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.
That's my biggest issue with the whole topic. In theory, the promise is to have a fully transparent, public game. But I'd be surprised if a developer sunk millions into a project only for them to give up their IP.
The other issue is people are conflating game design and monetisation with a blockchain engine. Platforms like IMVU (and most of the 2000's social worlds) had features to support derivative content. You can take an item and if allowed by the creator (who ticks a setting), you download the the raw files, make changes, and upload it as your own item. The creator gets a pre-agreed cut, along with any preceding creators in the chain. This doesn't need a blockchain at all - they were running it using a centralised server.
The same is true for virtual properties, fractional ownerships, item component attribute inheritance etc. This has been around for decades, without any blockchain technology. Developers taking a cut? Also nothing to do with blockchain, and also something decades old.
After reading a bit more through the links people posted here, the only difference that defines a blockchain game, is that it is a client-authoritative setup. It sits somewhere between a P2P game (where you send valid data to others) and a server game (where the server sends valid data to you). In a blockchain game, multiple connected clients agree on what is valid data instead. This has some interesting engineering implications (no need for massive servers), but that's about it.
All the other features and monetisation, while perhaps more suited for blockchain, do not require blockchain and are not at all implied by it. You can have a blockchain-less game with all the features people are describing - devs taking a cut on user content, open-source development, real money transactions. You could also have (in theory) WoW put on the blockchain, still requiring a subscription to use the client and not have any user content / RMT at all.
Here is the thing. When F2P came out, people got excited. WE soon learned about P2W, cosmetic style cash shops, convenience cash shops and cash shops that were heavy handed like BDO.
I find the potential of Blockchain Games could be more scary then any cash shop but I am also sure not all games made this way will be evil. My thinking is I wont even try a Blockchain game, unless its clear its low risk for me to try it. Fact is, we are going to need more education in RL on what this means for 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.
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.
"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."
You don't understand what I've been saying then. Saying "transaction" doesn't mean monetary transactions. Blockchain IS A DIGITAL LEDGER so transactions are part of what it fundamentally is. But a transaction doesn't mean you're paying money for one party to another, a transaction can be just an exchange of information.
"Show me something new, useful and that I actually care about totally unrelated to transactions, monetization or mining."
Again, you don't understand blockchain then. YOU HAVE TO MINE to "transact" the data, it's inherent in the usage of it, unless you're using a centralized system, in which case, you only need a centralized authority and that would be the same as the way servers are today.
"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."
You misunderstand the projects I've provided, or haven't looked into them at all. Serverless games are actually a tremendously powerful thing... and then you say -
"So if block chain would take further control away from creators I view that as a very bad thing"
It actually gives more power to all kinds of content creators. In fact, the whole purpose of linking 9 chronicles and showing what they are doing, is they want players to continue to build and change the game on their own, apart from their own direction to where there could be multiple offshoots to the base game.
It could be a game that organically lives and evolves through a community.
Just from how you attempt to brandish specific rules on what you want to hear that blockchain does and what you don't want to hear, while not understanding what is necessary for a game to utilize blockchain says a lot.
Here is the thing. When F2P came out, people got excited. WE soon learned about P2W, cosmetic style cash shops, convenience cash shops and cash shops that were heavy handed like BDO.
I find the potential of Blockchain Games could be more scary then any cash shop but I am also sure not all games made this way will be evil. My thinking is I wont even try a Blockchain game, unless its clear its low risk for me to try it. Fact is, we are going to need more education in RL on what this means for gaming.
I am certainly not saying we have a handle on this yet, it is partially guesswork right now but nothing that is currently out blockchain game wise gives me hope.
"It could be a game that organically lives and evolves through a community." That sounds wonderful Masked Weasel, you get my award for highest pie in the sky in this thread so far.
Here is the thing. When F2P came out, people got excited. WE soon learned about P2W, cosmetic style cash shops, convenience cash shops and cash shops that were heavy handed like BDO.
I find the potential of Blockchain Games could be more scary then any cash shop but I am also sure not all games made this way will be evil. My thinking is I wont even try a Blockchain game, unless its clear its low risk for me to try it. Fact is, we are going to need more education in RL on what this means for gaming.
I am certainly not saying we have a handle on this yet, it is partially guesswork right now but nothing that is currently out blockchain game wise gives me hope.
"It could be a game that organically lives and evolves through a community." That sounds wonderful Masked Weasel, you get my award for highest pie in the sky in this thread so far.
