> It's like Steam's marketplace, but without having to have one company have control

...and without payment processing, fraud detection, customer service, moderation tools, user reviews or a refund policy.

The network does the payment processing. The rest can be implemented at a higher level. It is like offering customer support for open source software. Technically anyone can build a company on top of the software and start providing support.

> The rest can be implemented at a higher level

Eg. the rest is optional and doesn't come with the same guarantees as the base network.

I don't hate cryptocurrency personally, but it's not hard to see how 99% of users would prefer "the rest" implemented well over a properly transparent blockchain.

Why can't the host of the image just delete the image? At that point, the NFT is effectively banned.

Also, something like OpenSea can block you and you're effectively banned for all practical purposes.

> Why can't the host of the image just delete the image?

If it's a blockchain, there's no single host who can do that.

The receipt is on the blockchain. The thing the receipt applies to (generally) isn't. The thing can be destroyed without the receipt being altered at all.

Only if the nft project host the image on ipfs. I wonder how many nft projects do that?

I level mentioned anything about images. If you have a LoL skin and the game shuts down it similarly becomes useless. Digital items becoming useless is nothing new. At least with NFTs they can at least be collectors items that you can keep if you want.

What does it do better than a classic centrally run steam marketplace? Why hasn’t Valve switched to NFTs?

It destroys the monopoly Valve has over item ownership and gives power to the people. Valve hasn't switched because having a monopoly is good financially.

It really doesn’t. Steam or other stores still have to cooperate ro implement the items on each of their stores to make them work on their platform and then have to honour what the NFT claims. That’s still very heavily replying on the platforms and they can still ban you or pull the item out form under you (and we can trivially see this by the fact that people have been selling things they don’t even own as NFTs).

For it to truly destroy the monopoly, the items that the NFTs represent would have to stand on their own, outside of any particular platform, implemented entirely in the NFT smart contract itself, but outside of the most trivial use cases (eg displaying an image) that’s not a technology that exists as platforms would have to at a minimum agree on a standard interface and functionality of items. Right now, it’s also held back by storage and transaction costs (although some blockchains are cheaper than others).

But even then, if there was a common item standard and you could use that to somehow implement cross platform (or cross game or whatever) items, any particular platform could still decide not to honour it or to ban you or whatever they want.

But why would any company want this? You’re giving away control of your projects for… what exactly?

Why would any company make a website instead of requiring people to install a native app where they have more control?

It does not. Whoever implements the NFT integration into whatever game you want to play is in COMPLETE control over your item. If they want to not let you use it, they can do that. If they want to turn it into a floppy penis because they think it's funny, there is zero cryptographic assurance the object wont be modified in any way between the blockchain and the GPU APIs that actually put it on screen.

NFTs "in games" is just laughable. It's a perfect microcosm of how crypto boosters NEVER know anything about what they are talking about, like even the most basic, first sentence of wikipedia things.

There is no system agnostic way to program videogame object behavior. Your NFT can pretend to have whatever functionality it wants, but it's up to the game dev to honor that. If your NFT is a jpeg that you want as a weapon skin, the game dev has to take that blockchain data and pull or parse the jpeg out of it, and there is NOTHING the blockchain can do to enforce that. There's NO cryptography protecting that jpeg after that moment.

And that's just the physical, technical implementation, completely ignoring that it won't get to that step because no game studio will ever care to build anything like that for any reason other than just to sell crypto coins on a marketplace for quick cash.

Or do you somehow actually think EA and Ubisoft and everyone put pay to win mechanics in their games because players are desperate to give them more cash?

It's also possible to make a browser game that uses the open protocols of the web, but target a certain user and instead of the game send them the floppy penis version of the game. In practice this doesn't happen. Game creators simply make games on top of these open platforms without the need to bully people.

>NFTs "in games" is just laughable

Microtransactions and in game economies already exist. Moving that economy to a blockchain is not laughable. If a developer doesn't want to spend development time working on features for the in game economy they can use the cryptocurrency ecosystem to accelerate their project.

>because no game studio will ever care to build anything like that for any reason other than just to sell crypto coins on a marketplace for quick cash.

If you think microtransactions are not a way for game studios to get quick cash you are misleading yourself.

No. NFTs let you trade some bullshit token. The token's provenance and ownership doesn't have to be respected by anyone.

The state of any particular blockchain doesn't confer any copyrights, license, or real world ownership. It's about as valid as me writing "I own a pair of Air Jordans" on an index card.

Unless a game developer decides to honor any particular blockchain and NFTs on it those NFTs mean nothing. There's no upside to a developer honoring third party NFTs because they make no money off them but do have support and development costs.

Correct. NFT's are the adult equivalent of the gold stickers we got on assignments in grade school.

You are still relying on sites to hold your item for you. Items don’t exist in a vacuum, having ownership over an NFT doesn’t suddenly mean things will just interoperate.

For example, if it’s a game item, you still rely on one or more games to honour your NFT that claims you own it, and to implement that item in the first place. If it’s an image, that image is still hosted somewhere (and even if it’s embedded into the NFT directly, those bits are given meaning externally).

An NFT is just a receipt claiming ownership, what that receipt allows you to do still relies on external services honouring that receipt.

NFTs only solve one small part of the puzzle and I’d argue it’s not even the most important one.

You can buy and sell digital assets without cryptocurrency. Also, the blockchain is not authoritative over ownership of those assets. Good old fashioned contracts are what enable transfer of digital assets. Crypto is just a terrible payments system on top.

Can you explain in a few words how an NFT is different from a certificate stating you own a piece of land of the Moon?

The NFT was issued by the creator of the artwork. It’s like a moon certificate issued by god plus we don’t have space flight.

An NFT could be a bond that provides 1 USDC to owner every day for the next year.

A certificate saying that you own the moon can not be a bond. NFTs are much more versatile.