Even if NFTs became a games-wide thing and free transport of items between games became the norm, exactly how long would it take before one item 'earned' in game A would be perceived as overpowered in game B? Or how game A allowed people to earn Item X faster (and cheaper) than game B? Or NFT A is better than NFT B because it is more valuable? How many people will be screaming because something imported is 'better' than what they can find/earn in a specific game?
Transferring items between games is the *bad* idea, no matter what technology is underneath the actual mechanics that make it possible. Balance is tough enough without opening the door to just anyone who makes an NFT.
Both transferring items and trying to give virtual items made for use within a video game application real speculative value are terrible ideas. It's a scammer, launderer, and fraudster's paradise.
Remind me again why the idea of being able to own something in a game that you can take to another game is something we want or need especially when you bring the concept of P2Win into it.
You need to buy into the concept that spending money in one game on something that is only usable in that game is wrong or some kind of travesty to see the "benefit" of cross-game ownership even if it's a sword in one game and a hat in the other,
To begin with, that's one less hat sale in game B so why would competing developers want it? Then there's the requirement for gamers to readjust their thinking about gaming not being just consumable entertainment but an investment.
Just more "solutions" looking for non-existing problems to solve with more potential for gaming enjoyment harm than benefit,
It isn't something we want. It may be something some want. The only thing need seen is value in being able to transfer an item from one game to another.
Where the value of that is easiest seen is the closure of a game. If items purchased for it cannot be transferred to another their value is certain to be entirely lost. If they can be the value of them may possibly be retained to at least some degree.
Some chance is superior to no chance.
Every item having a cash value results in every item looted opening a popup saying "$1.49 to loot this carcass." Face it. Blockchain has predatory uses and game developers, especially their marketing departments, are predatory people.
I wasn't speaking of the cash value of the item but that perceived by the buyer within the game that motivated purchase of it.
There is nothing predatory about providing the means to transfer items purchased for use in a game that has since closed to one that remains open.
Rather, it helps maintain their value to the purchaser as that would have been lost entirely if the item was inextricably tied to the game no longer available.
Here's something for you to face:
Monetization itself is predatory. No for profit company provides anything solely out of the goodness of the collective hearts of it's owners regardless of the marketing model used. The manner of chase may vary. The nature of it does not.
Actually, you're wrong. Monetization in itself is not predatory. Is it predatory to charge for the cupcakes you make? Is it predatory to charge for fixing someone's car? There is a very fine line between monetization and predatory monetization. As an example, charging for an item is monetization. Charging for the chance to get an item is predatory ( a.k.a. gambling or "loot boxes" ).
Yes and no. Charging for the cupcakes you make is predatory if it’s in an area where you control all the food and insure this is the only option available.If I can starve or buy your $20 cupcakes it’s not really much of a choice.
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
Remind me again why the idea of being able to own something in a game that you can take to another game is something we want or need especially when you bring the concept of P2Win into it.
You need to buy into the concept that spending money in one game on something that is only usable in that game is wrong or some kind of travesty to see the "benefit" of cross-game ownership even if it's a sword in one game and a hat in the other,
To begin with, that's one less hat sale in game B so why would competing developers want it? Then there's the requirement for gamers to readjust their thinking about gaming not being just consumable entertainment but an investment.
Just more "solutions" looking for non-existing problems to solve with more potential for gaming enjoyment harm than benefit,
It isn't something we want. It may be something some want. The only thing need seen is value in being able to transfer an item from one game to another.
Where the value of that is easiest seen is the closure of a game. If items purchased for it cannot be transferred to another their value is certain to be entirely lost. If they can be the value of them may possibly be retained to at least some degree.
Some chance is superior to no chance.
Every item having a cash value results in every item looted opening a popup saying "$1.49 to loot this carcass." Face it. Blockchain has predatory uses and game developers, especially their marketing departments, are predatory people.
I wasn't speaking of the cash value of the item but that perceived by the buyer within the game that motivated purchase of it.
There is nothing predatory about providing the means to transfer items purchased for use in a game that has since closed to one that remains open.
Rather, it helps maintain their value to the purchaser as that would have been lost entirely if the item was inextricably tied to the game no longer available.
Here's something for you to face:
Monetization itself is predatory. No for profit company provides anything solely out of the goodness of the collective hearts of it's owners regardless of the marketing model used. The manner of chase may vary. The nature of it does not.