Im just saying we may not have it all figured out yet =-) I always hope with new things, something awesome comes from it, as a gamer, I am always hoping for something cool to play thats innovative.
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.
Buy something and sell it at a higher price. Right.
But that's not appreciation, the accrual/increase of wealth over time, which it what @Nanfoodle was suggesting and I was responding to. There isn't a necessity of time in your model. The "metaverse" games and their "virtual land sales" can generate wealth overnight as long as a person can find another who is willing and capable of paying that amount (also reference #6 of my points above). That doesn't mean it is a sustainable model of financial growth.
Blockchain as a buy-and-hold profit model puts it directly in the path of other collectables. It requires the commodity to have a finite initial distribution (250,000 copies of a comic book, or an individual painting by a specific painter). The value increases only because you can't buy another original; you buy from other collectors. The price is related to the rarity and desirability of that collectible.
Items in games aren't limited. The game can (and does) create items as desired. Buying a Ghoulbane that dropped in September of 2001 isn't any different from one that drops today. Since a Ghoulbane still drops today, buying that Ghoulbane isn't an appreciation in value of the item, it is a convenience (bypassing the need for camping). I can't buy a new Action Comics #1 at the label price because no new copies are being printed. Items in games are constantly being created. Blockchains aren't likely to change that aspect of gaming. So it not an appreciation in asset value that is in operation; it is only a convenience (or possibly a greed) issue.
As for those "some people" that are already doing this, let me simply say that "some people" are also jumping off bridges.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
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.
Buy something and sell it at a higher price. Right.
But that's not appreciation, the accrual/increase of wealth over time, which it what @Nanfoodle was suggesting and I was responding to. There isn't a necessity of time in your model. The "metaverse" games and their "virtual land sales" can generate wealth overnight as long as a person can find another who is willing and capable of paying that amount (also reference #6 of my points above). That doesn't mean it is a sustainable model of financial growth.
Blockchain as a buy-and-hold profit model puts it directly in the path of other collectables. It requires the commodity to have a finite initial distribution (250,000 copies of a comic book, or an individual painting by a specific painter). The value increases only because you can't buy another original; you buy from other collectors. The price is related to the rarity and desirability of that collectible.
Items in games aren't limited. The game can (and does) create items as desired. Buying a Ghoulbane that dropped in September of 2001 isn't any different from one that drops today. Since a Ghoulbane still drops today, buying that Ghoulbane isn't an appreciation in value of the item, it is a convenience (bypassing the need for camping). I can't buy a new Action Comics #1 at the label price because no new copies are being printed. Items in games are constantly being created. Blockchains aren't likely to change that aspect of gaming. So it not an appreciation in asset value that is in operation; it is only a convenience (or possibly a greed) issue.
As for those "some people" that are already doing this, let me simply say that "some people" are also jumping off bridges.
I think the point is, Blockchain is more then a payment model. You can play right now, blockchain games that have all the standard payment models we see in "normal games" But when payment models unique to Blockchain games become part of the game, it leaves allot of questions as to how it can be gamed to hurt gamers? Also, will there be fair Blockchain games the uses these unique payment models? ((shrugs))
One critical difference between blockchain and cash shops is who they try to collect money from. Blockchain games are primarily trying to get money from investors with more money than sense, and likely those who made their money off of cryptocurrency speculation. Whether you ever get any money from actual gamers is hardly the point. If you get paid well to develop a game for several years and then the game shuts down a month after launch, then you got paid, so that's a success story for the developers.
Cash shops are trying to extract exorbitant amounts of money from players. If you're a player and not a wanna-be investor with more money than sense, that should be far more offensive to you than blockchain. Blockchain "games" should be regarded as more of a sideshow, like DreamWorld or Stargate Worlds (which was easily the biggest scam MMORPG before the rise of crowdfunding), and not part of the actual game industry.
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.
Buy something and sell it at a higher price. Right.
But that's not appreciation, the accrual/increase of wealth over time, which it what @Nanfoodle was suggesting and I was responding to. There isn't a necessity of time in your model. The "metaverse" games and their "virtual land sales" can generate wealth overnight as long as a person can find another who is willing and capable of paying that amount (also reference #6 of my points above). That doesn't mean it is a sustainable model of financial growth.
