[giantrobot]

There's a huge scale scale issue there though. When you buy an asset pack from the Unity store you bundle it with your game and it gets shipped with every copy (by whatever distribution means you use). Unity isn't involved in the last mile distribution. They don't need to care that I bought a copy of your game which contained assets from their store.

Further, assets aren't used the same way between games. Just because Game A and Game B use the same weapon asset pack doesn't mean it's fungible between games. Game A might use a damage scale from 0-1000 while Game B is rolling virtual dice with bell curve distributions. Game C uses a sword asset pack but shoots the swords out of a sword shooting bazooka strapped to a unicorn.

If I love Game C with its accurate unicorn physics, I don't care that it uses the same asset pack as Game B that's a D&D workalike.

There's virtually no utility for anyone storing the license of an asset pack on a blockchain. Unity doesn't care if I own a license to a game using an asset pack, they're not going to take on the cost of distributing it to me. Unicorn Bazooka doesn't want to give free advertising to the D&D workalike game by associating with it on a blockchain.

[adnzzzzZ]

>There's virtually no utility for anyone storing the license of an asset pack on a blockchain.

A game engine built such that it can track games made with it that use a specific asset can have a percentage of the game's profits automatically go to the asset creator's wallet. So if you create some set of assets that are used by 500 different games, you're getting a very small percentage of each sale of each of the 500 games and you're being compensated for your work in a way that properly captures each game's success, rather than having each game pay you a flat fee. Wouldn't that be great?

I think people like you, who say that "there's virtually no utility to [new tech]" are just lacking a little imagination.

[giantrobot]

> Wouldn't that be great?

So it's great that someone making assets can only make a good return if the maker of the game is successful? If an otherwise good asset(s) are used in 500 shitty games that don't sell any copies, the asset creator gets screwed. They have no influence on the quality of the end product, successful marketing, or even whether it's gets completed. That's just working for free unless you get lucky. If that model of pay took off then a lot of people making assets will get boned and a couple will win the lottery.

For a game maker it's not much better of a deal. They get a low/no cost asset during development in promise for a cut of future sales. Now they've got percentages coming off every sale in perpetuity. They can only sell their game at a price the market will bear. If that's a relatively low price all those percentages for assets chip away at their net.

I don't see that model being great for anyone. Outside of lottery winners most participants just get screwed.

> I think people like you, who say that "there's virtually no utility to [new tech]" are just lacking a little imagination.

I might be lacking in imagination. It might also be the wisdom to see a lot of crypto-based ideas are just "solving" problems by introducing different problems.

Selling game assets on a blockchain and paying asset creators is only meaningful if people accept that blockchain's authority. If it falls out of favor/use/legality then it has zero usable value to anyone. I don't see any online stores accepting Beanz or Flooz and I know I've got some Geoffrey dollars somewhere that aren't worth much. I don't see why you think anyone will see any value in a particular blockchain around today.