I'm afraid im a little bit confused by the OP, but it's probably a terminology thing.
Are you complaining about blockchains in general?
Are you complaining about decentralised blockchains more specifically?
Are you just complaining about cryptocurrencies?
Each is a very specific thing. The OP seems to be entirely focused on cryptocurrencies, which is fair enough, but the OP always refers to them as blockchains, which is different.
For clarification, a blockchain is simply a "new" type of database structure. Blockchains have positives and negatives in comparison to traditional database structures.
Decentralised blockchains are where the database is not stored in one location, but distributed more widely. In order to get something added to the blockchain, the addition must be verified by most of those distributed databases.
Cryptocurrencies are just digital currencies. Many of them are based on blockchain technology, but not all. Many use decentralised blockchains, but not all.
It is the interaction of blockchain and cryptocurrencies with gaming that concerns me. If you think the name blockchain is being misused, that's down to the games calling themselves blockchain MMOs. I am sure there will be some who are not, a bit like the way the term MMO is applied to anything these days.
My understanding is that the blockchain facilitates trading between games and the cryptocurrency only comes in if you can convert what you have earned in game to real money. Both of which I find counter to gaming ethos. Now you would be perfectly reasonable in saying that I and other posters here have done a lot of speculation on how these games will develop, but I just delved into what gaming journalists have said and that's where they say this is going.
Blockchain does not solely facilitate trading but it can. Blockchain can be used for a lot of things, not just as a cash shop. I think your understanding of it is very limited.
You can utilize it for transactions between players, sure, but you can also use it to house any kind of transactional data, including actual skill use. In many ways you could use it as a database of sorts, and some games are being built nearly completely on a blockchain. The name blockchain is not being misused. Games can be built on a blockchain and never use cryptocurrency at all.
That you're worried about that specific part of a blockchain game is one thing but it isn't indicative of every blockchain game. A blockchain game doesn't inherently need to integrate a cryptocurrency at all to be called a blockchain game.
Trying to brush this under the carpet my saying my understanding is limited is fascicle. Every time I have talked about this I have indicated my concern is about blockchain in games. Apparently because I have not talked about blockchain outside of games that means my understanding is limited. My concern here is how it will be used in games, why would I talk about its use elsewhere? Of course this is about how blockchain can be used, not about how every game with a blockchain is being used now, that is why I mentioned this speculation comes not just from me but gaming journalists.
While it may be possible for the term block chain to be used in gaming without integrating cryptocurrency so far almost every example I've read about in relationship to gaming does in fact integrate cryptocurrency.
Until I see some examples of block chain in other uses which benefit me personally (meaning games I'm interested in playing) I'm going to continue to hold on to my accurate, albeit limited view on the subject.
BTW, I work in the banking sector where distributed ledgers are being used in all sorts of new projects at the firm which so far are all related to handling financial transactions such as digital wallets for various cryptocurrencies but not many other uses as far as I can tell.
I say that he has a limited understanding because it's true.
Are NFT's cryptocurrencies? No. They use a blockchain, and can be bought with cryptocurrency. They are not a crypto currency.
It's funny now that everyone wants to put a caveat that "it has to be uses that benefit me" for a blockchain game to be called a blockchain game.
It doesn't matter that the use of blockchain in games is more than just financial, and even articles on this site have defined uses outside of financial for blockchain, but it requires comprehension of the systems to understand their uses.
Nine chronicles and openera are both doing a lot of features that utilize blockchain that aren't cryptocurrency or specifically finance related.
I dunno, just did a quick search on Nine Chronicles and found this on an article MOP did earlier this year, still seems to be mostly about mining and money.
"As for the game’s link to blockchain, an official FAQ details how players can turn on in-game mining to both contribute their personal processing power to the blockchain while getting some in-game incentives like 10 NCG per block mined. The FAQ does state the amount of NCG gained from mining will lower by half every four years, and promises that only about 25% of processing power — or one core of a quad-core CPU — is used"
That's one part of the game, and nine chronicles isn't even an MMO by traditional standards. Its development is based around being decentralized and on a blockchain. If that's all MOP has on the use of blockchain in that article, then they need to do better research.
"What elements of the game are stored on the blockchain? Is gameplay itself on the blockchain, all items, only certain items, spells, potions?
Everything is stored on the blockchain. We've been working on a new blockchain engine to make this as easy as possible"
Everything is stored on the blockchain. The game runs off of it and allows development of new features by anyone to be added to the game, once approved by a decentralized authority. The mining feature is optional, and used as a node in the decentralized network. Players don't have to choose to mine, but mining is used to verify the data, not to process cryptocurrency transactions. You earn their proprietary currency to mine, but you can play the game without being required to mine either, and NCG isn't built on an exchange standard that would make it swappable. It's primarily a proprietary in-game currency.
Ok, this is not a jab, or a dis at anyone. But, here is how I look at it, and this is just me.
Unless this Blockchain (Which I admit I don't fully grasp), somehow benefits me, I don't see the point of it. If it inhibits me in some way, I am going to avoid it.
Which, lets go back to F2P&Cash Shops vs B2P&Sub.
F2P benefited me a huge amount, as it allowed me to try and test games, before needing to invest money into them.
Cash Shops: Allowed me to support my hobby at my own pace, spending only what I wanted, as much or as little as I wanted, without needing to worry about needing to keep a subscription paid to access a game I might be enjoying.
Advantage: Mine / Player / Client
That was why F2P & Cash Shop took over. Overall, it was better for the players than the alternative.
Lets look at Loot Boxes.
While they are still around to an extent, they have been getting downgraded by a huge amount, because while they are very adventitious fiscally for the Provider, they were not better for The Client than simply being able to directly buy something from the cash shop. Which is why they got such push back and are in fact, not building traction in the gaming world, they losing it.
Which brings us to Blockchain.
As a player, the end question becomes, and will always be, what advantage does this offer me.
Now, I have expressed my worries about this kind of game being a resource hog for me as I play, which, if that becomes the case, where it has a negative impact on me to use this system for gaming, I will not use it, and no doubt, many others will not as well.
