| > 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. |