>Otherwise what's to stop multiple games trying to adopt the same group of NFTs?

I feel like you're on the cusp of a penny drop moment here with blockchain

> I feel like you're on the cusp of a penny drop moment here with blockchain

And I'm really not sure what you're getting at. This particular use of NFT is as certificate of unique ownership. That's what the original buyer thought they were obtaining.

Now - maybe they shouldn't or maybe they were deluded - but that's currently how NFTs are being marketed.

Isn't it?

NFTs have an ID that uniquely identifies them, the URL is just for extra data really.

> Otherwise what's to stop multiple games trying to adopt the same group of NFTs?

Nothing at all. Breaking data out of small silos into one large database opens up possibilities like this.

So as a user I could either purchase one of these NFTs and give you money - or just generate my own NFT and use it to get your stuff for free?

No, the NFTs are uniquely identifiable.

So if the original issuer of an NFT goes out of business I, as another studio, can't continue to print tokens for the same asset? (I mean I guess I could print a duplicate line - but I couldn't carry on the same line).

The NFT is unique - not the thing it points to.

Anyone can mint an NFT to point to anything. There's no guarantee beyond what's traceable on the blockchain. Once the NFT "points" to something outside of the blockchain, then all bets are off.

Yeah, as a gamedev, let me rush to do that right away, because, um, well, um, nope.

> Don't NFTs usually hardcode a URL? Anyone wanting to "adopt" would want to have control of the relevent domains.

they hardcode a content-addressable url (eg. ipfs). there's no domains to take over.