The next question would be, what advantages will this give me, that will justify the (if any) negatives for me to use this kind of system, as opposed to just staying with other older games that do not use this.
The final aspect would be, what advantage does this offer the developer that they would be motivated into invest into this kind of system.
TBH, I have no idea.
So it would be great if someone could explain that to me.
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.
That's one part of the game, and nine chronicles isn't even an MMO by traditional standards. Its development is based around being decentralized and on a blockchain. If that's all MOP has on the use of blockchain in that article, then they need to do better research.
"What elements of the game are stored on the blockchain? Is gameplay itself on the blockchain, all items, only certain items, spells, potions?
Everything is stored on the blockchain. We've been working on a new blockchain engine to make this as easy as possible"
Everything is stored on the blockchain. The game runs off of it and allows development of new features by anyone to be added to the game, once approved by a decentralized authority. The mining feature is optional, and used as a node in the decentralized network. Players don't have to choose to mine, but mining is used to verify the data, not to process cryptocurrency transactions. You earn their proprietary currency to mine, but you can play the game without being required to mine either, and NCG isn't built on an exchange standard that would make it swappable. It's primarily a proprietary in-game currency.
How as anything you just said countered what we have been going on about? So you "don't have to mine", so what? You don't have to pay in a F2P game but players P2W. Am I to take it then that no P2W occurs in F2P games because some players don't buy such items?
Blockchain has features that allow excellent data manipulation, again not sure how that effects anything we have said?
The game does not result in the mining cryptocurrency, you do realise that could change? Are the first cash shops we saw like the ones we see today?
I realise you have no concerns about this; though I disagree that is a reasonable position, but to me you are hiding your views by pretending this is never going to happen and claiming we don't understand what these changes entail.
It comes to something, when Ungood my old adversary on cash shops has serious doubts about this.
That's one part of the game, and nine chronicles isn't even an MMO by traditional standards. Its development is based around being decentralized and on a blockchain. If that's all MOP has on the use of blockchain in that article, then they need to do better research.
"What elements of the game are stored on the blockchain? Is gameplay itself on the blockchain, all items, only certain items, spells, potions?
Everything is stored on the blockchain. We've been working on a new blockchain engine to make this as easy as possible"
Everything is stored on the blockchain. The game runs off of it and allows development of new features by anyone to be added to the game, once approved by a decentralized authority. The mining feature is optional, and used as a node in the decentralized network. Players don't have to choose to mine, but mining is used to verify the data, not to process cryptocurrency transactions. You earn their proprietary currency to mine, but you can play the game without being required to mine either, and NCG isn't built on an exchange standard that would make it swappable. It's primarily a proprietary in-game currency.
How as anything you just said countered what we have been going on about? So you "don't have to mine", so what? You don't have to pay in a F2P game but players P2W. Am I to take it then that no P2W occurs in F2P games because some players don't buy such items?
Blockchain has features that allow excellent data manipulation, again not sure how that effects anything we have said?
The game does not result in the mining cryptocurrency, you do realise that could change? Are the first cash shops we saw like the ones we see today?
I realise you have no concerns about this; though I disagree that is a reasonable position, but to me you are hiding your views by pretending this is never going to happen and claiming we don't understand what these changes entail.
It comes to something, when Ungood my old adversary on cash shops has serious doubts about this.
It invalidates the premise that blockchain and cryptocurrency are and always have been one in the same. Those who don't understand blockchain can't wrap their heads around the fact that it's more than a currency or cash shop or items. The title of this thread is flawed to begin with based on an incorrect understanding of the term blockchain.
Simple as that. I have plenty of concerns about blockchain gaming, but how does it "effect" anything you've said. Quite a bit because you and kyleran are both pointing to finance as the primary role for blockchain games. But that's a limited view. I showed a game whose entire system and gameplay runs off of a blockchain, but all that came back to is a misguided opinion that blockchain is only used one way.
I dont expect people that don't completely understand the uses of blockchain in gaming to flip and suddenly "get it" when the majority of the media talks about DeFi, volatility, and market swings, while slinging the terms "blockchain" and "cryptocurrency" together. I'm just pointing out that the view of blockchain in this thread is shortsighted and not indicative of all the uses of blockchain, even in the games that use it as a currency, stating that's all its being used for is an incorrect assumption.
Somehow I got to my age either never hearing about Tulip mania or more likely I forgot about it along the way.
So I looked it up, thanks for the (re-) enlightenment.
It could be a huge crash and end in nothing. Or it could take a huge bite out of companies like EA, Sony, MS. This is more then a cash shop. Its about changing how games are made, what content gets made, actually owning a part of the game just by playing it, how items are bought and sold. This will be huge or it will end up being small and niche.
That's one part of the game, and nine chronicles isn't even an MMO by traditional standards. Its development is based around being decentralized and on a blockchain. If that's all MOP has on the use of blockchain in that article, then they need to do better research.
"What elements of the game are stored on the blockchain? Is gameplay itself on the blockchain, all items, only certain items, spells, potions?
Everything is stored on the blockchain. We've been working on a new blockchain engine to make this as easy as possible"
Everything is stored on the blockchain. The game runs off of it and allows development of new features by anyone to be added to the game, once approved by a decentralized authority. The mining feature is optional, and used as a node in the decentralized network. Players don't have to choose to mine, but mining is used to verify the data, not to process cryptocurrency transactions. You earn their proprietary currency to mine, but you can play the game without being required to mine either, and NCG isn't built on an exchange standard that would make it swappable. It's primarily a proprietary in-game currency.
How as anything you just said countered what we have been going on about? So you "don't have to mine", so what? You don't have to pay in a F2P game but players P2W. Am I to take it then that no P2W occurs in F2P games because some players don't buy such items?
Blockchain has features that allow excellent data manipulation, again not sure how that effects anything we have said?
The game does not result in the mining cryptocurrency, you do realise that could change? Are the first cash shops we saw like the ones we see today?
I realise you have no concerns about this; though I disagree that is a reasonable position, but to me you are hiding your views by pretending this is never going to happen and claiming we don't understand what these changes entail.
It comes to something, when Ungood my old adversary on cash shops has serious doubts about this.
