News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly by meheleventyone on Thursday January 06, 2022 @02:37AM (#29820534)
> if the developer wants to integrate them

What’s the incentive for the developer to do this? And more importantly how does my M4 rifle work in an epic fantasy role playing game?

Re:Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly by mantenpanther on Thursday January 06, 2022 @02:41AM (#29820555)
There might be many, this is a new field. A starter would be an existing userbase holding NFTs that enter the game. Different forms of monetarization (entering with NFTs, storing progress on the NFTs, marketplaces,...) might be a thing.
Re:Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly by meheleventyone on Thursday January 06, 2022 @02:49AM (#29820599)
There might be none as well, this is a new field.

The problem with your first suggestion is that you do an awful lot of work to map another games NFTs to your own items but presumably get none of the money from them. You also have an immediate balancing problem. And the better way is to just make a game that those players want to play, which is how game populations move around now anyway. The only way I can see supporting external NFTs as worthwhile for a game developer is if they’re already table stakes for taking part.

Or say you support BAYC, all that work to address 10k potential users?

Re:Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly by mantenpanther on Thursday January 06, 2022 @02:54AM (#29820638)
Valid points, time will tell. I can image there will be neutral intermediate services (NFT-platforms) that provide assets and smart contracts/APIs for integration for small fees.
[dead]
Re:Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly by meheleventyone on Thursday January 06, 2022 @03:02AM (#29820684)
Yes all the time but this is specifically about game development as a business by my reading so I’m interested in why this would be appealing in that context.