[hnbad]

1. Why should they? The selling point of supporting NFTs is selling NFTs. Also the "NFT support" shown in the article literally involves the company producing its own art assets based on the NFTs. Even if the sprites could be broken down to the same generic pieces as the randomly generated NFTs this would mean repeating the effort for every NFT collection. The motivation to do this for apes is clear (if you want to rope in the crypto crowd, apes are a good starting point) but you have to justify this level of effort for every single collection, plus every non-generic individual NFT.

2. The €10 I had left on my DVD rental place's customer card will also last forever but much like NFTs tied to the latest vaporware web3 game it's not worth anything because nobody else sees any value in it now that the rental place is gone.

3. The NFT part of games isn't about the game then. It's not contributing anything to the enjoyment of the game. It's just facilitating conspicious consumption to demonstrate real-life financial status in the game. Much like micro transactions, this is making the game less enjoyable just to milk some players (rarely those actually wealthy, more often those with worse impulse control or using other people's money, e.g. kids and addicts) for more cash.

[charcircuit]

>Why should they?

Because they may want to provide user value by being a centralized place where you can manage all of your virtual items and NFTs are a component of that.

>it's not worth anything because nobody else sees any value in it now that the rental place is gone.

These items can be reused by other applications to give them a new life. Even in your DVD store example a competing DVD store or streaming service could offer you a sign up bonus or discount if you could prove you had €5 or more credit with the store that went out of business.

>Much like micro transactions, this is making the game less enjoyable just to milk some players

I see it more as the opposite. Letting someone sell the skins they bought to someone else is better for the consumer and isn't just milking them compared to games like Fortnite where nothing can be sold off.

[GTP]

> Even in your DVD store example a competing DVD store or streaming service could offer you a sign up bonus or discount if you could prove you had €5 or more credit with the store that went out of business.

This makes no sense at all, why should a company give me some credit based on credit I had with another company that is even out of business? I could see it working if the two companies are competitors, but if one of the two is out of business it isn't a competitor anymore.

[charcircuit]

>why should a company give me some credit based on credit I had with another company that is even out of business?

Because the more credit that person had with the other business the more valuable the customer would be to have.

>but if one of the two is out of business it isn't a competitor anymore.

There are still other competitors who will be fighting over all of the customers looking for a new a company to replace the one that went out of business.

[GTP]

> There are still other competitors who will be fighting over all of the customers looking for a new a company to replace the one that went out of business.

Then you don't need to prove prior credit with another company: the competing companies could just offer some free credit to new customers, as companies indeed already commonly do.