It invalidates the premise that blockchain and cryptocurrency are and always have been one in the same. Those who don't understand blockchain can't wrap their heads around the fact that it's more than a currency or cash shop or items. The title of this thread is flawed to begin with based on an incorrect understanding of the term blockchain.
Simple as that. I have plenty of concerns about blockchain gaming, but how does it "effect" anything you've said. Quite a bit because you and kyleran are both pointing to finance as the primary role for blockchain games. But that's a limited view. I showed a game whose entire system and gameplay runs off of a blockchain, but all that came back to is a misguided opinion that blockchain is only used one way.
I dont expect people that don't completely understand the uses of blockchain in gaming to flip and suddenly "get it" when the majority of the media talks about DeFi, volatility, and market swings, while slinging the terms "blockchain" and "cryptocurrency" together. I'm just pointing out that the view of blockchain in this thread is shortsighted and not indicative of all the uses of blockchain, even in the games that use it as a currency, stating that's all its being used for is an incorrect assumption.
This, you can have a F2P game you never give a penny to and it can be a blockchain game.
This video can help but realize this is just one part of what blockchain games are about. I spent a few hours going down a rabbit hole learning about this because I dont like crypto currency and the fact blockchain was coming to gaming. I really wanted to know how or if they were connected.
That's one part of the game, and nine chronicles isn't even an MMO by traditional standards. Its development is based around being decentralized and on a blockchain. If that's all MOP has on the use of blockchain in that article, then they need to do better research.
"What elements of the game are stored on the blockchain? Is gameplay itself on the blockchain, all items, only certain items, spells, potions?
Everything is stored on the blockchain. We've been working on a new blockchain engine to make this as easy as possible"
Everything is stored on the blockchain. The game runs off of it and allows development of new features by anyone to be added to the game, once approved by a decentralized authority. The mining feature is optional, and used as a node in the decentralized network. Players don't have to choose to mine, but mining is used to verify the data, not to process cryptocurrency transactions. You earn their proprietary currency to mine, but you can play the game without being required to mine either, and NCG isn't built on an exchange standard that would make it swappable. It's primarily a proprietary in-game currency.
How as anything you just said countered what we have been going on about? So you "don't have to mine", so what? You don't have to pay in a F2P game but players P2W. Am I to take it then that no P2W occurs in F2P games because some players don't buy such items?
Blockchain has features that allow excellent data manipulation, again not sure how that effects anything we have said?
The game does not result in the mining cryptocurrency, you do realise that could change? Are the first cash shops we saw like the ones we see today?
I realise you have no concerns about this; though I disagree that is a reasonable position, but to me you are hiding your views by pretending this is never going to happen and claiming we don't understand what these changes entail.
It comes to something, when Ungood my old adversary on cash shops has serious doubts about this.
It invalidates the premise that blockchain and cryptocurrency are and always have been one in the same. Those who don't understand blockchain can't wrap their heads around the fact that it's more than a currency or cash shop or items. The title of this thread is flawed to begin with based on an incorrect understanding of the term blockchain.
Simple as that. I have plenty of concerns about blockchain gaming, but how does it "effect" anything you've said. Quite a bit because you and kyleran are both pointing to finance as the primary role for blockchain games. But that's a limited view. I showed a game whose entire system and gameplay runs off of a blockchain, but all that came back to is a misguided opinion that blockchain is only used one way.
I dont expect people that don't completely understand the uses of blockchain in gaming to flip and suddenly "get it" when the majority of the media talks about DeFi, volatility, and market swings, while slinging the terms "blockchain" and "cryptocurrency" together. I'm just pointing out that the view of blockchain in this thread is shortsighted and not indicative of all the uses of blockchain, even in the games that use it as a currency, stating that's all its being used for is an incorrect assumption.
I don't have any other issues with the use of blockchain in a game other than the finance, so why would I talk about anything else? Nothing I have said should indicate I am against blockchain itself except that it facilitates the use of cryptocurrency and bad practices in gaming. Some of the ideas about how blockchain may give players more freedom are interesting, but I could see no sign of that freedom being implemented, unless you think being able to trade between games is a "freedom"?
We have been here before with the "freedom" F2P games gave players, that was a bitter chalice indeed when you consider how gameplay changed. You mention you have concerns about blockchain gaming, it would be interesting to hear what they are?
I don't have any other issues with the use of blockchain in a game other than the finance, so why would I talk about anything else? Nothing I have said should indicate I am against blockchain itself except that it facilitates the use of cryptocurrency and bad practices in gaming. Some of the ideas about how blockchain may give players more freedom are interesting, but I could see no sign of that freedom being implemented, unless you think being able to trade between games is a "freedom"?
We have been here before with the "freedom" F2P games gave players, that was a bitter chalice indeed when you consider how gameplay changed. You mention you have concerns about blockchain gaming, it would be interesting to hear what they are?
You need to understand how items would work in a blockchain game. Video I posted above covers that very well. I will put my concern forward.
Items have a set number and that number is set by the developer. So lets say there is only 100 Maces called "Stun Gun" Best stun weapon in the game. Who owns these 100 maces is part of the blockchain. So a couple of problems. Game balance, everyone could want this OP item but only 100 people can have it. Market, these 100 maces are OP so people can sell them for what ever price they want. Its also listed who owns these 100 maces, will this bring harassments, in game or RL? Will some nutter with computer skills track the username who owns a "Stun Gun" to their RL addy and do something really stupid? Will OP items cause people to trade RL money in crazy amounts because, a blockchain item means you own a part of the game. So will people go broke like they do with RNG boxes?
I watched the video, (with blockchain) "there are tons of things we can do from a monetarisation perspective that we just couldn't do before."
They found many so called blockchain games were attempts to get players to spend cryptocurrencies or were basically cc themselves.
In the best known blockchain game when you sell an item the game takes a cut, if you "breed" an item the game takes a cut.
There were some great ideas, like items levelling via the events they were involved in, but it is not the great ideas that are already being used, it is the revenue making ones. Hopefully that gives you a clear indication of where this is going.
They say this should be the sort of idea the industry is thinking of rather than selling "slightly worse crypto coin".
This is a development they favour: "the only catch is the game would use your GPU to mine bitcoin while you played".
