Re:Welcome to Web 3.0
by falcolas on Tuesday March 15, 2022 @01:05PM
(#30687852)
> Do you understand that two NFTs pointing to the same url would still be entirely distinguishable?
So is a cryptographically signed receipt. So is an internal database log. These are all that are required for the sale of items in videogames.
> "There is a library" and "there is already running maintained infrastructure" is quite different.
You'd still need a library (or a dozen libraries) to implement a NFT DB in your game. And probably some custom coding to wire it into your local DBs required for the game.
Also, RDS. And databases built into the game engines (such as Unreal, Lumberyard, Unity, et.al.). Running and maintained infrastructure already exists for databases.
> I would be involved in the initial sale, but no auctions/trades/secondary sales.
NFTs can be set up in a way when funnels a portion of future sales/trades back to the generating party. So yes, you most likely will be legally involved in the future sales, unless you explicitly opt out when creating NFTs (which doesn't make much sense, from a "we're doing this as part of our revenue generation" point of view.
> How are you managing trading items between users without some database external to either users machine
This must be done regardless. See previous comments about the NFT DB being too slow to act as the source of truth for videogames.
> Would you say "Yes, that brings me the features I really need - I should change to this different architecture"?
From a purely capitalistic point of view, definitely. It gives me more control over how my product is being used. Why would I want to allow people to trade cash shop items (based on your earlier comments, without letting me take a portion of those trades/sales) when I can make two sales instead?
It'd also save me the CS costs associated with anything that goes wrong with a NFT auction/trade/sale for items in my game. Because I know they're not going to blame OpenSea, they're going to blame me. How do I know this? Because players already blame the game provider for things like DDOS attacks and internet outages.
Corporations love control. Even today, they'll spend more money on infrastructure and development to maintain that control. You can see proof of this in the NFT space with how game companies are implementing their own private blockchains to do NFTs. No need for "what if" games.
So is a cryptographically signed receipt. So is an internal database log. These are all that are required for the sale of items in videogames.
> "There is a library" and "there is already running maintained infrastructure" is quite different.
You'd still need a library (or a dozen libraries) to implement a NFT DB in your game. And probably some custom coding to wire it into your local DBs required for the game.
Also, RDS. And databases built into the game engines (such as Unreal, Lumberyard, Unity, et.al.). Running and maintained infrastructure already exists for databases.
> I would be involved in the initial sale, but no auctions/trades/secondary sales.
NFTs can be set up in a way when funnels a portion of future sales/trades back to the generating party. So yes, you most likely will be legally involved in the future sales, unless you explicitly opt out when creating NFTs (which doesn't make much sense, from a "we're doing this as part of our revenue generation" point of view.
> How are you managing trading items between users without some database external to either users machine
This must be done regardless. See previous comments about the NFT DB being too slow to act as the source of truth for videogames.
> Would you say "Yes, that brings me the features I really need - I should change to this different architecture"?
From a purely capitalistic point of view, definitely. It gives me more control over how my product is being used. Why would I want to allow people to trade cash shop items (based on your earlier comments, without letting me take a portion of those trades/sales) when I can make two sales instead?
It'd also save me the CS costs associated with anything that goes wrong with a NFT auction/trade/sale for items in my game. Because I know they're not going to blame OpenSea, they're going to blame me. How do I know this? Because players already blame the game provider for things like DDOS attacks and internet outages.
Corporations love control. Even today, they'll spend more money on infrastructure and development to maintain that control. You can see proof of this in the NFT space with how game companies are implementing their own private blockchains to do NFTs. No need for "what if" games.