Blockchain as a buy-and-hold profit model puts it directly in the path of other collectables. It requires the commodity to have a finite initial distribution (250,000 copies of a comic book, or an individual painting by a specific painter). The value increases only because you can't buy another original; you buy from other collectors. The price is related to the rarity and desirability of that collectible.
Items in games aren't limited. The game can (and does) create items as desired. Buying a Ghoulbane that dropped in September of 2001 isn't any different from one that drops today. Since a Ghoulbane still drops today, buying that Ghoulbane isn't an appreciation in value of the item, it is a convenience (bypassing the need for camping). I can't buy a new Action Comics #1 at the label price because no new copies are being printed. Items in games are constantly being created. Blockchains aren't likely to change that aspect of gaming. So it not an appreciation in asset value that is in operation; it is only a convenience (or possibly a greed) issue.
As for those "some people" that are already doing this, let me simply say that "some people" are also jumping off bridges.
I think the point is, Blockchain is more then a payment model. You can play right now, blockchain games that have all the standard payment models we see in "normal games" But when payment models unique to Blockchain games become part of the game, it leaves allot of questions as to how it can be gamed to hurt gamers? Also, will there be fair Blockchain games the uses these unique payment models? ((shrugs))
It is less about the game, and more about the payment model. Yep. You also bring several good points about how fair these Blockchain games will be, and how easy it will be to 'manipulate' gamers. I think we will want more answers than we currently have.
Bottom line, Blockchain appears to be more focused on how to extract money from players and less about improving the product people buy. That may change in the future, sure, but it appears to be just another developer saying "trust us, we'll do better".
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
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.
Buy something and sell it at a higher price. Right.
But that's not appreciation, the accrual/increase of wealth over time, which it what @Nanfoodle was suggesting and I was responding to. There isn't a necessity of time in your model. The "metaverse" games and their "virtual land sales" can generate wealth overnight as long as a person can find another who is willing and capable of paying that amount (also reference #6 of my points above). That doesn't mean it is a sustainable model of financial growth.
Blockchain as a buy-and-hold profit model puts it directly in the path of other collectables. It requires the commodity to have a finite initial distribution (250,000 copies of a comic book, or an individual painting by a specific painter). The value increases only because you can't buy another original; you buy from other collectors. The price is related to the rarity and desirability of that collectible.
Items in games aren't limited. The game can (and does) create items as desired. Buying a Ghoulbane that dropped in September of 2001 isn't any different from one that drops today. Since a Ghoulbane still drops today, buying that Ghoulbane isn't an appreciation in value of the item, it is a convenience (bypassing the need for camping). I can't buy a new Action Comics #1 at the label price because no new copies are being printed. Items in games are constantly being created. Blockchains aren't likely to change that aspect of gaming. So it not an appreciation in asset value that is in operation; it is only a convenience (or possibly a greed) issue.
As for those "some people" that are already doing this, let me simply say that "some people" are also jumping off bridges.
I think the point is, Blockchain is more then a payment model. You can play right now, blockchain games that have all the standard payment models we see in "normal games" But when payment models unique to Blockchain games become part of the game, it leaves allot of questions as to how it can be gamed to hurt gamers? Also, will there be fair Blockchain games the uses these unique payment models? ((shrugs))
It is less about the game, and more about the payment model. Yep. You also bring several good points about how fair these Blockchain games will be, and how easy it will be to 'manipulate' gamers. I think we will want more answers than we currently have.
Bottom line, Blockchain appears to be more focused on how to extract money from players and less about improving the product people buy. That may change in the future, sure, but it appears to be just another developer saying "trust us, we'll do better".
There is other sides to it, like gamers having more control on what the developer will do with the game going forward. There is talk how gamers will be able to direct where the funds go. So as I posted a few pages back. If WoW was a Blockchain Game. If a large enough of the people subbing to the game decide the next expansion should include a DAoC RvR zone, that would get made. But I agree with you, this scares me more then excites me.
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.
Buy something and sell it at a higher price. Right.
But that's not appreciation, the accrual/increase of wealth over time, which it what @Nanfoodle was suggesting and I was responding to. There isn't a necessity of time in your model. The "metaverse" games and their "virtual land sales" can generate wealth overnight as long as a person can find another who is willing and capable of paying that amount (also reference #6 of my points above). That doesn't mean it is a sustainable model of financial growth.