I am not sure how that video is meant to allay our concerns about this!?
I watched the video, (with blockchain) "there are tons of things we can do from a monetarisation perspective that we just couldn't do before."
They found many so called blockchain games were attempts to get players to spend cryptocurrencies or were basically cc themselves.
In the best known blockchain game when you sell an item the game takes a cut, if you "breed" an item the game takes a cut.
There were some great ideas, like items levelling via the events they were involved in, but it is not the great ideas that are already being used, it is the revenue making ones. Hopefully that gives you a clear indication of where this is going.
They say this should be the sort of idea the industry is thinking of rather than selling "slightly worse crypto coin".
This is a development they favour: "the only catch is the game would use your GPU to mine bitcoin while you played".
I am not sure how that video is meant to allay our concerns about this!?
Its not, this 100% scares the crap out of me but calling it a cash shop does not give the right picture.
EDIT: If a game catches on like say WoW did in 2004. Being on the ground floor, could mean 5-10 years later, you could sell off one part of your gear at a time for millions maybe.
I watched the video, (with blockchain) "there are tons of things we can do from a monetarisation perspective that we just couldn't do before."
They found many so called blockchain games were attempts to get players to spend cryptocurrencies or were basically cc themselves.
In the best known blockchain game when you sell an item the game takes a cut, if you "breed" an item the game takes a cut.
There were some great ideas, like items levelling via the events they were involved in, but it is not the great ideas that are already being used, it is the revenue making ones. Hopefully that gives you a clear indication of where this is going.
They say this should be the sort of idea the industry is thinking of rather than selling "slightly worse crypto coin".
This is a development they favour: "the only catch is the game would use your GPU to mine bitcoin while you played".
I am not sure how that video is meant to allay our concerns about this!?
Its not, this 100% scares the crap out of me but calling it a cash shop does not give the right picture.
EDIT: If a game catches on like say WoW did in 2004. Being on the ground floor, could mean 5-10 years later, you could sell off one part of your gear at a time for millions maybe.
Conditions for making a profit.
The game catches on like WoW.
You stay involved for 5-10 years.
The gear you earned today will still be of value (in-game).
Someone has to want to pay millions for it.
Someone has to have millions to pay you.
Their wife won't catch them.
This whole idea scares me, too. Not only that, it doesn't guarantee that the actual game will be any better.
Oh, and good luck with a game not making today's gear obsolete (3. above). Every game that produces an expansion has introduced new, better gear. That will require a completely new development mindset.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
What are the benefits of having an entire game run on a blockchain?
Does it in theory completely eliminate server costs - i.e. makes the game infinitely scaleable? That's the one major potential benefit I can see.
I still find the premise a bit strange. What is the role of the developer in that case? Do they develop the client to interact with the blockchain? What if someone else comes along and makes their own client - would that be permitted or would it somehow infringe on IP/copyright?
What control does the developer have over the course of the blockchain? If the game had 10,000 people, can 30,000 people come in and decide they want a different set of rules for how the blockchain operates? Can they branch the entire game database and make their own? Would that be legal?
I watched the video, (with blockchain) "there are tons of things we can do from a monetarisation perspective that we just couldn't do before."
They found many so called blockchain games were attempts to get players to spend cryptocurrencies or were basically cc themselves.
In the best known blockchain game when you sell an item the game takes a cut, if you "breed" an item the game takes a cut.
There were some great ideas, like items levelling via the events they were involved in, but it is not the great ideas that are already being used, it is the revenue making ones. Hopefully that gives you a clear indication of where this is going.
They say this should be the sort of idea the industry is thinking of rather than selling "slightly worse crypto coin".
This is a development they favour: "the only catch is the game would use your GPU to mine bitcoin while you played".
I am not sure how that video is meant to allay our concerns about this!?
Its not, this 100% scares the crap out of me but calling it a cash shop does not give the right picture.
EDIT: If a game catches on like say WoW did in 2004. Being on the ground floor, could mean 5-10 years later, you could sell off one part of your gear at a time for millions maybe.
Conditions for making a profit.
The game catches on like WoW.
You stay involved for 5-10 years.
The gear you earned today will still be of value (in-game).
Someone has to want to pay millions for it.
Someone has to have millions to pay you.
Their wife won't catch them.
This whole idea scares me, too. Not only that, it doesn't guarantee that the actual game will be any better.
Oh, and good luck with a game not making today's gear obsolete (3. above). Every game that produces an expansion has introduced new, better gear. That will require a completely new development mindset.
You miss the point. In Blockchain, the developer makes a cut of every thing you as a player would sell. Making items advance in power over the years as you kill more and more raid bosses with it. Or kill 10'000 orcs or what ever mechanic they tie into how items would grow and progress. Would 100% incentivise the developers to want you to sell your items for millions. Building that progression is part of what Blockchain Games would be about.
Also thats just one type of game, there is Pokemon type games with the same mechanics for making unique cards by a husbandry system. Link below of how that can get out of hand.
What are the benefits of having an entire game run on a blockchain?
Does it in theory completely eliminate server costs - i.e. makes the game infinitely scaleable? That's the one major potential benefit I can see.
I still find the premise a bit strange. What is the role of the developer in that case? Do they develop the client to interact with the blockchain? What if someone else comes along and makes their own client - would that be permitted or would it somehow infringe on IP/copyright?
What control does the developer have over the course of the blockchain? If the game had 10,000 people, can 30,000 people come in and decide they want a different set of rules for how the blockchain operates? Can they branch the entire game database and make their own? Would that be legal?
The game would still be the developers game but players would own parts of the game by playing or by RL money purchases. You earn a sword, mine some ore, craft a boat. These would be recorded into the Blockchain and they would be owned by you. You could trade them for in game currency or sell them for RL money in some cases.
The part that does interest me, is the players could have some control on development by incentivizing what content we would like to see. So for instance say WoW was a Blockchain game. Enough PvP fans push the button to add a DAoC RvR zone to the game. That would get done.
This video can help but realize this is just one part of what blockchain games are about. I spent a few hours going down a rabbit hole learning about this because I dont like crypto currency and the fact blockchain was coming to gaming. I really wanted to know how or if they were connected.
