Re:Stop this digital ownership madness, NFTs are bullshit
by smt88 on Thursday March 04, 2021 @09:45PM
(#26351892)
Wow, none of that makes sense. Let me go through it point by point.
> The step towards an NFT market begins with the creation of viable transfer mediums - assets not optimized towards particular games but with a reasonable degree of retargetability.
You seem to be completely ignoring the points in my post.
You can do this without blockchain. In fact, blockchain would be a hindrance. If I create a game that supports a common asset format (which is a dubious concept to begin with), then I have already centralized the "truth" of the asset's value. I, the developer, and not the blockchain, determine the ownership. I can completely ignore whatever the blockchain says at any time. There is no contract. The ownership is meaningless because it is instantly ignorable.
> At that point opting in to an NFT market and allowing trade across games becomes a viable way to offer new experiences at lower cost
This would increase the cost of the game, not decrease it. It would do this in two ways:
1. Supporting a third-party format is going to take extra dev time. Games are not standardized enough at this point for the behavior of an asset to be fungible between games.
2. Selling unique assets (not allowing people to reuse existing assets) is what gives devs the highest margins. Custom assets are a revenue center, not a cost center.
> The step towards an NFT market begins with the creation of viable transfer mediums - assets not optimized towards particular games but with a reasonable degree of retargetability.
You seem to be completely ignoring the points in my post.
You can do this without blockchain. In fact, blockchain would be a hindrance. If I create a game that supports a common asset format (which is a dubious concept to begin with), then I have already centralized the "truth" of the asset's value. I, the developer, and not the blockchain, determine the ownership. I can completely ignore whatever the blockchain says at any time. There is no contract. The ownership is meaningless because it is instantly ignorable.
> At that point opting in to an NFT market and allowing trade across games becomes a viable way to offer new experiences at lower cost
This would increase the cost of the game, not decrease it. It would do this in two ways:
1. Supporting a third-party format is going to take extra dev time. Games are not standardized enough at this point for the behavior of an asset to be fungible between games.
2. Selling unique assets (not allowing people to reuse existing assets) is what gives devs the highest margins. Custom assets are a revenue center, not a cost center.