> the only skin of this kind in Fortnite

An NFT doesn't say anything about the uniqueness of the underlying digital good, it only shows who owns it. That Fortnite skin can still be duplicated endlessly.

Ownership of a Fortnite skin guarantees that only the owner can wear the skin. Owning an NFT doesn't guarantee exclusive use, as anyone can view the digital image/video/etc that the NFT has wrapped.

I'm interested to know how prices for tradable goods changed as they are obsoleted by newer, shinier things, or by the game being abandoned altogether.

I'm sure you already know the answer to how this will turn out. The price will be substantially discounted. I notice that the secondary market isn't making headlines, just these initial sales.

> Ownership of a Fortnite skin guarantees that only the owner can wear the skin.

Is that guarantee in the cryptographic sense or policy sense?

Ownership in a "good enough to dictate the value of the object through its exclusivity." If the player base sees Fortnite renege on its promise of uniqueness, they'll revolt, or at least the price of these unique items will drop.

But there's nothing stopping Fortnite from developing that right now without the need for a NFT. Sure you guarantee uniqueness with the token, but they can later create an identical skin with a new token. I really don't know what this buys that sort of transaction.

They could also ignore the tokens too. This is another off chain issue, there’s no guarantee that something outside the blockchains is obligated to respect what the blockchain says reality should be.

They could also release the same skin without any token even after someone paid for it, the token means nothing. The token is a gesture.

Yeah, I was making the assumption they created new rules and were playing by them, but yes, like the article says, you can share the images as much as you want. It's only the token that's the non-reproducible bit.

Fortnite already has the infrastructure to do such a thing, but with NFTs, the infrastructure is open to anyone.

That's true, but what's in it for Fortnite? That skin only really has value while the lights are on. I suppose it would have a "proof of purchase" appeal after the fact where the totally useless item can keep getting traded even after the servers are shut, but unless that proves to be of great monetary value I don't know why Epic would care.

I didn't mean to say that people will make NFTs for Fortnite skins (and I don't think that's what the other poster is saying either, but maybe I'm wrong).

Rather, people will probably make NFTs for art or social events or similar. The fact that people are buying essentially useless/decorative skins on Fortnite today is just evidence that such a market could be successful at all.

Agreed, this summarizes my view as well.

The criticism above are valid, but at a base level: people are paying for exclusive, purely digital goods. Them paying unique, purely digital goods, doesn’t seem like a stretch.

This is putting aside questions of product dev and incentives for somewhere like Fortnite. It arguably has the incentives to sell unique skins, and the blockchain/NFT use is at minimum a solid marketing ploy, at maximum actually worth doing if they do charge out the a* for a unique skin as the customer would want to know it’s as such.

Fair enough. I may be misunderstanding the point.

Which NFTs do literally nothing to solve.