[mehlmao]

Why would anyone want to play a game like that though? That sounds significantly less fun than playing a game where everyone is on an even playing ground. Also, unless the game itself is open source and any forks / successors honor the same chain, how is that any better than just storing who owns what in a SQL database?

[jmathai]

NTFs provide an elegant way to deal with this that an SQL database can't.

1) The ability to sell/trade items you've purchased is valuable and I don't believe is universally supported. NFTs make this trivial and supported on a number of marketplaces (like OpenSea) in a standard way.

2) Game makers could build resale revenue into the smart contracts of NFTs they sell through their games.

This is just one example where it's a win-win and improvement over what exists today.

[zachmx]

> Also, unless the game itself is open source and any forks / successors honor the same chain, how is that any better than just storing who owns what in a SQL database?

I think future game development in the metaverse actually will be mainly open source and community driven. Imagine if you will a DAO that players of the universe can interact with and basically vote on new features that will be added to the game world. Rather than waiting for a centralized developer to patch and update the game they want, players will pool assets together in a sort of tax that helps fund future game development. Pair that with a Retroactive funding and other cooperative mechanisms and you will be providing incentives for player themselves to build out the game that they want to see.

It would almost be like building a town in the real world, but this is in the digital world.

[smoldesu]

>I think future game development in the metaverse actually will be mainly open source and community driven.

Nope. The cost of generating these assets are insane, and assuming that some nebulous, non-existent community will build Rome for you is a recipe for disaster. We made the same gambit ~2010, and all we got was a lousy Github acquisition by Microsoft. The reality is that our socioeconomic disparities will be exacerbated in a digital world, particularly if the majority of content is owned and operated by private interests. We can hope that a vibrant open source community comes out the other side, but you can't build a metaverse on empty promises and vaporware.

[zachmx]

> The reality is that our socioeconomic disparities will be exacerbated in a digital world, particularly if the majority of content is owned

I definitely agree with this sentiment, but if it's not centrally owned by a government or a corporation what are our other options? We sit around and moan about how centralized entities are ruining the world and how we don't have alternate ways of coordinating? Ethereum and projects like it are the only ones actually experimenting with changing up the formula and seeing if you can combine typically contradictory ideologies.

In my opinon, if we can't find a way to decentrally coordinate we are doomed as a race and will eventually destroy ourselves via capitalistic/corporate greed or by the tyranny of a government.

[Tenoke]

People already play a lot of games where items are bought and sold for real money (not just gacha but e.g MMOs, Diablo etc.) so you can look through gaming forums to find what drives them.

>Also, unless the game itself is open source and any forks / successors honor the same chain, how is that any better than just storing who owns what in a SQL database?

I also don't see that many benefits to be sure it's worth it but there are some in theory. One people mention is that games can easily share items - e.g. owners of a cool sword NFT for one game can use it in another or cryptopunks can have cryptopunk skins etc. Trading would be more streamlined.I guess another potential benefit is you can also have them listed forever like Xbox achievments that can be looked at by others even if after the game is no longer active.