NFTs as transferable game objects (weapons skins etc) will destroy any fun in game progression. It seems like it'd be nice to keep your unlocks from one cod to the next year's, but much of the game is in unlocking the new shit. If you start the new game with a million of your own cool skins already, there's no incentive to unlock and use the new ones.

@why it's why it's never going to happen

30 years old NFT shitters dumbasses literally think you're going to be able to go from game to game, collecting currency and selling it somehow and that it will be balanced in the slightest

None of this shit is going to happen, it's going to be the same ol', but you might have the ability to sell your shit outside the game, making it into an even bigger cancer. Fuck, they might not even let you sell it

@coolboymew @why cross-game NFTs could do interesting things but it would be like how you could have a playstation game that gave you a special item if it detected a save state from a different game on your save card. but yeah "you can carry your sword into completely different game and it will work the same" completely falls apart if you think about it for even a few seconds.

@Moon @coolboymew @why all of these things are possible right now today without NFTs
tie item to account (ubisoft, steam, epic games, whatever)
game sequel asks "ayo gimme day ubisoft account cosmetics he got" from ubisoft, done.

Blockchain NFTs cannot offer any game features that cant already be done without them, not one, except pocketing MORE money for the devs through a system that is exactly the same as the steam marketplace/inventory already is

@lebronjames75 @coolboymew @why the reason you can do some of these things in nfts and they will never happen without nfts is that nft is a neutral substrate to build on where the game can query assets while otherwise every game company would have to build a custom bridge to every other game company to recognize their stuff. so yes it is possible but it won't ever happen. also nfts can be traded independently of the company that issues them, built in game trading stores completely control who you and what you can buy and they take a huge cut already. if an nft system is implemented (providing it's not gimped in some way) then you get the money from trading an item and the game maker doesn't. this is a strong argument that the nft stuff is actually just a marketing sham because if they implemented it in a real and good way they would lose out big time compared to what they are doing now.

@Moon @coolboymew @lebronjames75 @why the point is it's solving a problem that doesn't exist in the first place and therefore nobody cares. It's like "let's make it so books use 3-ply paper for pages so that it's comfier to wipe your ass with book, and it will make book makers richer by selling toilet paper in book form" or the other way around - let's print books on toilet papers. Yes you already can read a book while shitting, yes you have your TP to wipe your ass, but imagine all the things people could print on TP!!

>otherwise every game company would have to build a custom bridge to every other game company

Here's a thing - SteamAPI exists, and there are games on steam that use steam inventory. Euro Truck Simulator 2 could potentially access steam inventory to check if I have a tf2 item to give me a custom paintjob for my truck. There's no need to make custom bridges, steam provides this API already, albeit it's centralized, however virtually nobody does this, even if you want to have a cross-promotion thing where one game has items based on other games it's just easier to add new items into game and give those away via a webpage that would check if you have other game/item. Not only it's technologically easier, it's also easy to understand and convey to user that your tf2 item is also useful in some other game that you might not even have.

Remember - gamers want to game, fun is most important factor, and very, VERY small fraction of gamers also find fun in trading and speculation.
image.png

@hj @coolboymew @lebronjames75 @Moon @why are you legit proposing we let a single company (Valve) have the final authority over how sharing items and the marketplace works? I know Valve has been pretty chill, but Gaben is gonna die or retire at some point and it's near certain that over time some asshole is gonna get their hands on Valve and ruin everything for everyone. It would be twice as bad if it was any other company.

The biggest issue with such APIs is precisely that they are owned by an authority that therefore has way, waaay too much power. This, and Valve's already hefty fees on Steam Marketplace is why Steam's API isn't used by many games and in fact it's in gamers' interest to keep it that way lest we usher in another gigantic near-monopoly that's impossible to get out of due to the network effect.

The whole point of blockchain technologies is that they are neutral. Upon creating NFTs, contracts, cryptocurrencies or whatever, the creator releases their direct control over them, without a way to change the rules whenever and however they feel like. It's a direct upgrade over "traditional" DRM.