I don't see how these types of games actually check any of the boxes above, so pretty clearly I'm out.
Sign In or Register to comment.