It really is not any different from Valve's system except it's way more complicated, it's using a trendy thing, you don't need Ubisoft to trade things (although you still have to complete trust in Ubisoft for the NFTs to have any use as they still have to mint the items and could still remove an item or ban a specific item number), item duplication is impossible, and fraud protection is impossible.

So Ubisoft could delete the item from the game, and therefore owning the NFT means nothing. What's the point of using NFT instead of a Ubisoft owned DB?

They just embed a URL. You are buying a URL, which I think must be publically available due to being on the blockchain, unless it's encrypted with the buyer's pubkey which would make some sense.

Currently, a lot of the frontends are not open. They pose the same degree of rugpull risk as any ordinary web site. That is unlikely to remain the status quo since both collectors and artists will ultimately demand a proof of redundancy. But as it stands, it's a bubble, and the rules aren't set.

Crypto in general feels like MMM scams but for men.

If you go to Contract and then Read, there's a function you can execute towards the end which gets you the URI for a token. If you grab a token ID[2] and enter it in, you'll get back an IPFS address. Should be more permanent than a random image hosting site, but it's certainly not the same as storing the image on the blockchain.

[1] https://etherscan.io/address/0xbc4ca0eda7647a8ab7c2061c2e118... [2] https://opensea.io/collection/boredapeyachtclub

No, you don't own the URL either, and if the URL goes away, you still own the NFT.

All you own is the NFT - a hex number that encodes the solution to an obscure equation.

Owning the NFT means nothing since you don't own the game in which they're used.

Now they get to say they're using NFTs in their press.

And they've even launched this on an older game, so they can test if it results in increased engagement or revenue.

Less work. Maintaining a marketplace is resource intensive. If the same functionality can be achieved with NFTs, it makes little sense to use a proprietary solution.

Are you seriously saying that their motivation was that it's less work?

Users may consider this a bug, but from Ubisoft's side it's less responsibility.

I think you're essentially agreeing with the article - Ubisoft's plans make no sense beyond simply being trendy. They are worse in any practical sense than a simple server-side solution.

A conventional database would obviously be much better for Ubisoft. This is just illogical fad-chasing.

2021: Praise Valve, the only big name keeping in-game-crap economies free of "blockchain" garbage and generally being the least awful one.

How low can the games industry sink?

Some players like the ability to pursue luxury, express themselves and display status. Now Valve as an established player; market operator and sort of a financial institution of the "tradable hats" world plays conservative.

Personally I think that this is a capitalism thing: any company that finds a way to sell this type of luxury suddenly finds out why other people are doing it ($$$$$) and it’s very hard to turn down a constant stream of money.

Yes.

Steam users most of all though because it exploits bad habits people have like gambling, collectionism, and completionism with all the ugliness that comes with them for the sake of profit.

Many decisions are taken to increase market value. It makes sense a distributed ledger based on blockchain if that increases the shares value, but I guess that you mean that it does not improve the product at all. And I can't agree more that if anything it makes it worse.

Not that distributed is even in the initialism of NFT, so I guess csgo skins are NFTs.

This is basically laughing at kid's being poor, can't stop it. But game producers are actively creating those environments where even if its just cosmetics you are still in a lower caste if not buying into cosmetics.

There are also pattens by Ubi or activation where you are places on server with higher rated player so when they dominate you their characters with weapons and skins are presented in a kill cam. That is to create subconscious idea of getting those to play better.

Thirdly on Valve and buying/selling items. Arcanas are skins in Dota. They are very expensive as its alternative character skin with new voice lines and visuals for skill. Nowdays arcanas are expensive, none tradable/marketable, and more importantly one time exclusive. Its massive FOMO pressure. Back in the day you could buy an arcana and while it costed you a bit you could sell it back at small % loss, not anymore.

Those companies are doing all of it cuz it makes them piles of cash, as those tactics while predatory - do work - and work very well.

I think people with nicer skins are more highly invested in the game both literally and figuratively, and thus are more likely to be better. I don’t think kill cams are the way valve is trying to convince you to buy skins.

And for your last point, yes that sucks but is that any worse than the default experience for literally every multiplayer video game on the market?

I said it, but it seems like you are ok with it, be it physical or virtual goods?

> I think people with nicer skins are more highly invested in the game both literally and figuratively, and thus are more likely to be better. I don’t think kill cams are the way valve is trying to convince you to buy skins.

Please read what people write, instead of creating misconstrued replies. Its not valve, its patented method of placing you with HIGHER skill opponent who has skins/weapons that you dont have in order to heard you into conclusion that you should get skills.

> I don’t think kill cams are the way X company is trying to convince you to buy skins.

You don't have to think. They filled patent for this, how daft one need to get to clam they mean the opposite of what the patent they filled for. Like how do you arrive at that conclusion?! Honestly how?

