[charcircuit]

Even if the game doesn't exist that doesn't mean the value of all items drops to 0. Someone could come along later and setup a private server that lets you import all the items you had from the original game. Someone could also develop an application where you can view these items which you may have sentimental value for.

[josefx]

And you need NFTs for either of those why? I could export a character with items from Baldurs Gate decades ago.

[charcircuit]

Baldurs Gate didn't preserve the scarcity of items. You can duplicate the export and share that with many different people. Items are no longer a unique thing that exists in the world.

[josefx]

> Items are no longer a unique thing that exists in the world.

Given that anyone can apparently throw up their own instances of the game server and you can freely exchange NFTs generated by each that would seem to be a given from the start? Or how do you decide which copy of the dagger+1 NFT is legit of both where generated by different instances of the game?

[charcircuit]

The items would be instance specific. Servers can only trust items that they themselves issued.

[p1necone]

Right, so the item is tied to a specific server, the functionality of the item is implemented by that specific server, and that server only trusts NFTs that it issued itself.

What value is the NFT adding exactly?

I'm not saying that implementing an item trading system via NFTs isn't a way to do it. Just that you seem to be ascribing a whole lot of importance to something that's basically just a technical detail.

Video games can already let you trade items between each other, export assets outside of the game to use elsewhere, exchange real money for things etc etc. if the developers want to let you do that.

This is not a technical problem, this is a "I want games that do this, but nobody building games wants their games to do this" problem.

[charcircuit]

>What value is the NFT adding exactly?

That you actually own the item.

>Just that you seem to be ascribing a whole lot of importance to something that's basically just a technical detail.

There are implications of technical details. Take for example Valorant. Once Riot is done supporting the game you will never be able to play it again because the multiplayer uses centralized servers operated by Riot. To everyday users they don't really care and arguably they get a better, more consistent experience. But there are users who do care about the ability to be able to play the game when Riot no longer wants to operate the servers for it.

>Video games can already let you trade items between each other

Not really. If I wanted to trade a shulker box of totems on a Minecraft server for a CSGO skin without being scammed there is no way to do it. Games don't naively support it. If all the items are on Steam, Steam lets you trade items between users. But now you are relying on a centralized platform to facilitate this. NFTs offer a solution that is trustless and doesn't give even more power to Valve's monopoly.

>This is not a technical problem, this is a "I want games that do this, but nobody building games wants their games to do this" problem.

Now that NFTs exist a lot of the technical problems have already been slowed. Games aren't doing this because there aren't any big benefits to doing it. Games would be weakening their monopoly by giving power to the users by letting them use NFTs instead of just their own item system.

[Fatnino]

That's a lot of "maybe someday" type of wishful thinking. What will actually happen is the game will go poof and you will be left with nothing.

[charcircuit]

It really isn't if games are following a standard for their NFT. You at least can use it as a generic item.

[D13Fd]

Yes but having them as NFTs makes it harder to do that, not easier.