I mean, I could have said that NFT believers' mental model of a game is so removed from computer games IRL, AAA and gacha and mobile and all kinds of games, that those concepts make basically 0.0E-16 sense or in case it make sense the point those paths cross is few decades away. Basically that's my thinking. But isn't that too dismissive?
It's not :) It describes the mentality exactly
Twitter, for example, allows some set of NFTs to be used on their website. Those NFTs are from a specific place (OpenSea) and follow a specific criteria (be an image).
Like that a single game would connect to some place (GameNFTs) and allow for example a user to select their chess pieces if they owned an NFT in a specific category (GameNFTs::Images::ChessSets::TypeA). But it wouldn't allow other NFTs than that.
That's what crypto bros keep telling us.
> Those NFTs are from a specific place (OpenSea) and follow a specific criteria (be an image).
So, a very limited set of NFTs from a centralised service. Got you.
> Like that a single game would connect to some place (GameNFTs) and allow for example a user to select their chess pieces if they owned an NFT in a specific category
So
- there would be a central asset authority
- that authority would oversee asset categorisation (or this categorisation will somehow be standard)
- game devs will willingly integrate with that central authority's API to find, list, and accept game assets
And the reason game devs will do that and are not doing it already is because?
I'm not a crypto bro so this is a more realistic take on how you can get actual NFTs into games. Yes, it has massive trade offs that would make the whole thing very roundabout, but I am simply arguing for that it is technically possible.
It's still not even remotely possible (except for games running more or less the same engine and implementing the same type of game like the Crusader Kings series). But even before we get to that, my last question remains: "And the reason game devs will do that and are not doing it already is because?"
Yes, and that's my whole point. It can be done, just not as general as the bros have you believe.
> But even before we get to that, my last question remains: "And the reason game devs will do that and are not doing it already is because?"
Because there is no benefit to the game developer.
It's not instinct. It's an fact obvious to anyone who as much as had a tutorial on game programming.
> the “game” is understood to be more heavy on game mechanics as seen in game of chess, so that 3D model of a piece can be anything, or that an asset is always a complete, tangible entity as a fully voiced and textured Companion Cube, rather than a husk of a car in the background with half of the body removed, etc.
wat.
Ok. Let's take a game of chess, or a game based on chess. For example, Knight's Retreat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54ibEGIER-4
And, say, you have assets from Rimworld (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tDrxOASUog), Elden Ring (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3Huy2cdih0), Hyperlight Drifter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWufEJ1Ava0) and Kentucky Route Zero (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp8f7zWwRjo)
So, tell me. How exactly will this work with "game mechanics" with an "always complete asset" etc?
> A chess game that allows any pieces in a Unity asset bundle as a piece sounds interesting if possible.
Of course it's not possible. Or, if somewhat possible, will look like shit for the majority of assets: you can't convert a 2D pixel art asset to a 3D object; 3D (and many 2D) assets will have completely different compositions, skeletons, rigs, animations etc.