[s-lambert]

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.

[XorNot]

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.

[s-lambert]

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.