Actually, you're wrong. Monetization in itself is not predatory. Is it predatory to charge for the cupcakes you make? Is it predatory to charge for fixing someone's car? There is a very fine line between monetization and predatory monetization. As an example, charging for an item is monetization. Charging for the chance to get an item is predatory ( a.k.a. gambling or "loot boxes" ).
Yes and no. Charging for the cupcakes you make is predatory if it’s in an area where you control all the food and insure this is the only option available.If I can starve or buy your $20 cupcakes it’s not really much of a choice.
You changed a normal situation of monetization, charging for cupcakes, into predatory monetization, gouging prices via monopoly. There's no yes and no. You crossed the fine line.
Saying monetization in itself is predatory, is saying noones labor or production has monetary value.
No. Because when you are in a game the company has 100% control over the cupcakes and their price and whether or not there is an alternative.
Monetization is not always predatory certainly, but even charging for a straight purchase can be predatory based on the environment and whether the item being sold is solving a problem they themselves created to pressure you to buy it.
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
Remind me again why the idea of being able to own something in a game that you can take to another game is something we want or need especially when you bring the concept of P2Win into it.
You need to buy into the concept that spending money in one game on something that is only usable in that game is wrong or some kind of travesty to see the "benefit" of cross-game ownership even if it's a sword in one game and a hat in the other,
To begin with, that's one less hat sale in game B so why would competing developers want it? Then there's the requirement for gamers to readjust their thinking about gaming not being just consumable entertainment but an investment.
Just more "solutions" looking for non-existing problems to solve with more potential for gaming enjoyment harm than benefit,
It isn't something we want. It may be something some want. The only thing need seen is value in being able to transfer an item from one game to another.
Where the value of that is easiest seen is the closure of a game. If items purchased for it cannot be transferred to another their value is certain to be entirely lost. If they can be the value of them may possibly be retained to at least some degree.
Some chance is superior to no chance.
Every item having a cash value results in every item looted opening a popup saying "$1.49 to loot this carcass." Face it. Blockchain has predatory uses and game developers, especially their marketing departments, are predatory people.
I wasn't speaking of the cash value of the item but that perceived by the buyer within the game that motivated purchase of it.
There is nothing predatory about providing the means to transfer items purchased for use in a game that has since closed to one that remains open.
Rather, it helps maintain their value to the purchaser as that would have been lost entirely if the item was inextricably tied to the game no longer available.
Here's something for you to face:
Monetization itself is predatory. No for profit company provides anything solely out of the goodness of the collective hearts of it's owners regardless of the marketing model used. The manner of chase may vary. The nature of it does not.
Actually, you're wrong. Monetization in itself is not predatory. Is it predatory to charge for the cupcakes you make? Is it predatory to charge for fixing someone's car? There is a very fine line between monetization and predatory monetization. As an example, charging for an item is monetization. Charging for the chance to get an item is predatory ( a.k.a. gambling or "loot boxes" ).
Yes and no. Charging for the cupcakes you make is predatory if it’s in an area where you control all the food and insure this is the only option available.If I can starve or buy your $20 cupcakes it’s not really much of a choice.
You changed a normal situation of monetization, charging for cupcakes, into predatory monetization, gouging prices via monopoly. There's no yes and no. You crossed the fine line.
Saying monetization in itself is predatory, is saying noones labor or production has monetary value.
No. Because when you are in a game the company has 100% control over the cupcakes and their price and whether or not there is an alternative.
Monetization is not always predatory certainly, but even charging for a straight purchase can be predatory based on the environment and whether the item being sold is solving a problem they themselves created to pressure you to buy it.
So monetization in itself is not inherently predatory. So what are we arguing about? lol
Even if NFTs became a games-wide thing and free transport of items between games became the norm, exactly how long would it take before one item 'earned' in game A would be perceived as overpowered in game B? Or how game A allowed people to earn Item X faster (and cheaper) than game B? Or NFT A is better than NFT B because it is more valuable? How many people will be screaming because something imported is 'better' than what they can find/earn in a specific game?
Transferring items between games is the *bad* idea, no matter what technology is underneath the actual mechanics that make it possible. Balance is tough enough without opening the door to just anyone who makes an NFT.
Both transferring items and trying to give virtual items made for use within a video game application real speculative value are terrible ideas. It's a scammer, launderer, and fraudster's paradise.
It is a serious Pandora's Box.
In game items are already given real speculative value.
Remind me again why the idea of being able to own something in a game that you can take to another game is something we want or need especially when you bring the concept of P2Win into it.