Blockchain as a buy-and-hold profit model puts it directly in the path of other collectables. It requires the commodity to have a finite initial distribution (250,000 copies of a comic book, or an individual painting by a specific painter). The value increases only because you can't buy another original; you buy from other collectors. The price is related to the rarity and desirability of that collectible.
Items in games aren't limited. The game can (and does) create items as desired. Buying a Ghoulbane that dropped in September of 2001 isn't any different from one that drops today. Since a Ghoulbane still drops today, buying that Ghoulbane isn't an appreciation in value of the item, it is a convenience (bypassing the need for camping). I can't buy a new Action Comics #1 at the label price because no new copies are being printed. Items in games are constantly being created. Blockchains aren't likely to change that aspect of gaming. So it not an appreciation in asset value that is in operation; it is only a convenience (or possibly a greed) issue.
As for those "some people" that are already doing this, let me simply say that "some people" are also jumping off bridges.
I think the point is, Blockchain is more then a payment model. You can play right now, blockchain games that have all the standard payment models we see in "normal games" But when payment models unique to Blockchain games become part of the game, it leaves allot of questions as to how it can be gamed to hurt gamers? Also, will there be fair Blockchain games the uses these unique payment models? ((shrugs))
It is less about the game, and more about the payment model. Yep. You also bring several good points about how fair these Blockchain games will be, and how easy it will be to 'manipulate' gamers. I think we will want more answers than we currently have.
Bottom line, Blockchain appears to be more focused on how to extract money from players and less about improving the product people buy. That may change in the future, sure, but it appears to be just another developer saying "trust us, we'll do better".
There is other sides to it, like gamers having more control on what the developer will do with the game going forward. There is talk how gamers will be able to direct where the funds go. So as I posted a few pages back. If WoW was a Blockchain Game. If a large enough of the people subbing to the game decide the next expansion should include a DAoC RvR zone, that would get made. But I agree with you, this scares me more then excites me.
That sounds like a great way to get a bunch of passionless products. God knows we have enough of those already.
It is less about the game, and more about the payment model. Yep. You also bring several good points about how fair these Blockchain games will be, and how easy it will be to 'manipulate' gamers. I think we will want more answers than we currently have.
Bottom line, Blockchain appears to be more focused on how to extract money from players and less about improving the product people buy. That may change in the future, sure, but it appears to be just another developer saying "trust us, we'll do better".
There is other sides to it, like gamers having more control on what the developer will do with the game going forward. There is talk how gamers will be able to direct where the funds go. So as I posted a few pages back. If WoW was a Blockchain Game. If a large enough of the people subbing to the game decide the next expansion should include a DAoC RvR zone, that would get made. But I agree with you, this scares me more then excites me.
That's sort of where 989/Verant/Sony went astray. EQ1 was foremost a social/group game. The developers listened to a few sub groups, and the game evolved into a raiding game. The "Vision" vanished to meet a select group of vocal customers. Blockchain 'direction' of where development efforts go seems more of a similar situation ramped-up by technology. It didn't necessarily create anything better, only different.
All it will effectively do is allow a developer to add the "Blockchain" buzz-word to their resume. Benefit to the customer? Unknown, and probably unimportant.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
It is less about the game, and more about the payment model. Yep. You also bring several good points about how fair these Blockchain games will be, and how easy it will be to 'manipulate' gamers. I think we will want more answers than we currently have.
Bottom line, Blockchain appears to be more focused on how to extract money from players and less about improving the product people buy. That may change in the future, sure, but it appears to be just another developer saying "trust us, we'll do better".
There is other sides to it, like gamers having more control on what the developer will do with the game going forward. There is talk how gamers will be able to direct where the funds go. So as I posted a few pages back. If WoW was a Blockchain Game. If a large enough of the people subbing to the game decide the next expansion should include a DAoC RvR zone, that would get made. But I agree with you, this scares me more then excites me.
That's sort of where 989/Verant/Sony went astray. EQ1 was foremost a social/group game. The developers listened to a few sub groups, and the game evolved into a raiding game. The "Vision" vanished to meet a select group of vocal customers. Blockchain 'direction' of where development efforts go seems more of a similar situation ramped-up by technology. It didn't necessarily create anything better, only different.
All it will effectively do is allow a developer to add the "Blockchain" buzz-word to their resume. Benefit to the customer? Unknown, and probably unimportant.