Ok, NGL, the idea of progressive weapons, armor, items, etc, does intrigue me.
Like in some games were an item will have a mark on who made it, just a bit longer on down the chain, progress is being kept.
Like, in modern times, someone would validate that a pair of shoes was in fact worn by Elvis on stage at a Concert in Disney Land, in 1961, it would become insanely valuable.
Equally so, in MMO's if someone prove they had a set of flaming swords that were once used by Aradune, that would also make them worth a fortune as well, even if they were not powerful, they would be valuable.
Of course this now draws in a lot of issues about cosmetics, I mean, ideally in an MMO, the Flaming Swords of Aradune, are, in their own right, valuable, as such, putting a cosmetic on them would be like spray painting the Statue of David.
Equally so, Block Chain. might be able to progress my character, without the need for ranks and stats, it would be a simple matter of the more my character used a set of armor, or weapons, the better they would become, and, as my chaarcter did things, as opposed to simply getting some exp and loot, they would become set into the network, which could give rise to things like Legendary Toons, which may or may not have been played by the same player. IE: I start a Elf called Arrow Stopper get bored of the game, but before I leave, I pass them off to a friend, who is looking to get into he game, so now Arrow Stopper did XYZ under Ungood's control, and then did ABC under Noodle's Control, and this goes on down the line, but at some point, it was played by John Smith AKA Buttmuch8008, who went on to become a infamous streamer, and now Arrow Stopper the toon is Famous, for having been played by a famous gamer.
Wow.. that could open so many doors to all kinds of messed up.. Damn.. I am gonna have to have a drink as I process all this.
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.
This video can help but realize this is just one part of what blockchain games are about. I spent a few hours going down a rabbit hole learning about this because I dont like crypto currency and the fact blockchain was coming to gaming. I really wanted to know how or if they were connected.
Ok, NGL, the idea of progressive weapons, armor, items, etc, does intrigue me.
Like in some games were an item will have a mark on who made it, just a bit longer on down the chain, progress is being kept.
Like, in modern times, someone would validate that a pair of shoes was in fact worn by Elvis on stage at a Concert in Disney Land, in 1961, it would become insanely valuable.
Equally so, in MMO's if someone prove they had a set of flaming swords that were once used by Aradune, that would also make them worth a fortune as well, even if they were not powerful, they would be valuable.
Of course this now draws in a lot of issues about cosmetics, I mean, ideally in an MMO, the Flaming Swords of Aradune, are, in their own right, valuable, as such, putting a cosmetic on them would be like spray painting the Statue of David.
Equally so, Block Chain. might be able to progress my character, without the need for ranks and stats, it would be a simple matter of the more my character used a set of armor, or weapons, the better they would become, and, as my chaarcter did things, as opposed to simply getting some exp and loot, they would become set into the network, which could give rise to things like Legendary Toons, which may or may not have been played by the same player. IE: I start a Elf called Arrow Stopper get bored of the game, but before I leave, I pass them off to a friend, who is looking to get into he game, so now Arrow Stopper did XYZ under Ungood's control, and then did ABC under Noodle's Control, and this goes on down the line, but at some point, it was played by John Smith AKA Buttmuch8008, who went on to become a infamous streamer, and now Arrow Stopper the toon is Famous, for having been played by a famous gamer.
Wow.. that could open so many doors to all kinds of messed up.. Damn.. I am gonna have to have a drink as I process all this.
The thing is that all the bad elements from blockchain are in play and none of the potentially good ones. I also note that even the one element cited as being innovative, the sword with history gets sold multiple times and the studio takes its cut each time. So even there you cannot escape from the venal nature of what blockchain is bringing to gaming.
The thing is that all the bad elements from blockchain are in play and none of the potentially good ones. I also note that even the one element cited as being innovative, the sword with history gets sold multiple times and the studio takes its cut each time. So even there you cannot escape from the venal nature of what blockchain is bringing to gaming.
Unless you're talking about specific games, you're just using blanket statements to attempt to paint a negative picture across the board.
There are features of blockchain games that have nothing to do with trading, and therefore have no costs associated that a developer could take a cut from. One good example is something like the Xaya platform, which was created to make fully decentralized games.
What does that mean? It means that the game itself resides on the blockchain. Not just the currency, not just your sword, but the game state as a whole. It creates a serverless game.
Think about that on a broad scope. You play SWG, SOE decides to shut it down, there's no SWG. In a decentralized game, as long as people are mining the blockchain, the game will exist, and some games would allow you to op in to mine the game while playing.
That's one of the greatest features of blockchain, everything that is on the block can't be completely removed, and it's always part of the history.
In terms of the developers "taking a cut" of transactions, it's kind of a moot point. Firstly, not all developers HAVE to take a transactional cut, it's not inherent in the structure, it's a choice.
Second, What are the transactional costs of in-game items in a game like Guild Wars 2? Nothing? Sure, but what are you gains by selling an item? Nothing. The currency is all self-contained within the game.
You can pump 100 dollars into guild wars 2, change that into gold, to buy an item, resell that item for more gold than you paid, but that gold would then only transition into gems. Those gems have a dollar value, but you can never receive your dollar value back. In that case 100% of your original funds spent have been earned by ArenaNet. Circumventing this system gets you a ban and you lose 100% of your items.
In blockchain games, you can earn in game, or create an item that you own, and sell it in game, or out of the game, for real currency. While there may be transactional fees associated with a trade, and additional transaction fees if you choose to sell an NFT item on a market like OpenSea, you still end up with real money in the end, whether or not it's at a loss or a gain.
The main sticking point, is the general "buy-in" for a specific game. That is one of my main issues with blockchain games, but that's a different topic for a different time.
I watched the video, (with blockchain) "there are tons of things we can do from a monetarisation perspective that we just couldn't do before."
They found many so called blockchain games were attempts to get players to spend cryptocurrencies or were basically cc themselves.
In the best known blockchain game when you sell an item the game takes a cut, if you "breed" an item the game takes a cut.
There were some great ideas, like items levelling via the events they were involved in, but it is not the great ideas that are already being used, it is the revenue making ones. Hopefully that gives you a clear indication of where this is going.
