Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by input_sh 1679 days ago
I'm gonna copy my questions from another thread about transferable items because I'm genuinely curious about the answers.

Why would an asset designed for one game make sense or look good or feel at home in a completely different one?

Why would companies make one of them and sell it for a million bucks instead of trying to convince more players to buy it in a shop for two bucks?

Is the mechanic of a weapon gonna adjust to the new game when you import it or stay the same? If it stays the same, it's gonna be exploit galore. If it changes, well then, what's the point? Gonna be the same AK-47 as everyone else's, but this tiny sticker on it that nobody's gonna pay attention to is unique!

Even if we pretend this is somehow a promising field, why even use NFTs and make each one a couple of pixels different instead of making a common one, selling it for like $50, buyers get a file in whichever format is agreed upon, and import them in the settings?

2 comments

I guess you could point at some metadata/description and let each game render that how it likes?

Eg if I have a red hat nft you could have that as 2d sprite art or a 3d model or just a buff to some other stat or just ignore it.

Why wouldn’t they sell it for a couple of bucks? It doesn’t have to be expensive because it’s an nft, plenty of them are sold for pennies. erc1155 is designed with lots of varying items being created on the same contract.

Why nfts? Because it’s easy to do today and has been getting more and more popular over the past three years. It seems people like them.

People don’t want to download files and import them into programs. Having one login(wallet) that you connect to anything you want and it takes your data and belongings with you seems pretty neat to me.

I seldom play video games, but I would definitely hate to have an advantage in one game, just because I had won the same or a similar advantage in some other game. Sharing stuff across different games seems a really stupid idea to me.
Ignore the speculation on NFTs as a “single owner” of a piece of digital art for now, like most high art, it’s BS.

Just think about the things you buy online, be it movies, artwork, music, in app upgrades etc. Today we trust each individual app developer to honour the purchase agreement, eg. if the Amazon disappears or changes their license agreement, all your purchases are gone.

Tomorrow we might be able to purchase a license to the asset, registered on a public blockchain, and use that to prove ownership within an application. You could actually own some of things you currently “buy” online.

This is a huge net win for end users.

>Tomorrow we might be able to purchase a license to the asset, registered on a public blockchain, and use that to prove ownership within an application. You could actually own some of things you currently “buy” online.

How? Why does it matter that it's on some blockchain?

It could be on a normal database/server, but then all parties would have to agree on who controls that, and it would be difficult for new developers to join.

We’d need some kind of way to trust a public database among untrusted participants- which is what a blockchain basically does.

This still doesn't explain how this actually proves anything, improves anything or makes the offered Amazon scenario a thing of the past.
That sounds like DRM. Wouldn't less DRM be a bigger win for end users?