Yes but again I was pointing out you were not entirely right in your comment above, I will underline what you said. Payment model is just one part of it. Im not saying I support Blockchain Games but its also about owning a part of the game, even if its just on an item level.
Its also how the game can be developed, how content is made and items, its also at times about knowing the items you have are unique. A crafter in a game can make a 100% unique item. Im only scratching the surface and could list things for about 500+ words. Blockchain is about as much about payment model as the games made conventionally today.
It is less about the game, and more about the payment model. Yep. You also bring several good points about how fair these Blockchain games will be, and how easy it will be to 'manipulate' gamers. I think we will want more answers than we currently have.
Bottom line, Blockchain appears to be more focused on how to extract money from players and less about improving the product people buy. That may change in the future, sure, but it appears to be just another developer saying "trust us, we'll do better".
There is other sides to it, like gamers having more control on what the developer will do with the game going forward. There is talk how gamers will be able to direct where the funds go. So as I posted a few pages back. If WoW was a Blockchain Game. If a large enough of the people subbing to the game decide the next expansion should include a DAoC RvR zone, that would get made. But I agree with you, this scares me more then excites me.
That's sort of where 989/Verant/Sony went astray. EQ1 was foremost a social/group game. The developers listened to a few sub groups, and the game evolved into a raiding game. The "Vision" vanished to meet a select group of vocal customers. Blockchain 'direction' of where development efforts go seems more of a similar situation ramped-up by technology. It didn't necessarily create anything better, only different.
All it will effectively do is allow a developer to add the "Blockchain" buzz-word to their resume. Benefit to the customer? Unknown, and probably unimportant.
Yes but again I was pointing out you were not entirely right in your comment above, I will underline what you said. Payment model is just one part of it. Im not saying I support Blockchain Games but its also about owning a part of the game, even if its just on an item level.
Its also how the game can be developed, how content is made and items, its also at times about knowing the items you have are unique. A crafter in a game can make a 100% unique item. Im only scratching the surface and could list things for about 500+ words. Blockchain is about as much about payment model as the games made conventionally today.
Whoa now. Do you really think that developers are going to use blockchain to give players control over the game itself, and not merely items within the game? You don't need blockchain to do that. Stock markets have done that for decades. Any crowdfunded game could have already done that. None have, and for a lot of obvious reasons. Games that use blockchain presumably won't and for the same reasons.
It is less about the game, and more about the payment model. Yep. You also bring several good points about how fair these Blockchain games will be, and how easy it will be to 'manipulate' gamers. I think we will want more answers than we currently have.
Bottom line, Blockchain appears to be more focused on how to extract money from players and less about improving the product people buy. That may change in the future, sure, but it appears to be just another developer saying "trust us, we'll do better".
There is other sides to it, like gamers having more control on what the developer will do with the game going forward. There is talk how gamers will be able to direct where the funds go. So as I posted a few pages back. If WoW was a Blockchain Game. If a large enough of the people subbing to the game decide the next expansion should include a DAoC RvR zone, that would get made. But I agree with you, this scares me more then excites me.
That's sort of where 989/Verant/Sony went astray. EQ1 was foremost a social/group game. The developers listened to a few sub groups, and the game evolved into a raiding game. The "Vision" vanished to meet a select group of vocal customers. Blockchain 'direction' of where development efforts go seems more of a similar situation ramped-up by technology. It didn't necessarily create anything better, only different.
All it will effectively do is allow a developer to add the "Blockchain" buzz-word to their resume. Benefit to the customer? Unknown, and probably unimportant.
Yes but again I was pointing out you were not entirely right in your comment above, I will underline what you said. Payment model is just one part of it. Im not saying I support Blockchain Games but its also about owning a part of the game, even if its just on an item level.
Its also how the game can be developed, how content is made and items, its also at times about knowing the items you have are unique. A crafter in a game can make a 100% unique item. Im only scratching the surface and could list things for about 500+ words. Blockchain is about as much about payment model as the games made conventionally today.
Whoa now. Do you really think that developers are going to use blockchain to give players control over the game itself, and not merely items within the game? You don't need blockchain to do that. Stock markets have done that for decades. Any crowdfunded game could have already done that. None have, and for a lot of obvious reasons. Games that use blockchain presumably won't and for the same reasons.