You need to buy into the concept that spending money in one game on something that is only usable in that game is wrong or some kind of travesty to see the "benefit" of cross-game ownership even if it's a sword in one game and a hat in the other,
To begin with, that's one less hat sale in game B so why would competing developers want it? Then there's the requirement for gamers to readjust their thinking about gaming not being just consumable entertainment but an investment.
Just more "solutions" looking for non-existing problems to solve with more potential for gaming enjoyment harm than benefit,
It isn't something we want. It may be something some want. The only thing need seen is value in being able to transfer an item from one game to another.
Where the value of that is easiest seen is the closure of a game. If items purchased for it cannot be transferred to another their value is certain to be entirely lost. If they can be the value of them may possibly be retained to at least some degree.
Some chance is superior to no chance.
Every item having a cash value results in every item looted opening a popup saying "$1.49 to loot this carcass." Face it. Blockchain has predatory uses and game developers, especially their marketing departments, are predatory people.
I wasn't speaking of the cash value of the item but that perceived by the buyer within the game that motivated purchase of it.
There is nothing predatory about providing the means to transfer items purchased for use in a game that has since closed to one that remains open.
Rather, it helps maintain their value to the purchaser as that would have been lost entirely if the item was inextricably tied to the game no longer available.
Here's something for you to face:
Monetization itself is predatory. No for profit company provides anything solely out of the goodness of the collective hearts of it's owners regardless of the marketing model used. The manner of chase may vary. The nature of it does not.
Actually, you're wrong. Monetization in itself is not predatory. Is it predatory to charge for the cupcakes you make? Is it predatory to charge for fixing someone's car? There is a very fine line between monetization and predatory monetization. As an example, charging for an item is monetization. Charging for the chance to get an item is predatory ( a.k.a. gambling or "loot boxes" ).
Yes and no. Charging for the cupcakes you make is predatory if it’s in an area where you control all the food and insure this is the only option available.If I can starve or buy your $20 cupcakes it’s not really much of a choice.
You changed a normal situation of monetization, charging for cupcakes, into predatory monetization, gouging prices via monopoly. There's no yes and no. You crossed the fine line.
Saying monetization in itself is predatory, is saying noones labor or production has monetary value.
No. Because when you are in a game the company has 100% control over the cupcakes and their price and whether or not there is an alternative.
Monetization is not always predatory certainly, but even charging for a straight purchase can be predatory based on the environment and whether the item being sold is solving a problem they themselves created to pressure you to buy it.
So monetization in itself is not inherently predatory. So what are we arguing about? lol
I read your post as saying monetization of direct buys could not be predatory, only if there was gambling involved. If you agree that manipulating the game to cause pain points that can then be relieved by buying (directly, no lootbox) a product is predatory than I guess we align.
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
Even if NFTs became a games-wide thing and free transport of items between games became the norm, exactly how long would it take before one item 'earned' in game A would be perceived as overpowered in game B? Or how game A allowed people to earn Item X faster (and cheaper) than game B? Or NFT A is better than NFT B because it is more valuable? How many people will be screaming because something imported is 'better' than what they can find/earn in a specific game?
Transferring items between games is the *bad* idea, no matter what technology is underneath the actual mechanics that make it possible. Balance is tough enough without opening the door to just anyone who makes an NFT.
Both transferring items and trying to give virtual items made for use within a video game application real speculative value are terrible ideas. It's a scammer, launderer, and fraudster's paradise.
It is a serious Pandora's Box.
In game items are already given real speculative value.
And it is bad for the industry, and it doesn't need to "evolve" and become the norm using a needlessly complex method that's ripe for shenanigans of all sorts.
Saying monetization in itself is predatory, is saying noones labor or production has monetary value.
Everyone's labour has monetary value, and most people do their best to maximize that value... not unlike for profit companies seeking to maximize profits.
Remind me again why the idea of being able to own something in a game that you can take to another game is something we want or need especially when you bring the concept of P2Win into it.
You need to buy into the concept that spending money in one game on something that is only usable in that game is wrong or some kind of travesty to see the "benefit" of cross-game ownership even if it's a sword in one game and a hat in the other,
To begin with, that's one less hat sale in game B so why would competing developers want it? Then there's the requirement for gamers to readjust their thinking about gaming not being just consumable entertainment but an investment.
Just more "solutions" looking for non-existing problems to solve with more potential for gaming enjoyment harm than benefit,
It isn't something we want. It may be something some want. The only thing need seen is value in being able to transfer an item from one game to another.