They say this should be the sort of idea the industry is thinking of rather than selling "slightly worse crypto coin".
This is a development they favour: "the only catch is the game would use your GPU to mine bitcoin while you played".
I am not sure how that video is meant to allay our concerns about this!?
Its not, this 100% scares the crap out of me but calling it a cash shop does not give the right picture.
EDIT: If a game catches on like say WoW did in 2004. Being on the ground floor, could mean 5-10 years later, you could sell off one part of your gear at a time for millions maybe.
Conditions for making a profit.
The game catches on like WoW.
You stay involved for 5-10 years.
The gear you earned today will still be of value (in-game).
Someone has to want to pay millions for it.
Someone has to have millions to pay you.
Their wife won't catch them.
This whole idea scares me, too. Not only that, it doesn't guarantee that the actual game will be any better.
Oh, and good luck with a game not making today's gear obsolete (3. above). Every game that produces an expansion has introduced new, better gear. That will require a completely new development mindset.
Let me fix this one for you.
Conditions for making a profit:
1. Earn or buy something on a blockchain game 2. Sell it for more than you paid for it.
It's already happening, and some people are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions already. Granted most of those are "virtual land sales" in "metaverse" "games" but still. There are games where people are making profit, in real actual games, and it astounds me. That's another interesting thing about blockchain, the ledgers are public, so you can see all the transactions, and it's amazing to think people are making money off some of these items and games that many people, including me, wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole.
The thing is that all the bad elements from blockchain are in play and none of the potentially good ones. I also note that even the one element cited as being innovative, the sword with history gets sold multiple times and the studio takes its cut each time. So even there you cannot escape from the venal nature of what blockchain is bringing to gaming.
Unless you're talking about specific games, you're just using blanket statements to attempt to paint a negative picture across the board.
There are features of blockchain games that have nothing to do with trading, and therefore have no costs associated that a developer could take a cut from. One good example is something like the Xaya platform, which was created to make fully decentralized games.
What does that mean? It means that the game itself resides on the blockchain. Not just the currency, not just your sword, but the game state as a whole. It creates a serverless game.
Think about that on a broad scope. You play SWG, SOE decides to shut it down, there's no SWG. In a decentralized game, as long as people are mining the blockchain, the game will exist, and some games would allow you to op in to mine the game while playing.
That's one of the greatest features of blockchain, everything that is on the block can't be completely removed, and it's always part of the history.
In terms of the developers "taking a cut" of transactions, it's kind of a moot point. Firstly, not all developers HAVE to take a transactional cut, it's not inherent in the structure, it's a choice.
Second, What are the transactional costs of in-game items in a game like Guild Wars 2? Nothing? Sure, but what are you gains by selling an item? Nothing. The currency is all self-contained within the game.
You can pump 100 dollars into guild wars 2, change that into gold, to buy an item, resell that item for more gold than you paid, but that gold would then only transition into gems. Those gems have a dollar value, but you can never receive your dollar value back. In that case 100% of your original funds spent have been earned by ArenaNet. Circumventing this system gets you a ban and you lose 100% of your items.
In blockchain games, you can earn in game, or create an item that you own, and sell it in game, or out of the game, for real currency. While there may be transactional fees associated with a trade, and additional transaction fees if you choose to sell an NFT item on a market like OpenSea, you still end up with real money in the end, whether or not it's at a loss or a gain.
The main sticking point, is the general "buy-in" for a specific game. That is one of my main issues with blockchain games, but that's a different topic for a different time.
There you go again, every time you describe a non financial "benefit" or use for block chain it quickly links directly back to mining aka generating money or transactions.
Show me something new, useful and that I actually care about totally unrelated to transactions, monetization or mining.
I do not want to see gaming monetized to the point players are trying to make a living from it, otherwise I would have played Entropa Universe years ago.
Oh, leave off any examples of keeping a game alive outside of the original creators control, I view such endeavors akin to software or IP piracy and always side with the creator being able to maintain control even if their choice is to shut it all down.
Or, to put it another way, "free shards" and the like have no "right" to exist should the original creators not want them to.
So if block chain would take further control away from creators I view that as a very bad thing, just like anonymous transactions of money are a bad thing.
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
The thing is that all the bad elements from blockchain are in play and none of the potentially good ones. I also note that even the one element cited as being innovative, the sword with history gets sold multiple times and the studio takes its cut each time. So even there you cannot escape from the venal nature of what blockchain is bringing to gaming.
Unless you're talking about specific games, you're just using blanket statements to attempt to paint a negative picture across the board.
There are features of blockchain games that have nothing to do with trading, and therefore have no costs associated that a developer could take a cut from. One good example is something like the Xaya platform, which was created to make fully decentralized games.
What does that mean? It means that the game itself resides on the blockchain. Not just the currency, not just your sword, but the game state as a whole. It creates a serverless game.
Think about that on a broad scope. You play SWG, SOE decides to shut it down, there's no SWG. In a decentralized game, as long as people are mining the blockchain, the game will exist, and some games would allow you to op in to mine the game while playing.
That's one of the greatest features of blockchain, everything that is on the block can't be completely removed, and it's always part of the history.
In terms of the developers "taking a cut" of transactions, it's kind of a moot point. Firstly, not all developers HAVE to take a transactional cut, it's not inherent in the structure, it's a choice.
Second, What are the transactional costs of in-game items in a game like Guild Wars 2? Nothing? Sure, but what are you gains by selling an item? Nothing. The currency is all self-contained within the game.
You can pump 100 dollars into guild wars 2, change that into gold, to buy an item, resell that item for more gold than you paid, but that gold would then only transition into gems. Those gems have a dollar value, but you can never receive your dollar value back. In that case 100% of your original funds spent have been earned by ArenaNet. Circumventing this system gets you a ban and you lose 100% of your items.
In blockchain games, you can earn in game, or create an item that you own, and sell it in game, or out of the game, for real currency. While there may be transactional fees associated with a trade, and additional transaction fees if you choose to sell an NFT item on a market like OpenSea, you still end up with real money in the end, whether or not it's at a loss or a gain.