They already are and your question shows you dont understand what a Blockchain is. Its a record of who owns what in the game. It can be from a dungeon your create with the developers tools that can be monetized to an item you earn in a game that can only be traded for in game gold. Or maybe its an item you craft and can sell for RL money. Developers are not giving up anything, if they go the rout of RL money for in game trading, they will get a cut of every transaction. But again that is a small part of Blockchain.
Is everyone who purchases these dungeons, swords and other game assets going to have to click on a ToS and a EULA?
Are people going to really own this stuff or are people just going to have the right to use the asset, like we do in a cash shop today. Will I as the purchaser own some kind of a copyright or is my ownership a fantasy like the game the item is for?
Is everyone who purchases these dungeons, swords and other game assets going to have to click on a ToS and a EULA?
Are people going to really own this stuff or are people just going to have the right to use the asset, like we do in a cash shop today. Will I as the purchaser own some kind of a copyright or is my ownership a fantasy like the game the item is for?
Again, look up what a Blockchain is. How the monetization works will be up to the developer. In some cases ownership will be almost like games today. You earn it and its bind on pick up or tradable. Up to the developer if ou can sell it for RL money or in game trade only. When you get an item its recorded in the Blockchain, its yours. If the developer sets a limit to only 50 of that items can be made or dropped, there will be a record of the 50 people who earned them and who they traded them with and every trade till the game closes. Its the same way Bitcoin works. There is a set amount of Bitcoin and everyone who has some, its recorded in the Blockchain.
Is everyone who purchases these dungeons, swords and other game assets going to have to click on a ToS and a EULA?
Are people going to really own this stuff or are people just going to have the right to use the asset, like we do in a cash shop today. Will I as the purchaser own some kind of a copyright or is my ownership a fantasy like the game the item is for?
Again, look up what a Blockchain is. How the monetization works will be up to the developer. In some cases ownership will be almost like games today. You earn it and its bind on pick up or tradable. Up to the developer if ou can sell it for RL money or in game trade only. When you get an item its recorded in the Blockchain, its yours. If the developer sets a limit to only 50 of that items can be made or dropped, there will be a record of the 50 people who earned them and who they traded them with and every trade till the game closes. Its the same way Bitcoin works. There is a set amount of Bitcoin and everyone who has some, its recorded in the Blockchain.
I have no problem with blockchain if its useful for things under the hood. Things that make for a better game.
These new monetization ideas are brilliant but not in a consumer friendly way.
It's a brave new world, if I'm still here in 20 years I'll count myself lucky
One critical difference between blockchain and cash shops is who they try to collect money from. Blockchain games are primarily trying to get money from investors with more money than sense, and likely those who made their money off of cryptocurrency speculation. Whether you ever get any money from actual gamers is hardly the point. If you get paid well to develop a game for several years and then the game shuts down a month after launch, then you got paid, so that's a success story for the developers.
Cash shops are trying to extract exorbitant amounts of money from players. If you're a player and not a wanna-be investor with more money than sense, that should be far more offensive to you than blockchain. Blockchain "games" should be regarded as more of a sideshow, like DreamWorld or Stargate Worlds (which was easily the biggest scam MMORPG before the rise of crowdfunding), and not part of the actual game industry.
Is this a distinction worth making? The history of MMOs shows that every way that you can make money is just added to the bill. I can't see why blockchain games won't have early access and pre-order (unless F2P) as well as cash shops with the now mandatory subscription.
It is less about the game, and more about the payment model. Yep. You also bring several good points about how fair these Blockchain games will be, and how easy it will be to 'manipulate' gamers. I think we will want more answers than we currently have.
Bottom line, Blockchain appears to be more focused on how to extract money from players and less about improving the product people buy. That may change in the future, sure, but it appears to be just another developer saying "trust us, we'll do better".
There is other sides to it, like gamers having more control on what the developer will do with the game going forward. There is talk how gamers will be able to direct where the funds go. So as I posted a few pages back. If WoW was a Blockchain Game. If a large enough of the people subbing to the game decide the next expansion should include a DAoC RvR zone, that would get made. But I agree with you, this scares me more then excites me.
That's sort of where 989/Verant/Sony went astray. EQ1 was foremost a social/group game. The developers listened to a few sub groups, and the game evolved into a raiding game. The "Vision" vanished to meet a select group of vocal customers. Blockchain 'direction' of where development efforts go seems more of a similar situation ramped-up by technology. It didn't necessarily create anything better, only different.
All it will effectively do is allow a developer to add the "Blockchain" buzz-word to their resume. Benefit to the customer? Unknown, and probably unimportant.
