[yed]

It helps to think about this more clearly if you forget the NFT bit and think about just doing this with standard tech. What stops developers today from implementing publicly documented formats for in-game elements? What stops other developers from writing code to import these elements from one game to another? All an NFT adds is a verifiable signature and a pubic database. The signature bit seems completely irrelevant. Why would one game developer care if did or did not pay a different developer? If it's the same developer, they already have some way to track that you bought the items. The public database is more useful here, but all this data is usually sitting on your local disk anyways. Devs could make use of it today if they were so inclined.

[wnkrshm]

NFTs are always brought up for game items but I don't understand the non-fungible part of it. A game item or cosmetic is the example par-excellence for a thing that anyone can have a copy of - I don't get why there has to be artificial scarcity in that at all.

[lui8906]

Perhaps you're not playing modern games where skins and cosmetics already go for a lot of money. Games like Call of Duty, Apex Legends etc.. Cosmetics in these games have a rarity rating and single items can go for hundreds of dollars. They are already artificially scarce, however the user needs to trust the developer that this artificial scarcity will remain in the future post purchase. And that the items will be available (there has been recent examples of developers deleting user accounts with significant $ items on the account).

[notahacker]

NFTS provide no reason to trust the developer about the artificial scarcity; there's absolutely nothing technical stopping them making, say, in-game clothing originally marketed as an expensive NFT the default player skin, or not allowing accounts with linked NFTs to log in. Sure, the NFT holder still has their unique alphanumeric string, but from a gameplay perspective nobody cares.

And from a developer perspective, if game engines were written in a way which made the holders of a certain token impossible to exclude from the game or possess items whose properties couldn't be adjusted for gameplay balance or aesthetics, that would be a bug, not a feature.

[mantenpanther]

Being technically a verifiable signature, this brings new incentives for users (emotions, possibly valuable) and devs (monetary, user base) which might change the game. But I agree, until we see more advanced intermediary-platforms only the simplest forms like unique avatars or simple rpg-items will be possible to integrate.

[saberience]

NFT technology doesn't add anything for games that isn't already available using guess what, a database! Using a MySQL or whatever database allows single use only items, one-off items that only player can have, multi-use items, any possible combination of items is possible using simple SQL. It's not rocket science, the only difference (which doesn't really add any utility to games) is the idea of this database being public.

Think about it, you could implement items in a game using NFT tech OR a database: would the players notice anything functionally different in the game? If not: why the big deal about NFTs in gaming?

[lui8906]

> https://mmos.com/news/ubisoft-deleted-account-with-hundreds-...

"Trust us, your items are safe with us!"

> the only difference (which doesn't really add any utility to games) is the idea of this database being public.

On the contrary, this does add utility. By the database being public I: A) Have reasonable guarantees of ownership of my items B) Can use my high value items across multiple experiences

[mantenpanther]

Because of ownership and the idea of digital property. In a MySQL the provider owns all data, with an NFT the key holder owns the data.

[meheleventyone]

Well no they don't because the NFT only has meaning in the game world which is still owned and operated by the game company. NFTs in their current incarnation merely move the receipt from a centralized private DB to a decentralized public one and make the entire thing much more expensive.

[mantenpanther]

But the NFT should be independent of the game and exists elsewhere. The game company can integrate it - or not.

[meheleventyone]

So someone’s selling in-game items for games with no game with the expectation that games will just magically support them despite the cost to the developers to do so?

FWIW I can definitely see an asset store like model if that’s what you mean. Where games that share an engine can share developed assets. But you need to look at how that works out in practice in terms of how much integration cost there is, gamers tolerance for asset reuse and actually how broadly applicable it is between different games. And even then extant asset stores already work perfectly well so it’s not clear what putting it on the blockchain and presumably some decentralised storage actually provides.

[lui8906]

You have a credibly neutral place to store the items, publicly accessible to any other developer to leverage without having to maintain you're own endpoints and documentation. Baked in royalties. Sounds... much easier than the convoluted solution you propose with standard tech.

[yed]

Except NFTs don't store the item, they only store a creator-defined URL hypothetically pointing to the item or a hash of it's contents. Also nothing guarantees the royalties if you can just download the item. Nothing in NFTs prevents right-click-save-as.

[twic]

Steam already has an inventory service, trusted by millions of players to store billions of items. There is already machinery for users to authorise applications to see their inventory. If a game developer wanted to allow use of another game's inventory in their own game, they could already do this.

[lui8906]

And users are able to buy and sell the items from each other? Does Steam take a cut?