[nomel]

Tradable cards, characters, items. Since it's external, rather than in some company database, it's possible to integrate them into other games.

I've never owned an NFT, so maybe I don't understand, but in game items/whatever seem like an actual use case, if it's considered a public database, with transaction tracing.

There's plenty of evidence that people want to be able to trade/sell in game items, considering there's an existing industry around it, unrelated to NFTs.

[delecti]

Different games work differently though. Just for the sake of example, a sword in World of Warcraft has a fundamentally incompatible set of stats and assets from one in Skyrim. Even if both WoW and Skyrim added integration with the same blockchain, and support for obtaining an item because it was newly added to your NFT wallet, they'd both still need to independently add stats for each possible item that the other added. That same problem quickly multiplies exponentially for each new game that integrates with the same blockchain.

And that's just the very start of technical problems. Another major obvious question is: why does Blizzard benefit from you as a user getting access to a sword that you obtained while playing Skyrim?

All the ideas about game items being on the blockchain are half-baked at best.

[dharmab]

Even the games that have successful have cross game items- like Blood Dragon Armor in Mass Effect and Dragon Age- had to have entirely separate 3D models for the item. Because the Grey Warden and Commander Shepard have different bodies!

[nomel]

I'm not sure I understand how having different models is a valid criticism, especially since it's an implementation detail. To me, the "neat" idea is that there's some trading system that lives outside of the game company owned database, allowing it to be possible. Some other public database, with a sane transaction record, would work just as well.

For the choice in the implementation detail, plenty of clothing systems (Roblox included, ffs) support morphing, to fit any body shape. I don't think that necessarily always makes sense though. Having different assets, to fit the style of the game, might be a benefit in some cases.

I don't know. I like the idea of being able to give in game stuffs to my friends. I don't care how it's done, NFT or not. What do you suggest?

[piva00]

> I'm not sure I understand how having different models is a valid criticism, especially since it's an implementation detail. To me, the "neat" idea is that there's some trading system that lives outside of the game company owned database, allowing it to be possible. Some other public database, with a sane transaction record, would work just as well.

The implementation detail is everything though. The NFT does not hold the data about the model, the model is in the game, the model needs to be created by someone to match whatever the NFT says it is, the whole thing is completely and ultimately dependent on the implementation in each game the model should be available...

The NFT would just say "player X currently holds the bits with ID N" whatever ID N means is up to each game to say, your item that is a sword in a game could be a dildo in another, matching the same NFT.

It's a complete bonkers idea that requires all games implementing support for it to create 3D models, stats, animations, for every cross-game item. It doesn't solve anything and just adds a lot of complexity to managing assets of a game.

And a game could just drop support for the NFT'd item at some point due to any number of reasons, then what is your NFT actually doing? That item you bought from someone that got it on Counter-Strike to play the game you were interested now does not exist anymore. Or the item you bought for 50 bucks because it was pretty good for your game was nerfed, and your NFT now is worth 10 cents because of it.

It's all around a bad idea with lots of implementation complexities, and bizarre market dynamics since the NFT does not mean anything concrete at the time of purchase, it's completely dependent on the state of all the games supporting that specific NFT.

[nomel]

> It's a complete bonkers idea that requires all games implementing support for it

I'm not sure I understand. In game items are billions of dollars of sales. The idea of an in game item, that you can trade externally, is not bonkers. See the dozens of marketplaces/grey/black markets for doing it. That was my first sentence. My second sentence is something I thought was neat, which is the ability to use this public information for something else, like sharing items between games, which is already a thing. Some sequels and collaborating studios already do this. If you unlock an item in the first game, you can use it in the second. I'm not suggested it will or should be supported by every game forever. Even a single game could use it, like Magic the gathering. Yes, in those cases it's flag. I don't understand what's wrong with that possible implementation.

NFTs are a public transaction record. That's it. Sometimes with a little bit of expensive data. There are other ways to implement a public transaction record. As I said in my comment, NFTs aren't required. I was answering the question of one use case that I saw for NFT in a game, which I regret giving. I don't have or plan on buying NFTs, and lost $100 on bitcoin. I see it as a public transaction record, which, as all the other public transaction records prove, is a concept that can have value.

Related, are there any other decentralized public transaction records, maybe without the name "NFT" or "coin", so peoples buttholes won't clench?

[kemotep]

I’m sure you can understand why game developers are not too keen on allowing third parties to upload arbitrary code into their online games that they can’t easily control?

Allowing people to upload a weapon that does infinite damage or a skin that’s smart contract means any interaction with it steals all other contents of that user’s wallet is probably not a sustainable solution to allowing you to trade things with your friends.

[nomel]

I don't understand your comment, or see how it's applicable. The games that I've seen have the game studio generate the NFTs, and have a collaboration with other games/studios. The asset only exists if it passed through designated wallets. It's simply a receipt for ownership, that you can transfer to another account, so you can trade things in the game, or externally. The games I've seen are simple and use this receipt as a flag to enable some inventory item, just as a regular purchase would, stored in a game studio database, in a regular game. A couple also grab some image files/text.

Maybe you're unfamiliar with game engines, but arbitrary code isn't required to import assets or metadata. But, that's not required, and ins't required in any of the games I've seen. It's just a lookup to an enable flag in the game. You don't mint your own armor and import it.

[kemotep]

Then why use a blockchain at all?

The arbitrary code part is the extensible nature of Solidity smart contracts (in the case of Ethereum). If third party game developers can’t utilize their nfts in your game without an established partnership, then why are we using nfts? You need permission to transfer or upload an NFT doesn’t that defeat the portability argument?

[nomel]

Everyone is latching onto the second sentence, rather than the first. Tradable items is the use case. Being a public database means you can use it for other things. That was one silly example of having a public store. Obviously, a Skyrim helmet isn't useful in a Kitty Korner Pet House.

I don't know much about NFT, or have any experience. I thought it was neat. I don't think discussions about NFT are worthwhile, here.

[frumper]

What games accept NFT items from other games?

[JumpCrisscross]

Also, why would you accept another game's NFT? What is the present value of the marginal users who choose to play your game because it accepts their NFT avatar?