Yes but again I was pointing out you were not entirely right in your comment above, I will underline what you said. Payment model is just one part of it. Im not saying I support Blockchain Games but its also about owning a part of the game, even if its just on an item level.
Its also how the game can be developed, how content is made and items, its also at times about knowing the items you have are unique. A crafter in a game can make a 100% unique item. Im only scratching the surface and could list things for about 500+ words. Blockchain is about as much about payment model as the games made conventionally today.
Whoa now. Do you really think that developers are going to use blockchain to give players control over the game itself, and not merely items within the game? You don't need blockchain to do that. Stock markets have done that for decades. Any crowdfunded game could have already done that. None have, and for a lot of obvious reasons. Games that use blockchain presumably won't and for the same reasons.
i just would not touch bitcoin or crypto of any form.
People should know it is a massive money laundering scam for criminals involved in prostitution, drugs and hacking ransoms. Like a casino, criminals buy bitcoin with their
criminal proceeds, then sell it to innocent people, washing the dirty
money. They don't even worry about how much criminal money they lose on the way, because for them, just converting 1% of the proceeds is a big win. Don't promote crime. Don't promote crypto.
"While Decentraland is not a revolutionary product." - So what is blockchain and Ethereum bringing to gaming what Second Life was not already doing?
The buying of land, cosmetics, all this has been done before, indeed for real money not Ethereum.
It seems that the game is held communally by the players, but what does that actually mean? The game is run by an Argentina based team, there are many investors one being the Digital Currency Group. The team still runs the game but plan to hand over more power to the community as time goes on...time will tell how that goes.
There are legal issues which may arise about content, but that's been with us forever in these sorts of games.
For many there is a political element to this, creating and socialising outside of what are seen as oppressive governments. Personally I think if full powers are devolved to the community they with see how oppressive human nature can be, even without governments.
The only founder I tracked down was Esteban Ordano, who has a background in all things cryptocurrency and nothing in gaming or virtual worlds before. Here, they have created a mechanism for making and exchanging cryptocurrency and left anything game like up to the players to conceive.
An issue I found is that all articles and videos about cryptocurrency games I could find are written by cryptocurrency enthusiasts. That last video was from Exodus which is a cryptocurrency wallet, something which you need to use some version of in all these games. Now we are used to this, streamers, hype videos from gaming companies and so on. But that's the same level of reliability I would give to these sorts of videos, they have a vested interest in saying "this is great".
Finally I found some people speaking out, it was not "great". From problems with whales buying up everything at launch to issues about the administration team.
This article is from 2017, maybe everything is resolved now but I could find no sign it had. It leaves some big question marks:
No one on the Decentraland team had any game dev or VR experience, despite claiming to be building a VRMMO
The project claimed to have started in June 2015, but had no notable releases or product development until March 2017
The ICO was delayed
The team arbitrarily planned an ICO whitelist pre-sale and discount within a few weeks of the ICO, after repeatedly claiming pre-sales were bad
Cancelling said whitelist pre-sale just days before the ICO
The team refused to create any sort of protections on huge individual purchases
The source code to the Unity browser of Decentraland was very unimpressive
There has been no VR-specific development done for Decentraland at all to this day
The team refused to package an executable of the Decentraland browser for the community
The Decentraland team claimed that they were trashing the Unity Web Player version for Aframe and WebVR, even though they have no experience with aframe and have no aframe product to show.
Comments
The other issue is people are conflating game design and monetisation with a blockchain engine. Platforms like IMVU (and most of the 2000's social worlds) had features to support derivative content. You can take an item and if allowed by the creator (who ticks a setting), you download the the raw files, make changes, and upload it as your own item. The creator gets a pre-agreed cut, along with any preceding creators in the chain. This doesn't need a blockchain at all - they were running it using a centralised server.
The same is true for virtual properties, fractional ownerships, item component attribute inheritance etc. This has been around for decades, without any blockchain technology. Developers taking a cut? Also nothing to do with blockchain, and also something decades old.
After reading a bit more through the links people posted here, the only difference that defines a blockchain game, is that it is a client-authoritative setup. It sits somewhere between a P2P game (where you send valid data to others) and a server game (where the server sends valid data to you). In a blockchain game, multiple connected clients agree on what is valid data instead. This has some interesting engineering implications (no need for massive servers), but that's about it.
