He posted a list of real, hard problems, all of which are correct. You posted an empty sales-pitch. The problem is not over-thinking.

Going with your analogy, think a bit more carefully: does that guy in the parking lot who sold you a Big Mac receipt have the power to compel Burger King to give you free food? That’s all the power an NFT has — there’s nothing magic about it, just a question about whether the business in question wants to do it. If they do, they don’t need a blockchain. If they don’t, a blockchain can’t make them.

No, it’s overthinking. The only thing that game developers need to solve is what item to give in return when a player imports something from another game. Could be you import armor and get a pink hat or a banana. It doesn’t need to be the same models, or same damage points or whatever. It can be anything.

Well yes, allowing to import an NFT is a business decision. Not sure what the point is?

That’s something different than the usual sales pitch of being able to use your items in another game, and it still makes no sense to involve an NFT. Why would EA give some of your money to a third-party now to potentially help one of their competitors in the future? If they want to setup a business deal, they’ll do it directly and avoid paying the middleman.

>It’s kinda like McDonalds doing a promotion. If you bring a Burger King packaging you get a free Big Mac.

Doesn't that statement show how crazy this is? This never happens in the real world so why would it happen in the virtual world.

Also I'm way behind on this stuff but isn't trading of different things in different contexts the reason we invented money?

These promotions exist in the real world in one way or another.

Also, it is more likely that a few leaders will emerge in the NFT space offering a framework or platform as a service that is used by rival game development companies. You know, like when you boot up a game and see all of the logos for the frameworks they used.

Im not arguing that this is good. Just saying it is more likely to happen than not.

Yes, and the technology of money happens to be going through a historical transformation.

> It’s kinda like McDonalds doing a promotion. If you bring a Burger King packaging you get a free Big Mac.

Poe's law is striking again, can't tell if you're serious or pointing out the flaw in the thinking.

Wouldn’t Battlefield want to sell me their own armor?

Dice / EA would want to maximize their profits through any legal, popular and mostly unpopular means. If that means entering some service agreement to support tokens from rival products then yes, they will. Anything that will increase particiation in their platforms is ideal.

Why wouldn’t they just make that deal together? That would give them more control, and they could split all of the money which would be going to blockchain fees instead of gifting it to third parties.

Sunk cost fallacy. If someone invested money into a game they might be reluctant to switch to a different game. But what if they can just take their investment with them and import it in another game. Then spend more in the new game.

Why would the other game want to make this information portable? Why would Minecraft want to let its players walk away to Roblox with all their trophies and hats (or whatever)?

They wouldn't, GP has the wrong idea of the sunk cost fallacy. The fallacy would be committed by the players, sticking with a game (and putting in more money over time) because they've already spent so much on it. Freeing them up to take their items elsewhere is the opposite of what game developers want (unless it's in other games by the same studio).

Same thing with other systems. Sony doesn't want their games to run on Xbox, and MS doesn't want theirs to run on Playstation. Why? Because then you wouldn't buy their consoles and they wouldn't get the money from licensing and cuts from their digital stores (you'd be free to choose, if your Xbox broke you could get a Playstation and keep going, breaking their revenue modeL). MS does want games to run on Windows along with their consoles because it keeps developers committing to MS's platform because it's sufficiently hard to migrate to the other consoles or OSes.

I was talking about the players. Studios will have no choice but to support it because gamers will expect it. Just like Sony has been forced to accept cross-play in Fortnite. All it takes is one big game with NFT support to start it.

> Studios will have no choice but to support it because gamers will expect it.

Gamers can't stop pre-paying for games which launch with tons of bugs or paying for micro-transactions which incentivize abusive game design. I am highly skeptical that even 0.1% of buyers would not play a game they otherwise wanted because it didn't allow some way to recognize your items from another game.

Why wouldn't the big players just stick all that information into one database and enable transferring assets back and forth that way? It solves the "wear my Fortnite hat in Minecraft" problem without making the entire database of who owns what world-readable. Like Zelle but for hats.

why would mcdonalds do that?