The main sticking point, is the general "buy-in" for a specific game. That is one of my main issues with blockchain games, but that's a different topic for a different time.
I get the buy in issue, heard about this in Ethereum. But we had a poster on here who made it sound like you decide to buy in more and more and there was no guaranteed profit. The economy is huge and every time you think you have enough covered you find another reason to buy in, which was clearly the way they had designed the game.
"Unless you are talking about specific games", well yes I am, strangely enough. Can you see how I find what is happening in every one of these games so far more valid than your talk of potential benefits to players? You are like someone who is saying "Those cash shops don't have to be about P2W you know, it can all be about cosmetics." But they nearly all are, this is the reality on the ground now as opposed to pie in the sky possibilities.
"you're just using blanket statements to attempt to paint a negative picture across the board." I am just using real world examples, show me the games doing this in a fair fashion, as you suggest is possible.
You do mention some interesting ideas for blockchain, but unless there are games out there doing this I just see them as an excuse for what is a venal system which is against any sort of gameplay ethos we could be proud of.
Comments
"What elements of the game are stored on the blockchain? Is gameplay itself on the blockchain, all items, only certain items, spells, potions?
Everything is stored on the blockchain. We've been working on a new blockchain engine to make this as easy as possible"
Nine Chronicles's FAQ | Nine Chronicles Wiki (nine-chronicles.com)
Everything is stored on the blockchain. The game runs off of it and allows development of new features by anyone to be added to the game, once approved by a decentralized authority. The mining feature is optional, and used as a node in the decentralized network. Players don't have to choose to mine, but mining is used to verify the data, not to process cryptocurrency transactions. You earn their proprietary currency to mine, but you can play the game without being required to mine either, and NCG isn't built on an exchange standard that would make it swappable. It's primarily a proprietary in-game currency.
Unless this Blockchain (Which I admit I don't fully grasp), somehow benefits me, I don't see the point of it. If it inhibits me in some way, I am going to avoid it.
Which, lets go back to F2P&Cash Shops vs B2P&Sub.
F2P benefited me a huge amount, as it allowed me to try and test games, before needing to invest money into them.
Cash Shops: Allowed me to support my hobby at my own pace, spending only what I wanted, as much or as little as I wanted, without needing to worry about needing to keep a subscription paid to access a game I might be enjoying.
Advantage: Mine / Player / Client
That was why F2P & Cash Shop took over. Overall, it was better for the players than the alternative.
Lets look at Loot Boxes.
While they are still around to an extent, they have been getting downgraded by a huge amount, because while they are very adventitious fiscally for the Provider, they were not better for The Client than simply being able to directly buy something from the cash shop. Which is why they got such push back and are in fact, not building traction in the gaming world, they losing it.
Which brings us to Blockchain.
As a player, the end question becomes, and will always be, what advantage does this offer me.
Now, I have expressed my worries about this kind of game being a resource hog for me as I play, which, if that becomes the case, where it has a negative impact on me to use this system for gaming, I will not use it, and no doubt, many others will not as well.
The next question would be, what advantages will this give me, that will justify the (if any) negatives for me to use this kind of system, as opposed to just staying with other older games that do not use this.
The final aspect would be, what advantage does this offer the developer that they would be motivated into invest into this kind of system.
TBH, I have no idea.
So it would be great if someone could explain that to me.
Blockchain has features that allow excellent data manipulation, again not sure how that effects anything we have said?
The game does not result in the mining cryptocurrency, you do realise that could change? Are the first cash shops we saw like the ones we see today?
I realise you have no concerns about this; though I disagree that is a reasonable position, but to me you are hiding your views by pretending this is never going to happen and claiming we don't understand what these changes entail.
It comes to something, when Ungood my old adversary on cash shops has serious doubts about this.
Simple as that. I have plenty of concerns about blockchain gaming, but how does it "effect" anything you've said. Quite a bit because you and kyleran are both pointing to finance as the primary role for blockchain games. But that's a limited view. I showed a game whose entire system and gameplay runs off of a blockchain, but all that came back to is a misguided opinion that blockchain is only used one way.
I dont expect people that don't completely understand the uses of blockchain in gaming to flip and suddenly "get it" when the majority of the media talks about DeFi, volatility, and market swings, while slinging the terms "blockchain" and "cryptocurrency" together. I'm just pointing out that the view of blockchain in this thread is shortsighted and not indicative of all the uses of blockchain, even in the games that use it as a currency, stating that's all its being used for is an incorrect assumption.
We have been here before with the "freedom" F2P games gave players, that was a bitter chalice indeed when you consider how gameplay changed. You mention you have concerns about blockchain gaming, it would be interesting to hear what they are?
Items have a set number and that number is set by the developer. So lets say there is only 100 Maces called "Stun Gun" Best stun weapon in the game. Who owns these 100 maces is part of the blockchain. So a couple of problems. Game balance, everyone could want this OP item but only 100 people can have it. Market, these 100 maces are OP so people can sell them for what ever price they want. Its also listed who owns these 100 maces, will this bring harassments, in game or RL? Will some nutter with computer skills track the username who owns a "Stun Gun" to their RL addy and do something really stupid? Will OP items cause people to trade RL money in crazy amounts because, a blockchain item means you own a part of the game. So will people go broke like they do with RNG boxes?
They found many so called blockchain games were attempts to get players to spend cryptocurrencies or were basically cc themselves.
In the best known blockchain game when you sell an item the game takes a cut, if you "breed" an item the game takes a cut.
There were some great ideas, like items levelling via the events they were involved in, but it is not the great ideas that are already being used, it is the revenue making ones. Hopefully that gives you a clear indication of where this is going.
They say this should be the sort of idea the industry is thinking of rather than selling "slightly worse crypto coin".
This is a development they favour: "the only catch is the game would use your GPU to mine bitcoin while you played".
I am not sure how that video is meant to allay our concerns about this!?
EDIT: If a game catches on like say WoW did in 2004. Being on the ground floor, could mean 5-10 years later, you could sell off one part of your gear at a time for millions maybe.
Personally, I'll take a hard pass.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Does it in theory completely eliminate server costs - i.e. makes the game infinitely scaleable? That's the one major potential benefit I can see.