Where the value of that is easiest seen is the closure of a game. If items purchased for it cannot be transferred to another their value is certain to be entirely lost. If they can be the value of them may possibly be retained to at least some degree.
Some chance is superior to no chance.
Every item having a cash value results in every item looted opening a popup saying "$1.49 to loot this carcass." Face it. Blockchain has predatory uses and game developers, especially their marketing departments, are predatory people.
I wasn't speaking of the cash value of the item but that perceived by the buyer within the game that motivated purchase of it.
There is nothing predatory about providing the means to transfer items purchased for use in a game that has since closed to one that remains open.
Rather, it helps maintain their value to the purchaser as that would have been lost entirely if the item was inextricably tied to the game no longer available.
Here's something for you to face:
Monetization itself is predatory. No for profit company provides anything solely out of the goodness of the collective hearts of it's owners regardless of the marketing model used. The manner of chase may vary. The nature of it does not.
Actually, you're wrong. Monetization in itself is not predatory. Is it predatory to charge for the cupcakes you make? Is it predatory to charge for fixing someone's car? There is a very fine line between monetization and predatory monetization. As an example, charging for an item is monetization. Charging for the chance to get an item is predatory ( a.k.a. gambling or "loot boxes" ).
Yes and no. Charging for the cupcakes you make is predatory if it’s in an area where you control all the food and insure this is the only option available.If I can starve or buy your $20 cupcakes it’s not really much of a choice.
You changed a normal situation of monetization, charging for cupcakes, into predatory monetization, gouging prices via monopoly. There's no yes and no. You crossed the fine line.
Saying monetization in itself is predatory, is saying noones labor or production has monetary value.
No. Because when you are in a game the company has 100% control over the cupcakes and their price and whether or not there is an alternative.
Monetization is not always predatory certainly, but even charging for a straight purchase can be predatory based on the environment and whether the item being sold is solving a problem they themselves created to pressure you to buy it.
So monetization in itself is not inherently predatory. So what are we arguing about? lol
I read your post as saying monetization of direct buys could not be predatory, only if there was gambling involved. If you agree that manipulating the game to cause pain points that can then be relieved by buying (directly, no lootbox) a product is predatory than I guess we align.
KnightFalz said "All monetization is predatory.".
That was what I originally responded to, pointing out monetization by itself is not, it has to be purposely designed that way. So yes, we align.
I feel like these conversations would be easier and shorter if we were sitting at a table drinking beer instead of trying to convey thoughts via text. lol
Of course it must be purposely designed so, and predominantly is.
If it wasn't being profitable in itself would be sufficient. That's not the standard strove for in most cases. It is the maximization of.
People won't sell cupcakes for $1 if the market will bear a price of $2, even if charging $1 is profitable.
It isn't just customers treated as prey but competitors as well when possible, whether by takeover or undercutting them to extinction.
Monetization is inherently predatory.
Some forms are just more blatantly so than others.
Is there such a thing as fair monetization? Which perspective would that standard be using the seller or buyer?
Both. Definition of fair (market) value
Fair value is the estimated price at which an asset is bought or sold when both the buyer and seller freely agree on a price. Individuals and businesses may compare current market value, growth potential, and replacement cost to determine the fair value of an asset.
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
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
Is there such a thing as fair monetization? Which perspective would that standard be using the seller or buyer?
Both. Definition of fair (market) value
Fair value is the estimated price at which an asset is bought or sold when both the buyer and seller freely agree on a price. Individuals and businesses may compare current market value, growth potential, and replacement cost to determine the fair value of an asset.
Comments
It is a serious Pandora's Box.
Charging for the cupcakes you make is predatory if it’s in an area where you control all the food and insure this is the only option available.If I can starve or buy your $20 cupcakes it’s not really much of a choice.
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
Monetization is not always predatory certainly, but even charging for a straight purchase can be predatory based on the environment and whether the item being sold is solving a problem they themselves created to pressure you to buy it.
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
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
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Everyone's labour has monetary value, and most people do their best to maximize that value... not unlike for profit companies seeking to maximize profits.
Of course it must be purposely designed so, and predominantly is.
If it wasn't being profitable in itself would be sufficient. That's not the standard strove for in most cases. It is the maximization of.
It isn't just customers treated as prey but competitors as well when possible, whether by takeover or undercutting them to extinction.
Monetization is inherently predatory.
Some forms are just more blatantly so than others.
"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
"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
Where that becomes predatory is where one party obfuscates or misleads the other about essential parts of the transaction.