Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by estel 1687 days ago
> Want to own the unique special edition sword with rare attributes in the Zelda-verse or the uber lazer in your favorite open world space game?

Isn't my favourite open world space game ultimately managed by a centralised developer, creating a centralised game; and recognition of my "ownership" only as meaningful as the developer happy for it to be?

Put it another way, what difference is there for me as a user compared to "owning" a ship in my open-world space game today?

2 comments

The keys to your unique ship (possibly with randomly generated attributes) don't accrue in value the more its traded.

I see your point, but I don't think anyone getting into NFT gaming is going to care about the centralized nature of it. Save that talk for the currencies. Especially if the dev builds the game on top of a existing NFT engine that multiple games are built on, then they can't really "control" the market and are forced to focus on the creative and unique aspects of the generation of the NFT to the uniques in thier game and create some hype and artificial scarcity to bring in more players, rather then just spam everyone with the same ship that you can buy in game for 1,000,000 space sheckles. Even if the ship is unique in game asset, you can only trade it in game. What if I wanted to trade my ship for a uber character in some other world, and some other guy wants to get into the space game and has keys in the game I want to sell to me. Deals are made.

> I don't think anyone getting into NFT gaming is going to care about the centralized nature of it.

Then what's the point when I can already buy hats for my characters on Steam?

Can you trade the hats for a pets in another game using the same NFT market? Is the hat unique enough to accrue value?
Other games or apps can import your ship.
How?

Literally how would this work? The art and assets in the game are actually copyright in the real world as property of the game developer.

An NFT doesn't include the assets, it's just a receipt ID.

For a recent example, Riot has just released a bunch of tie-ins for with other games. Like the character Jinx is now in Fortnite. You could use an NFT that says this person owns the Riot character Jinx and thus the Fortnite developers could let you pick the Jinx skin in game.

Although a realistic example I think it would be stupid to do in practice because why would would Epic want to give away Jinx for free just because you bought it from Riot? Then there's a much smaller advantage of having the tie-in, sure you could get cross-play between Riot games players and Fortnite players but you also lose on a quick cash win of getting Riot fans to buy a Fortnite skin.

What part of this requires an NFT though?

Every example of "well developers come to an agreement and.." has already bypassed the entire concept. Riot can just publish an API for Epic to consume and be done with it - less work then the legal contracts that need to be signed to cover everybody for the use of art and assets for "Jinx" by someone who was not the copyright owner.

You've given an example where by doing something more complicated an NFT could be involved, but no problem that an NFT is actually solving.

None of it requires an NFT, I mean nearly everything crypto related is "this doesn't require crypto but crypto is one way of doing it". At least with an NFT it'd be a bit standardized? I don't actually think NFTs are useful, that's just an example of what people mean when they say an NFT could be used in games. But then I was taking it to the realistic conclusion that it's just useless because there's no advantage to giving away free stuff between different games of different companies. Which only leaves shared stuff between the same company, like digital Amiibos, but then that's also just a centralized API replaced with crypto for no real reason.
Lets say you’re a Fortnite competitor. To lure people to your game you let them import their Fortnite weapons or clothes and convert them to your game equivalent.