I still find the premise a bit strange. What is the role of the developer in that case? Do they develop the client to interact with the blockchain? What if someone else comes along and makes their own client - would that be permitted or would it somehow infringe on IP/copyright?
What control does the developer have over the course of the blockchain? If the game had 10,000 people, can 30,000 people come in and decide they want a different set of rules for how the blockchain operates? Can they branch the entire game database and make their own? Would that be legal?
Also thats just one type of game, there is Pokemon type games with the same mechanics for making unique cards by a husbandry system. Link below of how that can get out of hand.
Rare Pokémon Card Sells For Record Price At Auction To Rapper Logic (screenrant.com)
The part that does interest me, is the players could have some control on development by incentivizing what content we would like to see. So for instance say WoW was a Blockchain game. Enough PvP fans push the button to add a DAoC RvR zone to the game. That would get done.
And what? these guys promise that these precious pixels will be used in all the block buster games of the future?
What happens when a game is a dud?
I'll spend my fun money on other more entertaining things. Pixel prizes just don't scratch that itch.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
This whole discussion (and nearly every discussion on this forum) has encouraged me to give up my interest in game development and gaming communities.
Now I know there used to be a DELETE ACCOUNT button somewhere around here...
Like in some games were an item will have a mark on who made it, just a bit longer on down the chain, progress is being kept.
Like, in modern times, someone would validate that a pair of shoes was in fact worn by Elvis on stage at a Concert in Disney Land, in 1961, it would become insanely valuable.
Equally so, in MMO's if someone prove they had a set of flaming swords that were once used by Aradune, that would also make them worth a fortune as well, even if they were not powerful, they would be valuable.
Of course this now draws in a lot of issues about cosmetics, I mean, ideally in an MMO, the Flaming Swords of Aradune, are, in their own right, valuable, as such, putting a cosmetic on them would be like spray painting the Statue of David.
Equally so, Block Chain. might be able to progress my character, without the need for ranks and stats, it would be a simple matter of the more my character used a set of armor, or weapons, the better they would become, and, as my chaarcter did things, as opposed to simply getting some exp and loot, they would become set into the network, which could give rise to things like Legendary Toons, which may or may not have been played by the same player. IE: I start a Elf called Arrow Stopper get bored of the game, but before I leave, I pass them off to a friend, who is looking to get into he game, so now Arrow Stopper did XYZ under Ungood's control, and then did ABC under Noodle's Control, and this goes on down the line, but at some point, it was played by John Smith AKA Buttmuch8008, who went on to become a infamous streamer, and now Arrow Stopper the toon is Famous, for having been played by a famous gamer.
Wow.. that could open so many doors to all kinds of messed up.. Damn.. I am gonna have to have a drink as I process all this.
There are features of blockchain games that have nothing to do with trading, and therefore have no costs associated that a developer could take a cut from. One good example is something like the Xaya platform, which was created to make fully decentralized games.
What does that mean? It means that the game itself resides on the blockchain. Not just the currency, not just your sword, but the game state as a whole. It creates a serverless game.
Think about that on a broad scope. You play SWG, SOE decides to shut it down, there's no SWG. In a decentralized game, as long as people are mining the blockchain, the game will exist, and some games would allow you to op in to mine the game while playing.
That's one of the greatest features of blockchain, everything that is on the block can't be completely removed, and it's always part of the history.
In terms of the developers "taking a cut" of transactions, it's kind of a moot point. Firstly, not all developers HAVE to take a transactional cut, it's not inherent in the structure, it's a choice.
Second, What are the transactional costs of in-game items in a game like Guild Wars 2? Nothing? Sure, but what are you gains by selling an item? Nothing. The currency is all self-contained within the game.
You can pump 100 dollars into guild wars 2, change that into gold, to buy an item, resell that item for more gold than you paid, but that gold would then only transition into gems. Those gems have a dollar value, but you can never receive your dollar value back. In that case 100% of your original funds spent have been earned by ArenaNet. Circumventing this system gets you a ban and you lose 100% of your items.
In blockchain games, you can earn in game, or create an item that you own, and sell it in game, or out of the game, for real currency. While there may be transactional fees associated with a trade, and additional transaction fees if you choose to sell an NFT item on a market like OpenSea, you still end up with real money in the end, whether or not it's at a loss or a gain.
The main sticking point, is the general "buy-in" for a specific game. That is one of my main issues with blockchain games, but that's a different topic for a different time.
Conditions for making a profit:
1. Earn or buy something on a blockchain game
2. Sell it for more than you paid for it.
It's already happening, and some people are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions already. Granted most of those are "virtual land sales" in "metaverse" "games" but still. There are games where people are making profit, in real actual games, and it astounds me. That's another interesting thing about blockchain, the ledgers are public, so you can see all the transactions, and it's amazing to think people are making money off some of these items and games that many people, including me, wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole.
Show me something new, useful and that I actually care about totally unrelated to transactions, monetization or mining.
I do not want to see gaming monetized to the point players are trying to make a living from it, otherwise I would have played Entropa Universe years ago.
Oh, leave off any examples of keeping a game alive outside of the original creators control, I view such endeavors akin to software or IP piracy and always side with the creator being able to maintain control even if their choice is to shut it all down.
Or, to put it another way, "free shards" and the like have no "right" to exist should the original creators not want them to.
So if block chain would take further control away from creators I view that as a very bad thing, just like anonymous transactions of money are a bad thing.
"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
"Unless you are talking about specific games", well yes I am, strangely enough. Can you see how I find what is happening in every one of these games so far more valid than your talk of potential benefits to players? You are like someone who is saying "Those cash shops don't have to be about P2W you know, it can all be about cosmetics." But they nearly all are, this is the reality on the ground now as opposed to pie in the sky possibilities.
"you're just using blanket statements to attempt to paint a negative picture across the board." I am just using real world examples, show me the games doing this in a fair fashion, as you suggest is possible.
You do mention some interesting ideas for blockchain, but unless there are games out there doing this I just see them as an excuse for what is a venal system which is against any sort of gameplay ethos we could be proud of.