This is not 100% effective method, but example of subtle emotional manipulation of vulnerable player-base, like kids/teens into spending money.

> And for your last point, yes that sucks but is that any worse than the default experience for literally every multiplayer video game on the market?

What? What is your point really? Shitty practices are ok as long everyone is using them? 'Mercury in your cereal?' - but every brand has them so that makes it ok.

> I said it, but it seems like you are ok with it, be it physical or virtual goods?

This is absolutely not what I said and incredibly insulting of an implication. If you’re going to talk about misreading peoples comments, please practice what you preach. I will not be responding to the rest of this comment because you have convinced me you’re not approaching this dialogue in good faith.

> Skins are tradeable on the steam market which itself is a ledger, no reason for it to be distributed.

This is false in the Dota2 world. Some skins and cosmetics cannot be put on the market again or resold. Some people would see this constraint from a centralized force as a flaw.

> Skins are purely cosmetic and tied to a competitive game that many people tie their life to. Cosmetics of differing expense make sense, the better players show off their personality in the expense and style of their cosmetics

In decentralized gaming, anyone is free to take those assets and build a game off them. For example, if you had a certain rare skin, and someone made a dota fan game (or custom game if you are from the old WCIII days or custom lobby in current dota days), then you could enable certain functionality if they had the skin or NFT. There is a lot you can do from here that isn't purely cosmetic but also not P2W.

> additionally, because the ledger isn’t distributed, valve can actively change skins and fix mistakes to them. This allows for user submitted skins to even work, as they can respond to DMCA take downs

Excellent point on DMCA. On submitted skins, some people could see that as a limit. Who approves submissions (this was a big complaint in previous TIs)?

I am someone that has a lot of stuff on the Dota2 marketplace, and some of the centralized decisions have definitely left me with some bitterness. For example, I mentioned before that some cosmetics are not re-tradeable or ever seen again after some period of exclusivity. Except this rule was broken once where they allowed an Invoker cosmetic to come up again (the kid Persona), but for some reason didn't bring back [Dark Artistry] in an event where they put these skins together. I had the kid persona invoker item but never had the [Dark Artistry]. They essentially devalued my cosmetic, again somewhat arbitrarily.

Certainly not. The assets are owned by the game developer. The NFT is just a receipt that you paid for them.

I suppose another developer can read that receipt and offer you some content in their game, but if that content looks anything like the original asset, they're liable to get sued for copyright infringement.

> but if that content looks anything like the original asset, they're liable to get sued for copyright infringement.

I am thinking something more along the lines of a game that supports in-game mods for it. There is nothing limiting you to use the original asset; you just need proof of ownership to give access to a different functionality. I have no idea how this would work across developers and with copyright, but there are real scenarios right now that would love to use proof of ownership or for mods.

It may be the case for Ubisoft. However, some NTFs include the IP rights. For example, if you bought a Bored Ape NFT, you'd have the rights to use that Ape any way that you want. You can license it out for a Cartoon. Movie or Comic Book. Sell T-shirts, etc.

Which surely exists separately from the blockchain in conventional contract law?

An NFT can't "include" IP rights. A notice on a website where you buy it might have a grant of contract rights.

Once again - the blockchain adds nothing or very little in return for a ton of technical complexity.

You could purchase a custom illustration for $5 from Fiverr that would look better than a generated ape, be more suitable for your use case, and also comes with full rights.

But the skin owner can code pauses/restraints in the NFT smart contract, right? A decentralized market wouldn't change that.

> In decentralized gaming, anyone is free to take those assets and build a game off them. For example, if you had a certain rare skin, and someone made a dota fan game (or custom game if you are from the old WCIII days or custom lobby in current dota days), then you could enable certain functionality if they had the skin or NFT. There is a lot you can do from here that isn't purely cosmetic but also not P2W.

But for that you need to have free assets, to the point where someone else can build a game. And I bet in that case you don't need to own the skin, just load the asset in the game and that's it.

I think it is fine if skin providers in a free marketplace can impose constraints on their NFTs. I think the problem is if someone can impose arbitrary constraints on all the assets at any time.

> But for that you need to have free assets, to the point where someone else can build a game. And I bet in that case you don't need to own the skin, just load the asset in the game and that's it.

Yes, you need certain amount of assets. I am not sure why you wouldn't need to own the skin. We already have verification for assets in centralized ledgers to exclusive access. I am saying a situation where I might give asset owners access to specific game functions if they own an asset from another game for example. This is pretty useful for RPG games (think branching paths in games like Mass Effect or other Bioware games)

If the game maker doesn't want to restrict who uses the skin? And I guess that's the thing that would happen if someone makes a mod out of free assets.

Source: https://youtu.be/4nCt99ezhiA