All the other features and monetisation, while perhaps more suited for blockchain, do not require blockchain and are not at all implied by it. You can have a blockchain-less game with all the features people are describing - devs taking a cut on user content, open-source development, real money transactions. You could also have (in theory) WoW put on the blockchain, still requiring a subscription to use the client and not have any user content / RMT at all.
I find the potential of Blockchain Games could be more scary then any cash shop but I am also sure not all games made this way will be evil. My thinking is I wont even try a Blockchain game, unless its clear its low risk for me to try it. Fact is, we are going to need more education in RL on what this means for gaming.
You don't understand what I've been saying then. Saying "transaction" doesn't mean monetary transactions. Blockchain IS A DIGITAL LEDGER so transactions are part of what it fundamentally is. But a transaction doesn't mean you're paying money for one party to another, a transaction can be just an exchange of information.
"Show me something new, useful and that I actually care about totally unrelated to transactions, monetization or mining."
Again, you don't understand blockchain then. YOU HAVE TO MINE to "transact" the data, it's inherent in the usage of it, unless you're using a centralized system, in which case, you only need a centralized authority and that would be the same as the way servers are today.
"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."
You misunderstand the projects I've provided, or haven't looked into them at all. Serverless games are actually a tremendously powerful thing... and then you say -
"So if block chain would take further control away from creators I view that as a very bad thing"
It actually gives more power to all kinds of content creators. In fact, the whole purpose of linking 9 chronicles and showing what they are doing, is they want players to continue to build and change the game on their own, apart from their own direction to where there could be multiple offshoots to the base game.
It could be a game that organically lives and evolves through a community.
Just from how you attempt to brandish specific rules on what you want to hear that blockchain does and what you don't want to hear, while not understanding what is necessary for a game to utilize blockchain says a lot.
"It could be a game that organically lives and evolves through a community." That sounds wonderful Masked Weasel, you get my award for highest pie in the sky in this thread so far.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Cash shops are trying to extract exorbitant amounts of money from players. If you're a player and not a wanna-be investor with more money than sense, that should be far more offensive to you than blockchain. Blockchain "games" should be regarded as more of a sideshow, like DreamWorld or Stargate Worlds (which was easily the biggest scam MMORPG before the rise of crowdfunding), and not part of the actual game industry.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Its also how the game can be developed, how content is made and items, its also at times about knowing the items you have are unique. A crafter in a game can make a 100% unique item. Im only scratching the surface and could list things for about 500+ words. Blockchain is about as much about payment model as the games made conventionally today.
Is everyone who purchases these dungeons, swords and other game assets going to have to click on a ToS and a EULA?
Are people going to really own this stuff or are people just going to have the right to use the asset, like we do in a cash shop today. Will I as the purchaser own some kind of a copyright or is my ownership a fantasy like the game the item is for?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
These new monetization ideas are brilliant but not in a consumer friendly way.
It's a brave new world, if I'm still here in 20 years I'll count myself lucky
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
catchup Quiz
The buying of land, cosmetics, all this has been done before, indeed for real money not Ethereum.
It seems that the game is held communally by the players, but what does that actually mean? The game is run by an Argentina based team, there are many investors one being the Digital Currency Group. The team still runs the game but plan to hand over more power to the community as time goes on...time will tell how that goes.
There are legal issues which may arise about content, but that's been with us forever in these sorts of games.
For many there is a political element to this, creating and socialising outside of what are seen as oppressive governments. Personally I think if full powers are devolved to the community they with see how oppressive human nature can be, even without governments.
The only founder I tracked down was Esteban Ordano, who has a background in all things cryptocurrency and nothing in gaming or virtual worlds before. Here, they have created a mechanism for making and exchanging cryptocurrency and left anything game like up to the players to conceive.
An issue I found is that all articles and videos about cryptocurrency games I could find are written by cryptocurrency enthusiasts. That last video was from Exodus which is a cryptocurrency wallet, something which you need to use some version of in all these games. Now we are used to this, streamers, hype videos from gaming companies and so on. But that's the same level of reliability I would give to these sorts of videos, they have a vested interest in saying "this is great".
Finally I found some people speaking out, it was not "great". From problems with whales buying up everything at launch to issues about the administration team.
What Went Wrong With Decentraland — Doubt Reality
This article is from 2017, maybe everything is resolved now but I could find no sign it had. It leaves some big question marks: