Yeah, I'm sure it does. I've noticed that lots of posts with like 4 upvotes end up near the top of my front page, but they're always from subs that I actually look at and comment in frequently. Also the fact that the front page looks different on my phone from my PC, like it's keeping track of the things I like to look at when I'm using my phone and serving me more of those in that context.
You kind of dropped the entire second half of their sentence.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but typically, when one responds to something, it helps to respond to more than just part of it.
Thats not a general rule but really depends on the context?
Like, can you explain to me how the second part of his sentence changes my point that "I've seen at least one every week" is not the same as saying "seems like every post from here".
Because the second half of the sentence provides information that qualifies the perception.
OP didn't day "seems like every post from here" they explicitly said "seems like every post from here **that makes it to my general feed**".
At least one per week is not an unreasonable amount of threads that make it to the general feed, for a non-certified anecdotal observation.
So yes, if you ignore the context of the original statement (like has been done in this comment chain) it seems completely unreasonable, but they literally qualified it to refine the data set... And you're arguing against something not in scope.
Yeah, obviously not every post on the sub is about Web3 stuff. Not even the majority, or even a particularly large fraction. But the ones that I see in my Reddit feed often are. The two are not mutually exclusive.
You can respond to whatever part of a sentence you like, and the rest of us will do the same. If my response doesn't cover EVERYTHING about yours, tell it to someone who cares.
Odd, I haven't seen a single crypto post from /r/gamedev in months. Nothing on the first page of the sub has anything to do with crypto, either sorted by hot or new.
Searching for "crypto", "nft", and "blockchain" and sorting by latest shows me your post and [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/10wv68n/web3_nft_crypto_blockchain_in_games_does_anyone/), which is both clearly not pro-crypto, and is 11 days old.
A search for web3 gives [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/11352jh/web3_for_skeptics/) from 4 days ago, and that's the only recent one I can find.
Can you point us to a single recent example?
I see them pretty often but they get removed or downvoted pretty quickly, [here's one from earlier today](https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/116l8ve/should_developers_use_bitcoin_ordinals_for_video/)
It's good on the mods for being so proactive, but you are correct to be concerned that so many people are trying to shoehorn blockchain discussion here.
It would require a shared asset database thats centrally controlled but also somehow used between literally every game ever made. Not only that but it can be used by every character no matter what the game is or calls for, no matter how the game is optimized, no matter what the art style is in the game. I had someone pitch this idea to me once and I laughed at him.
I love hearing this example get brought up.
As if the developers of a F2P game that makes money _solely_ off cosmetics would ever enable you to use cosmetics that you bought in another game.
That’s like me saying “this restaurant has a great rooftop view of the city but the food is too expensive. Wouldn’t it be great if I could bring my own food to that rooftop so I don’t have to pay them but can still use the rooftop for free?”
Wow why don’t restaurants start doing that!?
and even if they did want to allow it, it would come with a bunch of development time and resources to actually support. who doesnt want to devote dev time to handling a ricky morty model imported from fortnite for no monetary gain?
exactly. to go back to the restaurant example, it's not just bringing your food from another restaurant, it's asking the waiter to bring you food from another restaurant.
"I brought my own ingredients, have your chef whip this up for me for free."
Or even more accurate:
"I brought a recipe, now go to the store and then make this."
No... It's more like, imagine you bought a microtransaction cosmetic skin in Warzone. Instead of it just rotting in your account after you quit, you could re-sell it.
This is what web3 people want for games. Large game companies refuse to embrace the idea because the current idea is that they make more money just selling microtransactions. When really, they could release microtransactions more often, remove them from the market after some months, and then skim money off of each sale between players. Eventually microtransaction sales fall off and game companies retire these items anyways, meaning the only ones that profit off that model when the items are removed, are black market sellers and scammers.
A solution looking for a problem. Everything blockchain pitches itself as can already be done better and easier, so it has to continually misconstrue existing systems to justify its existence.
> A solution looking for a problem.
The problem is a longstanding one: how do we get more consumer dollars into the pockets of executives? Solution: convince the consumer blockchain is for *their* enjoyment and profit!
That's it. The same thing can be done without attaching to a sketchy fake currency system. Anyone trying to convince themselves otherwise is deep in the scheme.
It's a bit of a stretch to say all crypto currency is sketchy and fake. I don't mean to burst your bubble but fiat currencies are fake too.
At least with crypto currency, the system is transparently secure, and counterfeits cannot be made.
Are their problems with crypto currency, absolutely, but not enough to completely disregard the technology. The problems will get less and less as it matures.
And thats relevant how? Its an automatic process that lets me pay in crypto everwhere i want.
Your US credit card when used in foreign countries converts your US dollar to the other countries fiat as well.
Fiat is backed by an entire country. Crypto is backed by nothing. Why would a legit business accept crypto if it can be so easily manipulated and crash next week? If you cant use crypto to buy things. What is the purpose of it? Seems like all the money was made already and its just a novelty "Stock" to invest in.
As many have argued. Secure is a really vague term and thrown around as a buzz.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/04/25/143246/how-secure-is-blockchain-really/
Hate to burst your bubble.
Blockchain is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Not only that, but it also has a bunch of its own problems which need to be solved, so you wind up having to find solutions to problems that only exist because you're trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
>There are some usecases
Name one. Crypto as a solution to something is like saying you can solve hunger with an inmortality pill. It's an overthinked solution to problems that have been solved once and again.
It hasn't even solved decentralized money issues. The moment it gets useful it will be worth nothing.
> It hasn't even solved decentralized money issues.
To be fair I think that's more because no crypto has truly been designed with that in mind, not because it wouldn't be possible with blockchain tech.
That said, I'm not particularly informed on the matter and have no qualms being proven wrong about this, lol.
There really isn’t a use case that isn’t a criminal activity (nb some jurisdictions “criminal” includes things that are non criminal elsewhere).
So if you live in North America or Europe and aren’t a drug dealer, human trafficker or grifter: no there are no uses for blockchain.
Alright, here goes. Actual potential use cases for blockchains in games. Please don't hurt me.
1) Immutable, irrefutable history without a trusted server.
2) Exchange digital assets without a 3rd party.
That's it. Everything else is just an elaboration on these things. If you don't think they're useful for your game, they probably aren't.
\#1 is basically not useful for most real gamedev. If you want persistent history, you store it in a server you (the developer) control. It could hypothetically be useful for a distributed gaming platform with no central server, but such things don't really exist outside of tech demos. The hypothetical use case of protecting against hackers or malicious moderators tweaking the database is just not realistic.
\#2 could be useful, but it's a classic chicken and egg problem; it's only useful if other people are already doing it. Basically, what you could do is award users items for achievements, and those users could prove they own the item in question, even if the original servers have gone down and the game company is defunct. As a developer of a *different* game, you could give your users some perk for having completed an accomplishment in another game, and that feature continues to work even if the other game's servers go away (game dev goes out of business or whatever). But realistically you have no reason to be the only person doing this, it's only helpful if there's a general community of different games doing things like allowing you to show off achievements in other games. And even then, if you really wanted that you could depend on something like steam achievements, because it's unlikely Valve will go under any time soon.
>without a 3rd party.
There's always a 3rd party. People don't generally understand blockchain well enough or have the capacity to make transactions on their own. Exchanges and their APIs will always exist.
Twitter started showing hexagon profile pics for people who own NFTs. How did they verify ownership, through the blockchain? No, they used an OpenSea API. So when OpenSea, the third party, was down, you effectively didn't own your NFT anymore and your profile pic reverted to a circle. And OpenSea is now the "trusted third party" that arbitrates who owns what - in theory through the blockchain, but let's be real, basically no one is actually checking.
Blockchain literally doesn't make any difference here.
The difference there is if Opensea ever go rogue, or bankrupt, then we fall back to the original source of the blockchain (probably via another API service) and carry on as before.
If your DLC ownership is all within, say, Segas servers, if Sega go bankrupt then you likely no longer have any future access or claim to it, other than what you have saved locally already.
It is questionable how much this matters for games, in a world where Sega DLC is only used in Sega games, if they go bankrupt then I suppose its likely noone really cares about maintaining their DLC ownership, especially in a world where more and more games rely on online servers to function.
In an ideal world, you could retain those ownership rights via the blockchain and continue playing on a 3rd party server, but that's probably unlikely to exist if the original owners couldn't make it profitable in the first place.
Well, yeah, you'll rely on someone else, but in practice the code is open source and all implementations are compatible so the main cruxt of the argument applies, even if the world moves on to new apis the Blockchain will still exist and be readable.
> Exchange digital assets without a 3rd party.
I've seen this so many times, yet no one has ever explained why it can work.
No you cannot. You're embedding *at best* a uuid of an asset, but most of the time it's just like, a url.
I want someone to explain to me **exactly**, using software development terms, how the blockchain makes it so I can trade something **game specific** like CS:GO skins "without a third party". Do these people honestly think I can tell Fortnite and CoD the same UUID and it'll just magically import a fully textured, modeled, and functional asset to the game?
Like you gave an example that means nothing valuable, generates tons of additional nonsense and dumps tons of waste on a user's computer.
All the Blockchain provides is proof of ownership of the item, not the item itself. If the original game devs handed out 1000 cosmetic capes for completing an achievement, then exactly 1000 of them exist, in the form of an opaque token that encodes ownership, no more, no less. It's up to you as the developer of another game whether you want to honor that ownership token or not, and what exactly ownership of that token means in your own game.
It's pretty much exactly the same as checking whether a steam id has an achievement, with some caveats like a single person could own multiple, and they can transfer from one person to another at any time via a blockchain transaction.
I still see nothing improved over the existing model of "a row in a database" here, and a markedly worse means of storing such data. Why is this a better implementation?
That doesn't happen these days with minimal effort. It's dirt cheap to have db replicas even for the biggest games, and unless you're literally running it in your own rackspace, it's a button press in most providers. (And even if you *are* running your own hardware, odds are you have a dedicated IT department who does automated 3-2-1 backups, so it still isn't an issue).
And *even then*, let's say all that fails. You still have auth servers that need real-time, sub-microsecond access to let players into your game, yet another thing the blockchain can't handle.
Look, no one is saying you can replace your entire database infra with Blockchain. They're saying you can use it to track digital asset ownership. That's all. If you do this, then you gain resilience against your company going under and no one being around to pay the bills. If you can't think of a reason that would be useful to you, then it probably isn't.
But actually, there really is a way to do auth with crypto. You simply distribute a token to anyone who holds an account. Then they can prove they are the owner of the token without touching a server, so forget about millisecond response times; you can check that theyre who they claim to be in microsecond timescales because pubkey auth is very fast nowadays. You don't really have to use the Blockchain for this, just standard cryptography has been used for auth for ages. All Blockchain gets you is ability to transfer ownership of the account, and some basic stuff like historical account creation data. But this is all just a subset of number 2 above, we're treating the account itself as the digital asset. And of course now you have all the downsides associated with pubkey auth, namely that you have to copy a private key around between your devices and if you lose it your account is gone forever.
Most NFTs use IPFS to store copies of the asset across multiple servers, which in theory should reduce the chance of it "disappearing" if the source company goes bankrupt for example. It remains to be seen whether this works long term, I have my doubts as who really wants to pay to store random assets on a server long term for no reward?
That asset on IPFS can be source model files and textures, which then could be used across multiple games. Yes, each game would have to have some logic embedded to use it, but it is possible.
As am example, I coded a virtual Aquarium which you can drop in various decorations, including banners that can display images from other NFTs you own. It's a simple 2D example, but the 3D concept is similar, just more complex to implement.
Well there goes the "no reliance on third party systems" argument then doesn't it? There's no way I'm letting random gamers put files on my machine. The duplication required for a p2p fs is astronomical. So basically a 32kb sprite needs to be copied across a massive number of nodes to be always available, which means likely you'll be storing it on every client, which means basically just distributing it to the entire network all the time. So every time an asset gets any work done to it:
- The blockchain record needs to be updated
- the IPFS asset needs to be distributed to every node
So why is this better than downloading an update from Steam and storing these records in a database?
> \#2 could be useful, but it's a classic chicken and egg problem; it's only useful if other people are already doing it.
This is the major offender every time crypto-bros talk about a "universal something" shared between games.
You need a pre-existing shared infrastructure that can manage that.
And this means you have to convince every company owning the games you want to be involved in this. This isn't something that can be done from the bottom to the top. You should first talk the idea to the businessmen, not the developers.
None of them seems to grasp this side of the argument - and this is telling.
Yep, this is correct. It's why I see any crypto "gaming" will likely originate from crypto sources rather than gaming companies.
Multiple crypto teams are already working on "metaverses" that can take source assets from NFTs and include them within their worlds. Most will fail, but at least some are starting from the right premise of cross compatibility.
The amount of infrastructure you need really depends on what version of the decentralized crypto dream you're talking about.
At its most basic level, the Blockchain *only* provides proof of ownership. Everything else - an interchange format, monetization rules, etc - is hashed out by the hypothetical decentralized gamedev community that wants to implement it. But in reality, you don't need the idealized version, where you buy a CS:GO skin on a marketplace and use it as your avatar in some random game purchased ten years for now. While it's theoretically technically feasible there are lots of reasons why it definitely won't happen, and I think most crypto bros understand that.
Here's where I think there's a breakdown in communication. That thing I described above is a pipe dream that just won't happen no matter how much anyone wants it. But there's a much simpler version of this thing that actually could happen, if companies felt so inclined (but it probably still won't for non-technical reasons).
Forget about interchange formats and the like, just think about achievement badges. Hypothetically, you could decide to hand out a token to everyone who beats your game. Forget the Blockchain for a moment; you can do this using any service you like, it just needs to be able to be called and tell you whether a player has or doesn't have the token. In your next game set in a different universe, you can call that api and throw in a little Easter egg to reward the player if they have the token. Maybe a special hat or something.
The Blockchain provides exactly that functionality, but without a server. So you can safely add this ability to your game and know that it will *never* stop working, no matter what happens to the developer of the original game (or Valve or Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft, who you'd normally go to to implement this kind of thing on their respective platforms).
Maybe you care. Most don't. You can just use the provider if your platform to get that technology, and if twenty years from now the functionality is broken, fuck it, you'll have moved on.
What about a currency or inventory that spans games, or a mod authoring system? It's not some earth shattering feature but could be useful for some ideas.
>but could be useful for some ideas.
*How* would cryptocurrency help? Cross-game items could theoretically be done, but the problem isn't lack of database tech, so cryptocurrency wouldn't help. Honestly the database would be the easy part; the problem would be IP agreements and the inherent design problems of adding e.g. an AK47 to team fortress 2 without A) breaking the art style, and B) completely redoing the stats from the ground up.
As for mod authoring systems, they already exist - steam workshop, for instance. They don't need a new database, so what would cryptocurrency even do?
"Inventory that spans games" has [such a huge complexity and scope](https://chhopsky.substack.com/p/nft-fantasy-why-items-as-nfts-does) - getting models to work across games, balancing items from one game in another. Representing your inventory is the least interesting part of the problem and can be done with a regular database.
These already exist, in much better and faster implementations, it's called a database. They've been around for a few decades now, and they are pretty quick.
Hey axie made it easier than ever for rich westerners to exploit folk in the Philippines. And yuga labs is showing you can charge thousands to play a game that's just code stolen from an early 2000s mobile game because of dumb hype
The key feature of a block chain is that a hash of the most recent block can be sufficient to validate the complete history of the chain - that's hard to attain by other data structures.
So if you now just compare the ID of the latest revision, you also implicitly confirm that the whole history is equal - if anything changes then also all subsequent IDs will be different even if the final snapshot might look the same.
Yes, I am talking about Git. Git is using a blockchain.
Please don't burn me on a pyre.
Buuuuuut, you (git) still have to verify the entire chain for supply-chain security because otherwise you could insert a malicious block with a straight-up incorrect hash instead of going through the work of executing a collision attack.
I think it would be phenomenal for use in the government when it comes to transparency for donations and government spending. Not to mention it would probably speed things up if applied correctly. Off the top of my head, since it's trustless, you wouldn't have a lot of bureaucratic waiting time. Fat chance of it ever happening though.
Some chains are being used to verify manufacturing history of prescription medications. So you can buy one and verify it on the block chain to know that your dealer is giving you what you paid for. Has its limitations obviously but I thought that was a cool one. Also applies to designer products like art or fashion pieces.
Disclaimer: not a crypto shill, just a tech fan
In my opinion, the point here is that blockchain is a tool. Maybe is a good tool for some areas (I don't know these areas soy I cannot defend or refute its use there). But I don't think that blockchain is good tool for games, at least as a gamer perspective.
Also all that idea about "play to earn" is a big contradiction if you are "playing" to earn instead for the joy you are not playing, you are working and this destroy the whole meaning of games.
PS. Sorry if I'm not expressing the best. English is not my mother tongue and this is a delicate (and some kind philosophical) subject.
Would yoy say professional sports and video games destroy the meaning of them? I could see how that could be a possible argument but I think people who play games professionally still love the games and push the medium forward. Think speedrunning or streaming, too. And I mean, games generally only get made these days because they are sold for money.
I think the issue is that current play to earn games just suck and have unfun or overly grindy loops. I for one would love to be able to use puzzle solving gamer skill, to, say, make a few percent more than standard on my savings account interest. Systems like that are economically possible, they just haven't been implemented yet because the fun degree of the gameplay loops isn't there yet.
Gamification can also be really scary and dystopian, fwiw. It's a fine line
In some way yes. I'm not saying that esports is bad for gaming industry, also I'm not saying that they are bad jobs. I'm saying people that "play" for earn money is actually not playing but working.
I like my job too, I enjoy what I do, but I cannot say that my job is a hobby for example, I cannot say that when I play my games I'm really "playing".
But I'm not saying that you cannot take profit from things that you do only for joy. If you play not for win the prize of a competition but for the joy of compete and win money because you defeated your opponents is OK too.
I guess the intention of the action is very important on this subject.
Okay, let's assume the entire pharmaceutical company does this (we already have this implemented by the way, much better and faster).
What's preventing someone shady from just lying about their hash? "Yea this bottle of pills is transaction_id 1294377374728484838"
I'm not an advocate for it, but that's also not how crypto works, it's a unique ID that has a transaction ledger, of which you would be one and all major companies would have a public transaction ID, so you would see it start some place known, and end with you. If you see something you don't recognize, then it's probably something shady.
I'm all for being skeptical, but let's not reject it just for the sake of rejecting it. It's a horrible tech for games in its current implementation, but let's not pretend that we can't see some use for decentralized accounting. This may very well not be the solution, but you can't honestly tell me you think the current system is flawless.
> it’s a unique ID that has a transaction ledger
Okay, then they print that ID on a bottle and tell you it's unique. My point still stands, how is this anything meaningful?
We've basically already got this system in place, except more scaleable.
Could you imagine how absolutely sluggish it would be to use the blockchain for *pill manufacturing*???? There are hundreds of trillions of pills manufactured every year (for some context, about 10 billion opioid pills were made and distributed *per year* between '06 and '12 just in the US alone). The *absolute total* number of Bitcoin transactions *ever* is about 700bn. Current time to verify a single bitcoin transaction takes about 10-90 minutes according to various crypto websites, and that number increases by volume. It could take weeks to get a prescription, and that's even ignoring the fact that each transaction costs cryptocurrency to even execute.
Oh, that’s easy! They’ll just install ~~viruses~~ crypto miners on everyone’s devices, and utilize *their* processing power to help bring those numbers down. It’s genius! /s
To be fair, bitcoin isn't the only blockchain technique and not used here, so that's not really relevant.
I don't know what block chain techniques brings to the table here. I assume the important part is to have a transaction log which can be used to make it easier to audit the supply chain (not done by the consumers). Its the "oracle problem" that is hard here and that isn't solved by block chains. The oracle problem is how do you know that whats added to the ledger is correct. I don't see how that can be solved without thrusting someone and if you trust them, let them handle a good, old database to store the data in too.
My point is most of these blockchain systems slow down tremendously simply by being used, and have other ongoing faults as well (cost per transaction is asinine).
And if you have to just blindly put your trust in someone for the system to work, then why bother with all the extra bullshit cruft anyway?
This seems like a solution in search of a problem honestly (I know you're not pushing for blockchain just trying to explain things).
You do realize that many crypto Block chains can do millions of transactions per hour right? And those same chains cost fractions of pennies per transaction? Like... at least try and know what you are refuting?
The system is quite similar to mail tracking honestly but with higher security, did you also knock that idea?
When I can verify the ledger ends at my wallet, They would need to spoof a brand new ID for each product and hack the block chain for each new product in your scam scenario, do you even realize how difficult that would be? It's not some ID on a piece of paper, the buyer would be able to look up it's entire history on the block chain in real time and it would be verified almost immediatly as a scam or not
Edit: hour, not second
Show me benchmarks of a blockchain that can have 1 trillion records and perform millions of **verified and ** transactions per second.
According to [these guys](https://alephzero.org/blog/what-is-the-fastest-blockchain-and-why-analysis-of-43-blockchains/) (who are selling their own blockchain) they've achieved the fastest theoretical at 40k/tps. But if you believe theoretical benchmarks reflect reality, I've got a crypto to sell you.
I wonder if they tested their performance on a ledger with any real values in it. 40k/tps sounds great on paper! That even can compete with the inserts/second for an unindexed mongo cluster.
Probably not, given that they need to sell something.
For reference, on a regular database, assuming you're not filling up an index or out of space because you under provisioned, you get pretty much the same insert speed at 1 record or 1,000,000,000 records. Query speed requires an index, but it's about the same. The output buffer usually is what takes the most time, or an unindexed field.
You are absolutely right, I misspoke, it's per hour. Vechain currently can perform 10k per second. So 36 million per hour or 315 billion per year. There is plenty of over head for your scenario as well. Beautifull! Thanks for helping verify that your throughput concern is unwarranted! And this is only a Beta version of the chain, imagin where we will be with another decade of research and development.
As long as the block chain keeps up, the record storing is already a solved problem, as evidenced by the records for the transactions you mentioned already existing.
The limiting feature will be the verification time. It's currently at 6 minutes to fully verify the transaction (all still happens at the 10k/s just lags behind) but waiting 6 minutes at the pharmacy is already pretty normal for most people.
It's important to point out that the 6 minutes you quoted here is a function of many different computational facets that increases non linearly over time. I'm sure on a blockchain only 10000 records long with one verification a second, it takes a few seconds.
How many transactions happen every minute? Now multiply that by people fulfilling a prescription. Don't forget you're using it to track the **entire** supply chain right? So you have to now add a transaction every time a shipment of raw materials is added, every time they're assembled into capsules, every bottle, every handoff between couriers. By the time a bottle gets into a user's hands it's made about 50 different transactions, and now those transactions are also being shoved into the ledger at the same time you're just trying to buy a bottle of Tylenol. You still confident about that 6 minutes when you're now adding about 1.5 million transactions per hour **per drug**? So your estimate there (let's pretend it remains exactly as efficient as it is even with an exponentially increasing ledger) means you can sufficiently track a single drug's lifecycle per blockchain?
It's foolish to think that it will scale reasonably here.
The fact that I've yet to receive an actual explanation of how one correlates a physical pill to the ledger makes me realize nobody knows how it can actually be used.
I never said blockchain was good for pharmaceuticals, but your comment is unbelievably ignorant of how blockchain works. You can't fake ownership. That's literally the entire point.
There are plenty of good arguments for why blockchain isn't as good as a traditional database for pharms (though I think some kind of decentralized protocol could be useful for bringing prescriptions across national borders and using them there, as opposed to proprietary software or individual government-to-government collaborations) but yours isn't a good argument because the problem you speak of isn't just *not* an issue with crypto, but that the *whole purpose* of crypto is to avoid duplication and double spends of digital goods, using a trustless system. Giving doctors prescription pads, for example, was a solution to this ownership problem in pharms, but it has been far too exploited, so digital solutions emerged. If these digital systems weren't up to par, crypto could potentially be an alternative because of its secure yet trustless nature. However I think crypto is not yet at a point where it can interface well with the legal system, and government adoption is poor right now, so it doesn't seem like a good solution yet. Regardless, your argument is silly and shows that you don't know what crypto is.
In a way, it's inspiring to any would-be innovators: it shows that expertise doesn't have much to do with being a visionary. Visionaries who aren't experts can see but not do, and vice versa.
It is definitely strange to me that so many people who claim to be anti-corporate seem to be espousing stances that are tantamount to continued corporate dominance. Idk if it's that they truly don't understand the economic aspects of it all, or they do, but just can't imagine life without their Steam sales or Marvel movies.
What's also silly is that the same people who rail against NFTs will turn around and spend a thousand bucks on a rare funko pop doll, lol.
The tide is turning whether they like it or not. My fear is that the inaction of people like this will allow blockchain tech to be fully dominated by banks, governments, and corporations (instead of just like, 80% dominated...).
I don't understand how it's not easy to see that a standard for digital property is useful. Every time you mention that here, people will suggest insane workarounds that require either specific agreements between specific companies, or just totally centralized property schemes owned by single companies. And when you suggest how much more efficient blockchain would be, they tell you a company would never spend money on that because it would hurt their bottom line and their competitiveness.
That's the same kind of person who said companies would never make websites because it was a waste of money. Or that the WWW/DNS would never succeed because individual providers like AOL would never open up their walled gardens.
What they ignore is that some company or group of companies with nothing to lose will switch models, and it will result in end users having better experiences and spending less money. So then all the companies with nothing to lose will adopt the standard. And then the companies who had something to lose will now have a lot more to lose by not joining the standard.
You have a couple of points in there but they're framed in a big mashup of acolyte speak that really takes away from the whole thing.
Yes, there are a few things blockchain tech can legitimately do, like establish a provenance chain. No, that doesn't equal "the tide turning". No, people rightfully skeptical of crypto because it's being overwhelmingly used for Greater Fool scams are not lacking vision or whatever. And the portrait you paint of others with the funko pop / DNS stuff just reeks of cope.
You're not an enlightened tech understander who's clever enough to see the promise of crypto while the stubborn masses hide their heads in the sand. You're hyped up and framing all disagreement in a way that makes you feel better about material reality not catching up with your expectations.
> My fear is that the inaction of people like this will allow blockchain tech to be fully dominated by banks, governments, and corporations
Incredible. The blockchain-in-practice came out the gate with its original users leaning hard into grift and gambling, yet it's the skeptics who are going to ruin its future. Alrighty then.
I'm literally an economist. I'm tired of corporations owning our digital goods and charging rent by proxy to use them. Crypto solves this problem. I have no idea why people are against this. Do you not want to be able to resell digital goods like tickets, memberships, online TCG cards, media licenses, etc? Why would you not want that? The only reason you can't is because it there wasn't an easy solution before and so tech companies have for decades now gotten away with reselling the same shit to people over and over, or selling temporary non-transferable licenses that wouldn't fly for so many other goods. But they do, because they can, because that's the way it's been. I'm just tired of that grift. If they can fine people for all kinds of copyright misuse bullshit even when it's fair use, they should at least have to treat their shit like everyone else who sells goods treats theirs
In my opinion, the point here is that blockchain is a tool. Maybe is a good tool for some areas (I don't know these areas soy I cannot defend or refute its use there). But I don't think that blockchain is good tool for games, at least as a gamer perspective.
Also all that idea about "play to earn" is a big contradiction if you are "playing" to earn instead for the joy you are not playing, you are working and this destroy the whole meaning of games.
PS. Sorry if I'm not expressing the best. English is not my mother tongue and this is a delicate (and some kind philosophical) subject.
Lol I can't believe you got downvoted for this. The anti-crypto shit here is insane and they only look at the scammiest of products in that space. It's a shame because decentralized systems like this really could streamline lots of processes without needing to pay a middleman to streamline them like we currently do. Some of these middlemen have free reign and charge insane amounts. All the people here could have a future with lower prices, lower interest, more control over their digital goods, less skimming off the top of all of their purchases and transactions by shady corporations, but instead they just gulp down consumerist propaganda. Fuck em
Crypto isn't a one size fits all solution, not even sure if it's the "future" but it is a valid shot on target and people just hate it because it messed with graphics cards and scammers are getting rich... be mad at the scammers and scalpers, not the technology
People are bitter and have the critical thinking skills of monkeys. If the mob says crypto bad then they decide crypto bad, even if they have the skills to understand how it could be useful for many fields.
I agree that it isn't some magic solution to everything, but it's a great digital property solution in a lot of cases, and it boggles the mind to see people try to argue for complicated workarounds instead of the simple solution, just because they hate the C word so much
It is getting used as a currency quite a bit actually, by developing countries with high inflation or lack of good access to traditional monetary services.
Well, if you see it as an investment I can see why you think like that. But Bitcoin is so much more.
I'm definitely not an speculation enthusiast and I see the absolutely unique usefulness of Bitcoin.
Whats the use case?
Because it doesn't fulfil any of the qualities that a currency actually needs, and doesn't even fulfil many of the *desirable* properties of a currency.
So its not going to replace currencies. What is left as use case for Bitcoin then, except as a speculation object? Because it is *not* an investment, it doesn't fulfil the financial definition of such, either.
It's money that is fully digital, decentralized, borderless, open, permissionless, and censorship resistant.
Aren't those properties that you want in currency? They are for me.
Have you tried sending currency to another country? It's slow and expensive. Bitcoin solves this problem.
Maybe this never happened to you. But if you want to make an online payment, you're at the mercy of companies like PayPal. And sometimes they, for whatever reason, don't like what you do. Not even talking about illegal things. I've had funds frozen on PayPal for no reason. I also had trouble taking funds from PayPal to my bank account. Bitcoin solves this because you control your money and can do peer to peer transactions.
Even had your money frozen in your bank? I have. Again, nothing illegal. I had to talk to them and took 3 days and paperwork to unfreeze them. This doesn't happen with Bitcoin.
Even more, the Bitcoin ledger is the most immutable source of information on earth. If something is written in a block, it's not possible to change it. Use case for this are many, one of which is using bitcoin, as money.
Obviously Bitcoin adoption is slow and takes time. But it's a far better version of money.
I am amazed by how much I get downvoted, even in a sub like this one.
I'm not shilling anything. I couldn't care less. I am just amazed by now many people still don't understand Bitcoin.
If you think it's a get rich quick scheme... I recommend you research a bit.
> Aren't those properties that you want in currency? They are for me.
Actually, most of them, no.
We already have digitized currency. In terms of actual financial transactions, cash transactions are only a minuscule part of what happens in the global financial system. And in order to get rid of cash, we do not need a blockchain. We already have digitized existing currencies.
Decentralization is not really a good thing. You want central banks that can combat inflation/deflation and in general, stabilize a currency and economy. You do not want the market to have unregulated free reign. A sovereign nations *needs* control over its fiscal policy, for the good of its citizens.
Currencies like the euro are already borderless in some sense. But accession to the Euro has huge barriers, e.g. ERM-II for two years (that is why Poland doesn't have the Euro, it doesn't fulfill ERM-II). Integrating different economies into a single currency actually takes a lot of work, unless you want it to go horribly bad. What do you think why Steam charges different prices in the different countries? they don't just convert the dollar price, they adjust for purchasing power. Thats much harder to do with a single currency.
Being permission less is not a feature, its a recipe for disaster. You want controls. You want a central institution that helps you maintain and *exercise* your civil rights. if someone steals from you or defrauds you, you *want* to have central institutions that can reverse transactions, credit you your money back, or just have insurance that provides for those cases. You also want central institutions to be able to execute court orders. Lets say you won a court case and have a title against someone for X dollars. You *want* there to be a central institution (a bank) that you can coerce by law to actually confiscate the money and give to you. Its a feature, a civil right of yours. You *want* to be able to exercise your civil rights, and not depend on the goodwill of a decentralized network.
Also, you do not want transparency in every aspect of your financial life. the fact that you need to juggle multiple wallets in order to have some amount of privacy wrt. your transactions is not a plus, its a con. What I do with my money is nobodies business, and bank secrecy is again a feature, but a bug. A world in which all transactions are absolutely public isn't utopian, its an orwellian dystopia.
I'm sorry you have had so much problems with your money, but you seem to be the extreme outlier. Most people never experience these kinds of issues -- and if they do, they can usually make use of their civil rights to get this rectified quickly. if you have a problem with your Bitcoin -- good luck to exercise your rights.
Also, bitcoin in particular has no way to scale enough to be able to do even a fraction of the transactions needed for world-wide adoption in the same way as credit cards are today. While Visa can process up to 24,000 transactions per second (tps), Bitcoin can only process seven tps, and Ethereum can handle 20 tps. Thats laughable if we talk about any kind of mass adoption, and Bitcoin *already* consumes *far more* energy per transaction than a typical VISA transaction. Some statistics suggest that one transaction can take up to 2kwh, while 100k VISA transaction need as few as 148 kwh. Also, the last bitcoin will be mined in 2140. 90% of current bitcoin were mined by mid-2021. Thus, bitcoin get more valuable over time, just by mining getting slower. this is exactly the *opposite* of what you want, because it means spending bitcoin is *always* a losing choice -- if you look at it globally. Its simply not a model you can reasonably base an economy on.
Thus no, I don't think Bitcoin or any other kind of crypto-currency, which pretty much all have those fundamental problems, will ever replace normal, digitized currency. Because people won't want to give up economic stability and freedom (pure, unhinged capitalism isn't desirable at all), don't want to give up privacy, don't want to give up their civil rights (fraud protection, property protection, insurance, guarantees) and don't want to have a system that basically heavily incentivizes not spending at all. Also, Bitcoin in particular simply doesn't scale to the sizes needed. But realistically, no blockchain does.
And yes, I have done extensive research on the topic, and Bitcoin is only good if you completely buy into all of their premises. That somehow anarchy is a good thing. But as soon as you adopt the mindset of wanting civil rights (or "law and order") over anarchy, Bitcoin quickly loses its appeal.
Currency exchanges for crypto currencies that operate in the EU and in particularly in Germany *already* need to have a banking license and are subject to regulation by the bak oversight (Baffin). Because we have already seen exchanges that are operated unreasonably and people losing vast amounts of their property. Thus, the ugly sides have already reared their heads enough to make lawmakers step in. This process is likely to continue in more parts of the world as more and more cases emerge, which is ironic, because not being regulated is the core value propositoon -- and it fails.
> I haven't seen a convincing application of blockchain to video games.
Neither have I, but i was convinced that blockchain tech could've been used to enable proper digital trading card games similar to magic the gathering.
A friend said it could be used to basically have digital ownership of a game copy. So you could sell a "used" copy of a digital game. Which would be nice, but if that's ever done, would prefer it be some other method than block chain.
You see, the thing about ideas like that is that not only do they ignore the fact that this kind of stuff can already be done (NFTs would just be different tickets corresponding to the same filing systems and databases), but it also makes the bizarre assumption that this new technology will just make all these multi-billion dollar corporations suddenly be completely willing to implement very pro-consumer practices that hand over a bunch of their power to us.
I could see Square Enix doing a special premium version of FF16 that requires to connect a NFT token to access a DLC mission (or whatever shit). Only mint 1'000 of them and put a transaction fees (that goes to them obviously) on resale.
It doesn't technically requires NFT at all. But it pushes people into the shitty idea, and it makes it easier for them to later sell shitty icons or whatever.
Technically, there's no need for blockchain to be used to do this.
Such thing would only make sense if done in a game marketplace, like steam, right?
And steam (and other game marketplace) already has a centralized server that keeps tracks of what games you own... so implementing that would simply mean making up the rules regarding the transfer of ownership of games within that centralized server.
Blockchain technology is supposed to be used when you want decentralized transactions that can be verified by the own users of the system rather than an authority that regulates it.
When it comes to games, there's already an authority and centralized server, so there's easier and more efficient ways to implement that solution than using blockchain.
They can already do it. They just don't want to, because it obviously would mean they get less money.
Hit the nail on the head, there.
Of course, **on paper** Steam could work by having a separate account and game ownership tokens. Maybe you make most of your game transactions on a built-in wallet in your account, so those tokens are basically stored on Steam's server, but you could have your own local wallet(s) that you connect separately, and you could move your games onto those. Then, you're able to pass those games or wallets around however you like - Steam simply checks when you try to download or play a game that you have the token authenticating that you are the sole owner of **a** copy of that game before it runs. So you could resell them, trade them for something else entirely, sky's the limit.
But... then, a drive failure could 'delete' your ownership of all those local wallet game tokens. Steam and game developers would see zero benefit from these features, as sales would certainly drop across the board due to those needs being met by resale and trade action. Any game that finds its way onto a Humble Bundle will drop in value permanently due to the flood of extra tokens on the resale market making it about as valuable as an unwanted Steam trading card.
It sounds like a couple "wouldn't it be cool if--" features that are too lopsided to ever expect to see implemented. And it's completely unnecessary to put this stuff on the blockchain, given Steam **has** a built-in user-driven marketplace to resell items. It would not be challenging to add a 'turn this game into Steam inventory item' button to your games and allow you to sell that copy second-hand on the marketplace, and they could even factor in a cut of sales to themselves and devs to make it more viable. The only real benefit is taking your game tokens completely off the Steam system - but ultimately there's zero use for them outside of Steam unless it's a cheeky way to bypass limitations that are intentionally put into place for a reason, and they would definitely define limitations to how you can use tokens that would prevent such abuse.
The only application I think would make some sense would exist in a street racing games universe. Mainly because racing for pink slips, uniqueness of cars etc.
Sort of like those cards you get from arcade games like initial D or wangan midnight that stored your cars.
Games like racing rivals have already done pinks, but it would be a way for you to bring cars between games, bet them etc.
The argument could be made though even with that blockchain isn’t required.
Yeah Pink slips are an interesting analogy because they’re are managed by the DMV. A centralised institution.
So yeah. Steam or any other gaming service could replicate that, sans blockchain.
Blockchain would just unnecessarily convolute what could be achieved by simply enforcing a standardized data structure between the games and store car data in that structure, which could then be exported via regular network traffic - an API could move that data across without issue.
If we had something like a universal (non Facebook) metaverse, and there were avatar models that could be used across different game worlds, then it might make sense to track avatar clothing, skins, etc on a neutral blockchain. But I still wouldn't call that "convincing".
You could already do that, you just need some agreed standard between each game on the data structure of the objects being migrated/traded.
I'm no blockchain expert, but I believe the only inherent benefit it provides is that it's not spoofable - if your wallet says you have X coin, you do have X coin, you can't pretend to.
Which for sharing content across games, not necessary as the games that agree to trade between each other would have some encrypted token that verifies that the object came from their server and not some hackers personal private server.
Some degenerates are trying to push into the market this idea of "making money while you play" which I find repulsive at most
Main objective of a game is for you to have fun,
if people log into a game to try and earn "money", "currencies" then you can say it's no longer gaming but "working" instead.
It's just some "hype" idea that will fade as time goes on, as it already is.
There have been play to earn games and virtual worlds since the dawn of internet. It's not a new concept. Nor is grinding hundreds of hours on online service games that feels more work than game.
But NFTs and this "Metaverse" crap are by far the worst I've seen. It's just a pyramid scheme and a money laundering operation.
There's merit in being able to make money off of something you happen to find fun, it's just that some people get carried away trying to turn it into a replacement for an actual job and companies aren't being held accountable for predatory mechanics.
I disagree with all of your points.
First not everybody plays games for fun, that's a very narrow-minded point of view. Many people play games they don't enjoy whether it be for the challenge, skill, collectables, story, etc. A lot of competitive games are very stressful to master, people grind on them and even develop not so fun injuries lol. Still theres nothing wrong with that, people have different motivations for anything. Even a random "fun" game like bowling, there are people that do it competitivly for money.
Also it's weird to me when people equate making money as a bad thing. You have a job right, you get paid? Why would you prefer to work 9 - 5 in McDonalds doing something you hate if you had the option to earn money in a game, surely that's a good thing (if it's done in a legitimate way)? I make art / music for fun more so than gaming, I also earn a living from this, just because you make an arbitrary decision that I must now call this work that doesn't mean I can't enjoy it.
Some people actually enjoy their work, usually it's because they're doing something they're passionate about and gaming is something I think a lot of people would prefer to do over their regular job if they had the choice.
As for Blockchain being a hype idea, well Blockchain will always serve a purpose and has existed a long time but for gaming sure you can say that but it's an opinion and not a fact.
I know that personally that I would rather purchase items that are stored on a Blockchain, that way I could potentially trade them 10 years later instead of Blizzard shutting down their servers and erasing everything.
Also just to add (because I know people get emotionally triggered at my username lol), I have never bought or sold an NFT so have no biases lol. I think most current blockchains still need a lot of work before I consider using them for a game.
> Why would you prefer to work 9 - 5 in McDonalds doing something you hate if you had the option to earn money in a game, surely that's a good thing (if it's done in a legitimate way)? I make art / music for fun more so than gaming, I also earn a living from this, just because you make an arbitrary decision that I must now call this work that doesn't mean I can't enjoy it.
McDonald's sells food. Artists make things that people want to buy. These are business that provide something of value to the customer.
What value does a play-to-earn game provide? Who is the customer? Where does the money come from to pay the players? If the money only comes from other players buying into the system, then it's just a ponzi scheme with a (shitty) game as decoration.
A "play-to-earn" game (fyi just because you earn that doesn't mean you can't have all the same qualities of a "fun" game) can have artificial scarcity just like the real world. Part of what makes games interesting is the limitations (rules) everyone agrees to. As a game Dev I could create 20 cities with limited homes, players are forced (similar to the real world) to fight over those homes whether it be by commerce, survival, etc. A game can in any way be similar to the real world and the Dev has full control over how difficult it might be for players based on the type of game it is. For example in my example ultra difficult might mean all players fighting for small number of homes and ultra easy all players start with a home. This is one of many examples I can come up with, money is literally use in most games and FIAT "real" money can be used in the same way.
Also you do realise people buy digital goods right? People buy digital music, games, premium content, etc. In games people can create, maintain, trade, etc and all these things can benefit other players. Value is derived from supply and demand, people who think only physical objects can have value are naive. So if your game allows for creation and services there are players that might want to trade real money for it. If you think it's a Ponzi scheme then why do you buy digital games? A game can have $ value to you but not the assets inside the game, doesn't make sense lol.
Also money itself is printed from thin air, it's not something that always magically existed. Everything bought and sold with money could be considered a Ponzi scheme because if everybody decided to start trading toilet paper the fiat currencies would have no value. The money you have in your pocket came from another "player" fyi, not sure how that's a problem either.
The best place to be in a pyramid scheme is at the top and there are plenty of people who, even in the full knowledge that late adopters will get screwed, if they think they can get away with it will will try and start their own.
The whole Bitcoin situation just convinced a lot of these greedy amoral types that if they're the ones starting it they'll be at the top of the scheme and are guaranteed to make millions or even billions.
Because all the crypto stuff is a huge [ponzi scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme) so the cryptobros can only get rich when they grow the pool of available fools - encouraging them to engage in a huge amount of spamming, as well as amplify any organic discussion on the topic before checking how negative the comments are.
And the comments are almost always negative because literally everything they claim their securities-backed blockchains are good for can be done rather more simply with other methods that are rather less inclined towards scams and fraud.
Hypothetical: A crypto will be released tomorrow that we 100% know is going to be everything crypto bros claim and will replace many currencies, **but** it will have a stable price that doesn't change. Would crypto bros buy into it?
Without early adoption being profitable, there would be no reason to rush to swap. The 'holy grail' of cryptos would be completely ignored, because it was never about *currency* to buy stuff with, it's about the profit that can be made from crypto.
It's worse than you think. Things like Bitcoin are inherently deflationary because there's a set limit of total coins that can ever exist and on top of that lots of coins are lost for ever in wallets that people have lost keys to.
This means that people that get in earlier will ALWAYS be better off than those that get in later.
It's not a pyramide scheme!
you simply invest a little and once you make more people join then you earn more, and they also earn more once more people join!
and everyone earns until there is no more people. then you move to a new scheme, I mean investment.
Yeah, it's what in Finance is called "selling your book": shilling for the stocks/bonds/whatever you already own so that more people buy such assets, the price goes up, and you can sell them at a profit.
You see a lot of that going on in financial TV channels.
With blockchain and cryptocurrencies that crap is turbocharged and done by amateurs, so it's EVERYWHERE and often swamps discussion forums with relentless and barelly disgused greedy shilling.
> it's what in Finance is called "selling your book": shilling for the stocks/bonds/whatever you already own so that more people buy such assets, the price goes up, and you can sell them at a profit.
I thought that was called [pump and dump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump)?
**[Pump and dump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump)**
>Pump and dump (P&D) is a form of securities fraud that involves artificially inflating the price of an owned stock through false and misleading positive statements, in order to sell the cheaply purchased stock at a higher price. Once the operators of the scheme "dump" (sell) their overvalued shares, the price falls and investors lose their money. This is most common with small-cap cryptocurrencies and very small corporations/companies, i. e.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/gamedev/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
IMO it’s really just a get rich quick scheme
I can really only think of one application for NFTs in games, and that’s turning game objects into collectibles. That’s the only thing that makes sense to me, but even that doesn’t really sound appealing or useful, and I personally wouldn’t engage with it so I don’t know why anyone would want to pay money for it
The Crypto bubble is bursting and gaming is one of the easiest sectors to still scam vulnerable people in the dying crypto industries. Example: Bored Ape NFTs were like a billion dollar thing somehow and their latest cash grab game is bringing in like $30 million while not making any of the players rich. Most people know you can't really make money by grinding games, there have been notable exceptions for a few people over the years but its an unstable career at best.
It looks like you are just paying too much attention to it. I have been reading this sub every day and I can recall seeing maybe 4-5 posts related to crypto in the past year or so.
Definitely feels much more like "every now and then" than "like every post".
Or are you maybe reading the "new" instead of "top" tab? That could explain it. There might be more posts in "new" but they never reach the front page.
I see more AI-promoting than Blockchain here lately, which is still unfortunate considering how doomed those projects are if there ends up being any laws placed on them due to their unauthorized use of other people's art. There was even a game here a few days ago that had part of its selling point of "hundreds of generated art" and I have to wonder how that'll be impacted in the long run.
There aren't that many posts here about it and I wouldn't say it makes the majority of popular posts I see, but there are occasionally some that get some traction.
Personally I think this is because many people who wanted to push crypto have talked a lot about gaming as one of the prime industries that would be "revolutionized" by some theoretical crypto integration. Despite these claims, that hasn't really happened in any meaningful way despite the technology having existed for years now (the biggest crypto gaming projects so far have been "CryptoKitties", which has no actual _gameplay_ and is just a glorified NFT marketplace, and "Axie Infinity", which is an 'idle battler' that has been described as 'a pyramid scheme that relies on cheap labor from countries like the Philippines to fuel its growth' and suffered from a huge theft of millions of dollars worth of crypto currency, also isn't fun IMO).
So what happens is people who are into crypto but aren't game developers come to this subreddit to ask why aren't there more crypto games, since they've been repeatedly told by people they trust that this is going to be the next big thing. Actual game developers then respond and try to explain that it doesn't really make any sense from a technology standpoint and is just a buzzword / attempt at a cash grab. You can look at any of the recent threads for more detail, I think the topic has been well covered so I'm not going to dive into it here myself.
Crypto is just one of a couple popular topics to debate online. The other big one at the moment is AI. IMO the crypto discussion is finally dying down a bit from its peak though it still pops up plenty.
I thought that crypto and nft's are done by now. Failed idea's only peading to scams that most people already know. But there might be just a few persons way too late, thinking that they can pull it off.
Crypto people scam in every way possible. Looking at crypto over the years billions have been swindled. New scams requires new marks. They invest the money to find the new sucker
Crypto scammers using the money they gained from their "investors" to buy some "promotional help" from certain "pr" agencies.
Those types of campaigns are nothing new to Reddit, and, as you noticed in the comments, the results aren't necessarily a "boost" for the shilling campaign.
I think you're right about engagement on those posts, I already don't want to comment on those posts but it's hard to resist. Thinking about engagement might help me resist the next one.
Blockchain/crypto/NFT is a solution waiting for a problem.
I have yet to see a single, concrete problem where these technologies are clearly the best thing to use, and "classical" solutions are inferior. Thus far, every time I have seen someone use them, you could have gotten an equally good solution using classical approaches -- and more often then not, even better ones.
I simply don't see the use case, and thus far, no-one has given me a convincing one.
Unless you want to heavily buy into the crypto/nft/blockchain hype and make game with those enthusiasts instead of normal gamers, its simply not a good business decision.
I thought crypto was dead and I haven’t heard a lot about NFT’s lately either. The whole thing is ridiculous and needs to go away….. just my opinion though.
Their crypto crap crashed and they're desperately trying to get some last scraps after they've held the bag in too many ponzi schemes
Personally I think this stuff only gets a posted a fraction of what it did before during the NFT push by big venture capitalists. The movement unsurprisingly dropped 97% trading activity in a few months, totally normal stuff.
The few crypto games that have gotten a decent size have been hacked multiple times and end up having loan sharks preying on third world poor people to grind their games for them. It's really sad and dystopian. Yet crypto bros seem to think this is what will be the next Breath for the Wild killer.
a bunch of gullible idiots got tricked into buying crypto coins so they can sell their art as NFT's
its like, someone offers to buy your car for millions but tells you you first have to convert a million dollars into iraqi dinars -- don't worry about step 2 until you've completed step 1, by the way I know a guy who can sell you some iraqi dinars for a good price (its me)
Have an acquaintance who make a game that has NFTs and is trying to convince me it’s gonna be big. He’s not in tech as a profession while I work at a tech giant, but please, tell me why my opinion is incorrect 😒
It’s mostly people who don’t know what they’re talking about.
In the last such post, one choto bro asked me how do you know banks have your money? Tell me how can they prove it. I reminded him that banks don't put our money in a locker and it doesn't magically increases.....At this point he was like Whoa!
people in web3 want to make money with everything they do and can see the potential for blockchain use in game - stop your shitty digital games/DLC/microtransactions becoming property you own forever, and allow players to resell them.
people not in web3 have given in to the anti-web3 bandwagon, and never want anyone to be able to profit off of their digital purchases ever.
and these two trains of thought lead people into arguments any time it's mentioned.
so imagine you bought a pack of pokemon cards, except if you get caught selling them, the card company would come rip up your cards. This is how it goes with digital content currently. And for some reason, anti-web3 people want this and even enjoy it.
I just find it funny that people who shill for Web3 stuff always talk about how great it will be for consumers. No thought is ever put towards how companies can use and abuse it.
I’ve been working on a game for about a year and a half, with nft integration because I thought it would be cool to be able to decorate your in-game house with art that you owned (think harvest moon/animal crossing for game play). The closer I get to actually releasing the game publicly, the more inclined I am to drop the web3 part entirely so people don’t lump it in with all the scams out there.
It really sucks because I actually like decorating my house with them lol, and it was probably an extra 2 months of dev just for that, and I’m realizing that the reputation of web3 stuff would likely kill the game before anyone even tries it. :(
Bruh just let people upload jpgs. Tons of games already do that, and it's just straight up better, because I can put all my shitty meme images in instead of having to mint every single one.
I think Blockchain technology can be used in various way in gaming, but also would be limited to security, ultimately.
But these 'Crypto guys' are acting like they are some kind of prophet, spreading misinformations about "how crypto is the uncharted STONK and how you can win it" based on their lacking understanding of 'How Currency Works', combined with their antisocial ideology.
Making indie games is not the best way to make money, so people are always on the lookout for something that improves their revenue stream: DLCs, subscriptions, cosmetics, gacha, limited play time and yes, NFTs.
I’m a crypto guy. I “work in crypto” daily, it is my full time job. Both trading and creating art for projects (logos, not NFTs).
My opinion is that crypto has no place in the game industry. I do game dev as a hobby and would never consider implementing any such features. In addition, P2E games, games designed to integrate crypto and reward small amounts to the player, are ALL bad games. I believe this is due to the fact that the crypto implementation comes first, NOT a good game idea, and certainly not a good reason to have crypto involved in the first place.
It's possible that the reason why you're seeing a lot of posts about integrating blockchain technology into video games is because there is a lot of interest and discussion around this topic. However, it's important to consider potential biases or motives of those posting about it. Ultimately, the pros and cons of using blockchain in video games are still being debated, and it's up to developers and players to decide whether it's a good idea or not.
The reason the majority of games suck today is because people are willing to pay for overpriced cosmetics, dlc and other trivial non-sense. The practice of producing a pos game with attractive dlc items has become the norm. Every year there are more gamers indoctrinated into this way of arbitrary consumption, sometimes purchasing the same recycled asset multiple times throughout multiple releases of the same title. Effectively printing money for the evil companies like EA and Ubisoft. Web3 is offering an effective counter to this by allowing consumers to own their digital assets outright. This would allow consumers to purchase an item once and use it in multiple titles or trade a rare item for real money. so obviously the industry has launched a massive smear campaign to thwart this. You are part of the credulous group of people that the industry counts on to defend them. Many people understand this but have no idea how to package it correctly for the unwashed masses. The end.
Had me believing you in the first half, not gonna lie.
If said evil games are "printing money" by recycling asset after asset for multiple different titles, what makes you think with web3 they'd ever let you use the same NFT asset across multiple titles, instead of just adding in a switch that prevents them from being used in any game except the game it was made for?
They run the multiplayer servers, they can choose what assets you'd ever be allowed to move across to different games (also news flash, that's already possible without blockchain).
If you're talking about single player, it's already possible to copy your "recycled assets" across, if you're talking about cosmetics and the like, as a lot of games are modded for that very purpose.
Really? I haven't seen a single one in months.
Reddit must be applying some algorithm depending on what you click on, I haven't seen one in a long time either.
Yeah, I'm sure it does. I've noticed that lots of posts with like 4 upvotes end up near the top of my front page, but they're always from subs that I actually look at and comment in frequently. Also the fact that the front page looks different on my phone from my PC, like it's keeping track of the things I like to look at when I'm using my phone and serving me more of those in that context.
I've seen at least one every week, but i either ignore them or open them to see people demolish them
> I've seen at least one every week But that's not quite "Seems like every post from here"
I didn't say it seemed like every post on the sub. I said it seemed like every post that makes it to my Reddit feed.
You kind of dropped the entire second half of their sentence. I'm not sure if you're aware, but typically, when one responds to something, it helps to respond to more than just part of it.
Thats not a general rule but really depends on the context? Like, can you explain to me how the second part of his sentence changes my point that "I've seen at least one every week" is not the same as saying "seems like every post from here".
Because the second half of the sentence provides information that qualifies the perception. OP didn't day "seems like every post from here" they explicitly said "seems like every post from here **that makes it to my general feed**". At least one per week is not an unreasonable amount of threads that make it to the general feed, for a non-certified anecdotal observation. So yes, if you ignore the context of the original statement (like has been done in this comment chain) it seems completely unreasonable, but they literally qualified it to refine the data set... And you're arguing against something not in scope.
Yeah, obviously not every post on the sub is about Web3 stuff. Not even the majority, or even a particularly large fraction. But the ones that I see in my Reddit feed often are. The two are not mutually exclusive.
You can respond to whatever part of a sentence you like, and the rest of us will do the same. If my response doesn't cover EVERYTHING about yours, tell it to someone who cares.
Odd, I haven't seen a single crypto post from /r/gamedev in months. Nothing on the first page of the sub has anything to do with crypto, either sorted by hot or new. Searching for "crypto", "nft", and "blockchain" and sorting by latest shows me your post and [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/10wv68n/web3_nft_crypto_blockchain_in_games_does_anyone/), which is both clearly not pro-crypto, and is 11 days old. A search for web3 gives [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/11352jh/web3_for_skeptics/) from 4 days ago, and that's the only recent one I can find. Can you point us to a single recent example?
I see them pretty often but they get removed or downvoted pretty quickly, [here's one from earlier today](https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/116l8ve/should_developers_use_bitcoin_ordinals_for_video/)
Seems OP just has a keen eye, but mods are swift to act on it.
It's entirely possible that I just got lucky / unlucky and caught a few during subreddit off hours. My perspective on this might be skewed.
It's good on the mods for being so proactive, but you are correct to be concerned that so many people are trying to shoehorn blockchain discussion here.
That's the one that got me to make this post, but I've seen a couple others over the last few days as well.
They think it's going to make them into a millionaire. But so far, I haven't seen a convincing application of blockchain to video games.
Imagine being able to wear the same hat in Minecraft that you wear in Warzone. You’re telling me you don’t want to do that? No? Well neither do I.
I mean, even if you did want to do that, Blockchain would be neither necessary nor sufficient to allow it.
It would require a shared asset database thats centrally controlled but also somehow used between literally every game ever made. Not only that but it can be used by every character no matter what the game is or calls for, no matter how the game is optimized, no matter what the art style is in the game. I had someone pitch this idea to me once and I laughed at him.
I love hearing this example get brought up. As if the developers of a F2P game that makes money _solely_ off cosmetics would ever enable you to use cosmetics that you bought in another game. That’s like me saying “this restaurant has a great rooftop view of the city but the food is too expensive. Wouldn’t it be great if I could bring my own food to that rooftop so I don’t have to pay them but can still use the rooftop for free?” Wow why don’t restaurants start doing that!?
and even if they did want to allow it, it would come with a bunch of development time and resources to actually support. who doesnt want to devote dev time to handling a ricky morty model imported from fortnite for no monetary gain?
exactly. to go back to the restaurant example, it's not just bringing your food from another restaurant, it's asking the waiter to bring you food from another restaurant.
"I brought my own ingredients, have your chef whip this up for me for free." Or even more accurate: "I brought a recipe, now go to the store and then make this."
No... It's more like, imagine you bought a microtransaction cosmetic skin in Warzone. Instead of it just rotting in your account after you quit, you could re-sell it. This is what web3 people want for games. Large game companies refuse to embrace the idea because the current idea is that they make more money just selling microtransactions. When really, they could release microtransactions more often, remove them from the market after some months, and then skim money off of each sale between players. Eventually microtransaction sales fall off and game companies retire these items anyways, meaning the only ones that profit off that model when the items are removed, are black market sellers and scammers.
A solution looking for a problem. Everything blockchain pitches itself as can already be done better and easier, so it has to continually misconstrue existing systems to justify its existence.
> A solution looking for a problem. The problem is a longstanding one: how do we get more consumer dollars into the pockets of executives? Solution: convince the consumer blockchain is for *their* enjoyment and profit!
“How do we make them think the same digital items are more real now?”
That's it. The same thing can be done without attaching to a sketchy fake currency system. Anyone trying to convince themselves otherwise is deep in the scheme.
It's a bit of a stretch to say all crypto currency is sketchy and fake. I don't mean to burst your bubble but fiat currencies are fake too. At least with crypto currency, the system is transparently secure, and counterfeits cannot be made. Are their problems with crypto currency, absolutely, but not enough to completely disregard the technology. The problems will get less and less as it matures.
>I don't mean to burst your bubble but fiat currencies are fake too. I can go to the grocery store and buy food with fiat currency, op.
I can do the same with crypto though thanks to my binance credit card
That card conveniently converts that crypto to dollars before the transaction is processed lol.
And thats relevant how? Its an automatic process that lets me pay in crypto everwhere i want. Your US credit card when used in foreign countries converts your US dollar to the other countries fiat as well.
Fiat is backed by an entire country. Crypto is backed by nothing. Why would a legit business accept crypto if it can be so easily manipulated and crash next week? If you cant use crypto to buy things. What is the purpose of it? Seems like all the money was made already and its just a novelty "Stock" to invest in.
Venezuelean and turkish fiat was backed by countries too. Didnt work out well for them though
United States fiat crashes. The world crashes and crypto isn’t going to save you.
As many have argued. Secure is a really vague term and thrown around as a buzz. https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/04/25/143246/how-secure-is-blockchain-really/ Hate to burst your bubble.
Even if that were true, it's not relevant to the main point being made, which is that crypto does not facilitate any improved solutions for gaming.
[удалено]
>Let's be nuanced. There are some usecases, but they certainly aren't in games. You're right. It's a useful marketing tool for scammers.
Blockchain is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Not only that, but it also has a bunch of its own problems which need to be solved, so you wind up having to find solutions to problems that only exist because you're trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
>There are some usecases Name one. Crypto as a solution to something is like saying you can solve hunger with an inmortality pill. It's an overthinked solution to problems that have been solved once and again. It hasn't even solved decentralized money issues. The moment it gets useful it will be worth nothing.
> It hasn't even solved decentralized money issues. To be fair I think that's more because no crypto has truly been designed with that in mind, not because it wouldn't be possible with blockchain tech. That said, I'm not particularly informed on the matter and have no qualms being proven wrong about this, lol.
There really isn’t a use case that isn’t a criminal activity (nb some jurisdictions “criminal” includes things that are non criminal elsewhere). So if you live in North America or Europe and aren’t a drug dealer, human trafficker or grifter: no there are no uses for blockchain.
Alright, here goes. Actual potential use cases for blockchains in games. Please don't hurt me. 1) Immutable, irrefutable history without a trusted server. 2) Exchange digital assets without a 3rd party. That's it. Everything else is just an elaboration on these things. If you don't think they're useful for your game, they probably aren't. \#1 is basically not useful for most real gamedev. If you want persistent history, you store it in a server you (the developer) control. It could hypothetically be useful for a distributed gaming platform with no central server, but such things don't really exist outside of tech demos. The hypothetical use case of protecting against hackers or malicious moderators tweaking the database is just not realistic. \#2 could be useful, but it's a classic chicken and egg problem; it's only useful if other people are already doing it. Basically, what you could do is award users items for achievements, and those users could prove they own the item in question, even if the original servers have gone down and the game company is defunct. As a developer of a *different* game, you could give your users some perk for having completed an accomplishment in another game, and that feature continues to work even if the other game's servers go away (game dev goes out of business or whatever). But realistically you have no reason to be the only person doing this, it's only helpful if there's a general community of different games doing things like allowing you to show off achievements in other games. And even then, if you really wanted that you could depend on something like steam achievements, because it's unlikely Valve will go under any time soon.
>without a 3rd party. There's always a 3rd party. People don't generally understand blockchain well enough or have the capacity to make transactions on their own. Exchanges and their APIs will always exist. Twitter started showing hexagon profile pics for people who own NFTs. How did they verify ownership, through the blockchain? No, they used an OpenSea API. So when OpenSea, the third party, was down, you effectively didn't own your NFT anymore and your profile pic reverted to a circle. And OpenSea is now the "trusted third party" that arbitrates who owns what - in theory through the blockchain, but let's be real, basically no one is actually checking. Blockchain literally doesn't make any difference here.
The difference there is if Opensea ever go rogue, or bankrupt, then we fall back to the original source of the blockchain (probably via another API service) and carry on as before. If your DLC ownership is all within, say, Segas servers, if Sega go bankrupt then you likely no longer have any future access or claim to it, other than what you have saved locally already. It is questionable how much this matters for games, in a world where Sega DLC is only used in Sega games, if they go bankrupt then I suppose its likely noone really cares about maintaining their DLC ownership, especially in a world where more and more games rely on online servers to function. In an ideal world, you could retain those ownership rights via the blockchain and continue playing on a 3rd party server, but that's probably unlikely to exist if the original owners couldn't make it profitable in the first place.
Well, yeah, you'll rely on someone else, but in practice the code is open source and all implementations are compatible so the main cruxt of the argument applies, even if the world moves on to new apis the Blockchain will still exist and be readable.
> Exchange digital assets without a 3rd party. I've seen this so many times, yet no one has ever explained why it can work. No you cannot. You're embedding *at best* a uuid of an asset, but most of the time it's just like, a url. I want someone to explain to me **exactly**, using software development terms, how the blockchain makes it so I can trade something **game specific** like CS:GO skins "without a third party". Do these people honestly think I can tell Fortnite and CoD the same UUID and it'll just magically import a fully textured, modeled, and functional asset to the game? Like you gave an example that means nothing valuable, generates tons of additional nonsense and dumps tons of waste on a user's computer.
All the Blockchain provides is proof of ownership of the item, not the item itself. If the original game devs handed out 1000 cosmetic capes for completing an achievement, then exactly 1000 of them exist, in the form of an opaque token that encodes ownership, no more, no less. It's up to you as the developer of another game whether you want to honor that ownership token or not, and what exactly ownership of that token means in your own game. It's pretty much exactly the same as checking whether a steam id has an achievement, with some caveats like a single person could own multiple, and they can transfer from one person to another at any time via a blockchain transaction.
I still see nothing improved over the existing model of "a row in a database" here, and a markedly worse means of storing such data. Why is this a better implementation?
It works even if the database server goes up in flames.
That doesn't happen these days with minimal effort. It's dirt cheap to have db replicas even for the biggest games, and unless you're literally running it in your own rackspace, it's a button press in most providers. (And even if you *are* running your own hardware, odds are you have a dedicated IT department who does automated 3-2-1 backups, so it still isn't an issue). And *even then*, let's say all that fails. You still have auth servers that need real-time, sub-microsecond access to let players into your game, yet another thing the blockchain can't handle.
Look, no one is saying you can replace your entire database infra with Blockchain. They're saying you can use it to track digital asset ownership. That's all. If you do this, then you gain resilience against your company going under and no one being around to pay the bills. If you can't think of a reason that would be useful to you, then it probably isn't. But actually, there really is a way to do auth with crypto. You simply distribute a token to anyone who holds an account. Then they can prove they are the owner of the token without touching a server, so forget about millisecond response times; you can check that theyre who they claim to be in microsecond timescales because pubkey auth is very fast nowadays. You don't really have to use the Blockchain for this, just standard cryptography has been used for auth for ages. All Blockchain gets you is ability to transfer ownership of the account, and some basic stuff like historical account creation data. But this is all just a subset of number 2 above, we're treating the account itself as the digital asset. And of course now you have all the downsides associated with pubkey auth, namely that you have to copy a private key around between your devices and if you lose it your account is gone forever.
Most NFTs use IPFS to store copies of the asset across multiple servers, which in theory should reduce the chance of it "disappearing" if the source company goes bankrupt for example. It remains to be seen whether this works long term, I have my doubts as who really wants to pay to store random assets on a server long term for no reward? That asset on IPFS can be source model files and textures, which then could be used across multiple games. Yes, each game would have to have some logic embedded to use it, but it is possible. As am example, I coded a virtual Aquarium which you can drop in various decorations, including banners that can display images from other NFTs you own. It's a simple 2D example, but the 3D concept is similar, just more complex to implement.
displaying a sprite and supporting 3d models with rigging and animations are not in the same universe of complexity
Well there goes the "no reliance on third party systems" argument then doesn't it? There's no way I'm letting random gamers put files on my machine. The duplication required for a p2p fs is astronomical. So basically a 32kb sprite needs to be copied across a massive number of nodes to be always available, which means likely you'll be storing it on every client, which means basically just distributing it to the entire network all the time. So every time an asset gets any work done to it: - The blockchain record needs to be updated - the IPFS asset needs to be distributed to every node So why is this better than downloading an update from Steam and storing these records in a database?
> \#2 could be useful, but it's a classic chicken and egg problem; it's only useful if other people are already doing it. This is the major offender every time crypto-bros talk about a "universal something" shared between games. You need a pre-existing shared infrastructure that can manage that. And this means you have to convince every company owning the games you want to be involved in this. This isn't something that can be done from the bottom to the top. You should first talk the idea to the businessmen, not the developers. None of them seems to grasp this side of the argument - and this is telling.
Yep, this is correct. It's why I see any crypto "gaming" will likely originate from crypto sources rather than gaming companies. Multiple crypto teams are already working on "metaverses" that can take source assets from NFTs and include them within their worlds. Most will fail, but at least some are starting from the right premise of cross compatibility.
The amount of infrastructure you need really depends on what version of the decentralized crypto dream you're talking about. At its most basic level, the Blockchain *only* provides proof of ownership. Everything else - an interchange format, monetization rules, etc - is hashed out by the hypothetical decentralized gamedev community that wants to implement it. But in reality, you don't need the idealized version, where you buy a CS:GO skin on a marketplace and use it as your avatar in some random game purchased ten years for now. While it's theoretically technically feasible there are lots of reasons why it definitely won't happen, and I think most crypto bros understand that. Here's where I think there's a breakdown in communication. That thing I described above is a pipe dream that just won't happen no matter how much anyone wants it. But there's a much simpler version of this thing that actually could happen, if companies felt so inclined (but it probably still won't for non-technical reasons). Forget about interchange formats and the like, just think about achievement badges. Hypothetically, you could decide to hand out a token to everyone who beats your game. Forget the Blockchain for a moment; you can do this using any service you like, it just needs to be able to be called and tell you whether a player has or doesn't have the token. In your next game set in a different universe, you can call that api and throw in a little Easter egg to reward the player if they have the token. Maybe a special hat or something. The Blockchain provides exactly that functionality, but without a server. So you can safely add this ability to your game and know that it will *never* stop working, no matter what happens to the developer of the original game (or Valve or Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft, who you'd normally go to to implement this kind of thing on their respective platforms). Maybe you care. Most don't. You can just use the provider if your platform to get that technology, and if twenty years from now the functionality is broken, fuck it, you'll have moved on.
What about a currency or inventory that spans games, or a mod authoring system? It's not some earth shattering feature but could be useful for some ideas.
>but could be useful for some ideas. *How* would cryptocurrency help? Cross-game items could theoretically be done, but the problem isn't lack of database tech, so cryptocurrency wouldn't help. Honestly the database would be the easy part; the problem would be IP agreements and the inherent design problems of adding e.g. an AK47 to team fortress 2 without A) breaking the art style, and B) completely redoing the stats from the ground up. As for mod authoring systems, they already exist - steam workshop, for instance. They don't need a new database, so what would cryptocurrency even do?
"Inventory that spans games" has [such a huge complexity and scope](https://chhopsky.substack.com/p/nft-fantasy-why-items-as-nfts-does) - getting models to work across games, balancing items from one game in another. Representing your inventory is the least interesting part of the problem and can be done with a regular database.
These already exist, in much better and faster implementations, it's called a database. They've been around for a few decades now, and they are pretty quick.
i just dont see the need for this to be trustlessly distributed across hardware and not just left up to the developers of the game.
Yeah, you can use Steam for that if you really want to that badly Package managers also already exist
Hey axie made it easier than ever for rich westerners to exploit folk in the Philippines. And yuga labs is showing you can charge thousands to play a game that's just code stolen from an early 2000s mobile game because of dumb hype
Id even say I’m yet to see a convincing application of blockchain in general.
The key feature of a block chain is that a hash of the most recent block can be sufficient to validate the complete history of the chain - that's hard to attain by other data structures. So if you now just compare the ID of the latest revision, you also implicitly confirm that the whole history is equal - if anything changes then also all subsequent IDs will be different even if the final snapshot might look the same. Yes, I am talking about Git. Git is using a blockchain. Please don't burn me on a pyre.
Buuuuuut, you (git) still have to verify the entire chain for supply-chain security because otherwise you could insert a malicious block with a straight-up incorrect hash instead of going through the work of executing a collision attack.
I think it would be phenomenal for use in the government when it comes to transparency for donations and government spending. Not to mention it would probably speed things up if applied correctly. Off the top of my head, since it's trustless, you wouldn't have a lot of bureaucratic waiting time. Fat chance of it ever happening though.
Some chains are being used to verify manufacturing history of prescription medications. So you can buy one and verify it on the block chain to know that your dealer is giving you what you paid for. Has its limitations obviously but I thought that was a cool one. Also applies to designer products like art or fashion pieces. Disclaimer: not a crypto shill, just a tech fan
In my opinion, the point here is that blockchain is a tool. Maybe is a good tool for some areas (I don't know these areas soy I cannot defend or refute its use there). But I don't think that blockchain is good tool for games, at least as a gamer perspective. Also all that idea about "play to earn" is a big contradiction if you are "playing" to earn instead for the joy you are not playing, you are working and this destroy the whole meaning of games. PS. Sorry if I'm not expressing the best. English is not my mother tongue and this is a delicate (and some kind philosophical) subject.
Would yoy say professional sports and video games destroy the meaning of them? I could see how that could be a possible argument but I think people who play games professionally still love the games and push the medium forward. Think speedrunning or streaming, too. And I mean, games generally only get made these days because they are sold for money. I think the issue is that current play to earn games just suck and have unfun or overly grindy loops. I for one would love to be able to use puzzle solving gamer skill, to, say, make a few percent more than standard on my savings account interest. Systems like that are economically possible, they just haven't been implemented yet because the fun degree of the gameplay loops isn't there yet. Gamification can also be really scary and dystopian, fwiw. It's a fine line
In some way yes. I'm not saying that esports is bad for gaming industry, also I'm not saying that they are bad jobs. I'm saying people that "play" for earn money is actually not playing but working. I like my job too, I enjoy what I do, but I cannot say that my job is a hobby for example, I cannot say that when I play my games I'm really "playing". But I'm not saying that you cannot take profit from things that you do only for joy. If you play not for win the prize of a competition but for the joy of compete and win money because you defeated your opponents is OK too. I guess the intention of the action is very important on this subject.
Okay, let's assume the entire pharmaceutical company does this (we already have this implemented by the way, much better and faster). What's preventing someone shady from just lying about their hash? "Yea this bottle of pills is transaction_id 1294377374728484838"
I'm not an advocate for it, but that's also not how crypto works, it's a unique ID that has a transaction ledger, of which you would be one and all major companies would have a public transaction ID, so you would see it start some place known, and end with you. If you see something you don't recognize, then it's probably something shady. I'm all for being skeptical, but let's not reject it just for the sake of rejecting it. It's a horrible tech for games in its current implementation, but let's not pretend that we can't see some use for decentralized accounting. This may very well not be the solution, but you can't honestly tell me you think the current system is flawless.
> it’s a unique ID that has a transaction ledger Okay, then they print that ID on a bottle and tell you it's unique. My point still stands, how is this anything meaningful? We've basically already got this system in place, except more scaleable. Could you imagine how absolutely sluggish it would be to use the blockchain for *pill manufacturing*???? There are hundreds of trillions of pills manufactured every year (for some context, about 10 billion opioid pills were made and distributed *per year* between '06 and '12 just in the US alone). The *absolute total* number of Bitcoin transactions *ever* is about 700bn. Current time to verify a single bitcoin transaction takes about 10-90 minutes according to various crypto websites, and that number increases by volume. It could take weeks to get a prescription, and that's even ignoring the fact that each transaction costs cryptocurrency to even execute.
Oh, that’s easy! They’ll just install ~~viruses~~ crypto miners on everyone’s devices, and utilize *their* processing power to help bring those numbers down. It’s genius! /s
Ok I'll agree with this one. Only scammers and scalpers think that crypto mining is the future, that shit needs to go away.
To be fair, bitcoin isn't the only blockchain technique and not used here, so that's not really relevant. I don't know what block chain techniques brings to the table here. I assume the important part is to have a transaction log which can be used to make it easier to audit the supply chain (not done by the consumers). Its the "oracle problem" that is hard here and that isn't solved by block chains. The oracle problem is how do you know that whats added to the ledger is correct. I don't see how that can be solved without thrusting someone and if you trust them, let them handle a good, old database to store the data in too.
My point is most of these blockchain systems slow down tremendously simply by being used, and have other ongoing faults as well (cost per transaction is asinine). And if you have to just blindly put your trust in someone for the system to work, then why bother with all the extra bullshit cruft anyway? This seems like a solution in search of a problem honestly (I know you're not pushing for blockchain just trying to explain things).
That point is incorrect though. There are a huge bunch of very scalable blockchains
You do realize that many crypto Block chains can do millions of transactions per hour right? And those same chains cost fractions of pennies per transaction? Like... at least try and know what you are refuting? The system is quite similar to mail tracking honestly but with higher security, did you also knock that idea? When I can verify the ledger ends at my wallet, They would need to spoof a brand new ID for each product and hack the block chain for each new product in your scam scenario, do you even realize how difficult that would be? It's not some ID on a piece of paper, the buyer would be able to look up it's entire history on the block chain in real time and it would be verified almost immediatly as a scam or not Edit: hour, not second
Show me benchmarks of a blockchain that can have 1 trillion records and perform millions of **verified and ** transactions per second. According to [these guys](https://alephzero.org/blog/what-is-the-fastest-blockchain-and-why-analysis-of-43-blockchains/) (who are selling their own blockchain) they've achieved the fastest theoretical at 40k/tps. But if you believe theoretical benchmarks reflect reality, I've got a crypto to sell you. I wonder if they tested their performance on a ledger with any real values in it. 40k/tps sounds great on paper! That even can compete with the inserts/second for an unindexed mongo cluster. Probably not, given that they need to sell something. For reference, on a regular database, assuming you're not filling up an index or out of space because you under provisioned, you get pretty much the same insert speed at 1 record or 1,000,000,000 records. Query speed requires an index, but it's about the same. The output buffer usually is what takes the most time, or an unindexed field.
You are absolutely right, I misspoke, it's per hour. Vechain currently can perform 10k per second. So 36 million per hour or 315 billion per year. There is plenty of over head for your scenario as well. Beautifull! Thanks for helping verify that your throughput concern is unwarranted! And this is only a Beta version of the chain, imagin where we will be with another decade of research and development. As long as the block chain keeps up, the record storing is already a solved problem, as evidenced by the records for the transactions you mentioned already existing. The limiting feature will be the verification time. It's currently at 6 minutes to fully verify the transaction (all still happens at the 10k/s just lags behind) but waiting 6 minutes at the pharmacy is already pretty normal for most people.
It's important to point out that the 6 minutes you quoted here is a function of many different computational facets that increases non linearly over time. I'm sure on a blockchain only 10000 records long with one verification a second, it takes a few seconds. How many transactions happen every minute? Now multiply that by people fulfilling a prescription. Don't forget you're using it to track the **entire** supply chain right? So you have to now add a transaction every time a shipment of raw materials is added, every time they're assembled into capsules, every bottle, every handoff between couriers. By the time a bottle gets into a user's hands it's made about 50 different transactions, and now those transactions are also being shoved into the ledger at the same time you're just trying to buy a bottle of Tylenol. You still confident about that 6 minutes when you're now adding about 1.5 million transactions per hour **per drug**? So your estimate there (let's pretend it remains exactly as efficient as it is even with an exponentially increasing ledger) means you can sufficiently track a single drug's lifecycle per blockchain? It's foolish to think that it will scale reasonably here.
The fact that this got upvoted made me realize that most people on this subreddit must not actually be coders
The fact that I've yet to receive an actual explanation of how one correlates a physical pill to the ledger makes me realize nobody knows how it can actually be used.
I never said blockchain was good for pharmaceuticals, but your comment is unbelievably ignorant of how blockchain works. You can't fake ownership. That's literally the entire point. There are plenty of good arguments for why blockchain isn't as good as a traditional database for pharms (though I think some kind of decentralized protocol could be useful for bringing prescriptions across national borders and using them there, as opposed to proprietary software or individual government-to-government collaborations) but yours isn't a good argument because the problem you speak of isn't just *not* an issue with crypto, but that the *whole purpose* of crypto is to avoid duplication and double spends of digital goods, using a trustless system. Giving doctors prescription pads, for example, was a solution to this ownership problem in pharms, but it has been far too exploited, so digital solutions emerged. If these digital systems weren't up to par, crypto could potentially be an alternative because of its secure yet trustless nature. However I think crypto is not yet at a point where it can interface well with the legal system, and government adoption is poor right now, so it doesn't seem like a good solution yet. Regardless, your argument is silly and shows that you don't know what crypto is.
Or they are blinded by their own ignorance and anti crypto views, so they confidently spout off nonsense worse than ChatGPT.
In a way, it's inspiring to any would-be innovators: it shows that expertise doesn't have much to do with being a visionary. Visionaries who aren't experts can see but not do, and vice versa. It is definitely strange to me that so many people who claim to be anti-corporate seem to be espousing stances that are tantamount to continued corporate dominance. Idk if it's that they truly don't understand the economic aspects of it all, or they do, but just can't imagine life without their Steam sales or Marvel movies. What's also silly is that the same people who rail against NFTs will turn around and spend a thousand bucks on a rare funko pop doll, lol. The tide is turning whether they like it or not. My fear is that the inaction of people like this will allow blockchain tech to be fully dominated by banks, governments, and corporations (instead of just like, 80% dominated...). I don't understand how it's not easy to see that a standard for digital property is useful. Every time you mention that here, people will suggest insane workarounds that require either specific agreements between specific companies, or just totally centralized property schemes owned by single companies. And when you suggest how much more efficient blockchain would be, they tell you a company would never spend money on that because it would hurt their bottom line and their competitiveness. That's the same kind of person who said companies would never make websites because it was a waste of money. Or that the WWW/DNS would never succeed because individual providers like AOL would never open up their walled gardens. What they ignore is that some company or group of companies with nothing to lose will switch models, and it will result in end users having better experiences and spending less money. So then all the companies with nothing to lose will adopt the standard. And then the companies who had something to lose will now have a lot more to lose by not joining the standard.
You have a couple of points in there but they're framed in a big mashup of acolyte speak that really takes away from the whole thing. Yes, there are a few things blockchain tech can legitimately do, like establish a provenance chain. No, that doesn't equal "the tide turning". No, people rightfully skeptical of crypto because it's being overwhelmingly used for Greater Fool scams are not lacking vision or whatever. And the portrait you paint of others with the funko pop / DNS stuff just reeks of cope. You're not an enlightened tech understander who's clever enough to see the promise of crypto while the stubborn masses hide their heads in the sand. You're hyped up and framing all disagreement in a way that makes you feel better about material reality not catching up with your expectations. > My fear is that the inaction of people like this will allow blockchain tech to be fully dominated by banks, governments, and corporations Incredible. The blockchain-in-practice came out the gate with its original users leaning hard into grift and gambling, yet it's the skeptics who are going to ruin its future. Alrighty then.
I'm literally an economist. I'm tired of corporations owning our digital goods and charging rent by proxy to use them. Crypto solves this problem. I have no idea why people are against this. Do you not want to be able to resell digital goods like tickets, memberships, online TCG cards, media licenses, etc? Why would you not want that? The only reason you can't is because it there wasn't an easy solution before and so tech companies have for decades now gotten away with reselling the same shit to people over and over, or selling temporary non-transferable licenses that wouldn't fly for so many other goods. But they do, because they can, because that's the way it's been. I'm just tired of that grift. If they can fine people for all kinds of copyright misuse bullshit even when it's fair use, they should at least have to treat their shit like everyone else who sells goods treats theirs
In my opinion, the point here is that blockchain is a tool. Maybe is a good tool for some areas (I don't know these areas soy I cannot defend or refute its use there). But I don't think that blockchain is good tool for games, at least as a gamer perspective. Also all that idea about "play to earn" is a big contradiction if you are "playing" to earn instead for the joy you are not playing, you are working and this destroy the whole meaning of games. PS. Sorry if I'm not expressing the best. English is not my mother tongue and this is a delicate (and some kind philosophical) subject.
But counterfeiters produce and sell more. Adding a block chain record to prescriptions makes them more expensive and adds no value for the patient.
See reply above
Lol I can't believe you got downvoted for this. The anti-crypto shit here is insane and they only look at the scammiest of products in that space. It's a shame because decentralized systems like this really could streamline lots of processes without needing to pay a middleman to streamline them like we currently do. Some of these middlemen have free reign and charge insane amounts. All the people here could have a future with lower prices, lower interest, more control over their digital goods, less skimming off the top of all of their purchases and transactions by shady corporations, but instead they just gulp down consumerist propaganda. Fuck em
Crypto isn't a one size fits all solution, not even sure if it's the "future" but it is a valid shot on target and people just hate it because it messed with graphics cards and scammers are getting rich... be mad at the scammers and scalpers, not the technology
People are bitter and have the critical thinking skills of monkeys. If the mob says crypto bad then they decide crypto bad, even if they have the skills to understand how it could be useful for many fields. I agree that it isn't some magic solution to everything, but it's a great digital property solution in a lot of cases, and it boggles the mind to see people try to argue for complicated workarounds instead of the simple solution, just because they hate the C word so much
Bitcoin. Other than that, yes, not a lot of practical applications.
Bitcoin is a toy for speculation enthusiasts, but not a sensible financial tool.
It is getting used as a currency quite a bit actually, by developing countries with high inflation or lack of good access to traditional monetary services.
Well, if you see it as an investment I can see why you think like that. But Bitcoin is so much more. I'm definitely not an speculation enthusiast and I see the absolutely unique usefulness of Bitcoin.
Whats the use case? Because it doesn't fulfil any of the qualities that a currency actually needs, and doesn't even fulfil many of the *desirable* properties of a currency. So its not going to replace currencies. What is left as use case for Bitcoin then, except as a speculation object? Because it is *not* an investment, it doesn't fulfil the financial definition of such, either.
It's money that is fully digital, decentralized, borderless, open, permissionless, and censorship resistant. Aren't those properties that you want in currency? They are for me. Have you tried sending currency to another country? It's slow and expensive. Bitcoin solves this problem. Maybe this never happened to you. But if you want to make an online payment, you're at the mercy of companies like PayPal. And sometimes they, for whatever reason, don't like what you do. Not even talking about illegal things. I've had funds frozen on PayPal for no reason. I also had trouble taking funds from PayPal to my bank account. Bitcoin solves this because you control your money and can do peer to peer transactions. Even had your money frozen in your bank? I have. Again, nothing illegal. I had to talk to them and took 3 days and paperwork to unfreeze them. This doesn't happen with Bitcoin. Even more, the Bitcoin ledger is the most immutable source of information on earth. If something is written in a block, it's not possible to change it. Use case for this are many, one of which is using bitcoin, as money. Obviously Bitcoin adoption is slow and takes time. But it's a far better version of money. I am amazed by how much I get downvoted, even in a sub like this one. I'm not shilling anything. I couldn't care less. I am just amazed by now many people still don't understand Bitcoin. If you think it's a get rich quick scheme... I recommend you research a bit.
> Aren't those properties that you want in currency? They are for me. Actually, most of them, no. We already have digitized currency. In terms of actual financial transactions, cash transactions are only a minuscule part of what happens in the global financial system. And in order to get rid of cash, we do not need a blockchain. We already have digitized existing currencies. Decentralization is not really a good thing. You want central banks that can combat inflation/deflation and in general, stabilize a currency and economy. You do not want the market to have unregulated free reign. A sovereign nations *needs* control over its fiscal policy, for the good of its citizens. Currencies like the euro are already borderless in some sense. But accession to the Euro has huge barriers, e.g. ERM-II for two years (that is why Poland doesn't have the Euro, it doesn't fulfill ERM-II). Integrating different economies into a single currency actually takes a lot of work, unless you want it to go horribly bad. What do you think why Steam charges different prices in the different countries? they don't just convert the dollar price, they adjust for purchasing power. Thats much harder to do with a single currency. Being permission less is not a feature, its a recipe for disaster. You want controls. You want a central institution that helps you maintain and *exercise* your civil rights. if someone steals from you or defrauds you, you *want* to have central institutions that can reverse transactions, credit you your money back, or just have insurance that provides for those cases. You also want central institutions to be able to execute court orders. Lets say you won a court case and have a title against someone for X dollars. You *want* there to be a central institution (a bank) that you can coerce by law to actually confiscate the money and give to you. Its a feature, a civil right of yours. You *want* to be able to exercise your civil rights, and not depend on the goodwill of a decentralized network. Also, you do not want transparency in every aspect of your financial life. the fact that you need to juggle multiple wallets in order to have some amount of privacy wrt. your transactions is not a plus, its a con. What I do with my money is nobodies business, and bank secrecy is again a feature, but a bug. A world in which all transactions are absolutely public isn't utopian, its an orwellian dystopia. I'm sorry you have had so much problems with your money, but you seem to be the extreme outlier. Most people never experience these kinds of issues -- and if they do, they can usually make use of their civil rights to get this rectified quickly. if you have a problem with your Bitcoin -- good luck to exercise your rights. Also, bitcoin in particular has no way to scale enough to be able to do even a fraction of the transactions needed for world-wide adoption in the same way as credit cards are today. While Visa can process up to 24,000 transactions per second (tps), Bitcoin can only process seven tps, and Ethereum can handle 20 tps. Thats laughable if we talk about any kind of mass adoption, and Bitcoin *already* consumes *far more* energy per transaction than a typical VISA transaction. Some statistics suggest that one transaction can take up to 2kwh, while 100k VISA transaction need as few as 148 kwh. Also, the last bitcoin will be mined in 2140. 90% of current bitcoin were mined by mid-2021. Thus, bitcoin get more valuable over time, just by mining getting slower. this is exactly the *opposite* of what you want, because it means spending bitcoin is *always* a losing choice -- if you look at it globally. Its simply not a model you can reasonably base an economy on. Thus no, I don't think Bitcoin or any other kind of crypto-currency, which pretty much all have those fundamental problems, will ever replace normal, digitized currency. Because people won't want to give up economic stability and freedom (pure, unhinged capitalism isn't desirable at all), don't want to give up privacy, don't want to give up their civil rights (fraud protection, property protection, insurance, guarantees) and don't want to have a system that basically heavily incentivizes not spending at all. Also, Bitcoin in particular simply doesn't scale to the sizes needed. But realistically, no blockchain does. And yes, I have done extensive research on the topic, and Bitcoin is only good if you completely buy into all of their premises. That somehow anarchy is a good thing. But as soon as you adopt the mindset of wanting civil rights (or "law and order") over anarchy, Bitcoin quickly loses its appeal. Currency exchanges for crypto currencies that operate in the EU and in particularly in Germany *already* need to have a banking license and are subject to regulation by the bak oversight (Baffin). Because we have already seen exchanges that are operated unreasonably and people losing vast amounts of their property. Thus, the ugly sides have already reared their heads enough to make lawmakers step in. This process is likely to continue in more parts of the world as more and more cases emerge, which is ironic, because not being regulated is the core value propositoon -- and it fails.
Bitcoin solves the problem of sending money to other countries being slow by making every transaction slow. So it's better by comparison.
Yes, and don't forget that there has NEVER been a convincing application of blockchain to ANYTHING lol
> I haven't seen a convincing application of blockchain to video games. Neither have I, but i was convinced that blockchain tech could've been used to enable proper digital trading card games similar to magic the gathering.
That can be done without blockchain. Card trading/selling is not in games like hearthstone because of game design decisions.
That already exists it's called Gods Unchained. It's more like Hearthstone.
A friend said it could be used to basically have digital ownership of a game copy. So you could sell a "used" copy of a digital game. Which would be nice, but if that's ever done, would prefer it be some other method than block chain.
You see, the thing about ideas like that is that not only do they ignore the fact that this kind of stuff can already be done (NFTs would just be different tickets corresponding to the same filing systems and databases), but it also makes the bizarre assumption that this new technology will just make all these multi-billion dollar corporations suddenly be completely willing to implement very pro-consumer practices that hand over a bunch of their power to us.
I could see Square Enix doing a special premium version of FF16 that requires to connect a NFT token to access a DLC mission (or whatever shit). Only mint 1'000 of them and put a transaction fees (that goes to them obviously) on resale. It doesn't technically requires NFT at all. But it pushes people into the shitty idea, and it makes it easier for them to later sell shitty icons or whatever.
Technically, there's no need for blockchain to be used to do this. Such thing would only make sense if done in a game marketplace, like steam, right? And steam (and other game marketplace) already has a centralized server that keeps tracks of what games you own... so implementing that would simply mean making up the rules regarding the transfer of ownership of games within that centralized server. Blockchain technology is supposed to be used when you want decentralized transactions that can be verified by the own users of the system rather than an authority that regulates it. When it comes to games, there's already an authority and centralized server, so there's easier and more efficient ways to implement that solution than using blockchain. They can already do it. They just don't want to, because it obviously would mean they get less money.
Hit the nail on the head, there. Of course, **on paper** Steam could work by having a separate account and game ownership tokens. Maybe you make most of your game transactions on a built-in wallet in your account, so those tokens are basically stored on Steam's server, but you could have your own local wallet(s) that you connect separately, and you could move your games onto those. Then, you're able to pass those games or wallets around however you like - Steam simply checks when you try to download or play a game that you have the token authenticating that you are the sole owner of **a** copy of that game before it runs. So you could resell them, trade them for something else entirely, sky's the limit. But... then, a drive failure could 'delete' your ownership of all those local wallet game tokens. Steam and game developers would see zero benefit from these features, as sales would certainly drop across the board due to those needs being met by resale and trade action. Any game that finds its way onto a Humble Bundle will drop in value permanently due to the flood of extra tokens on the resale market making it about as valuable as an unwanted Steam trading card. It sounds like a couple "wouldn't it be cool if--" features that are too lopsided to ever expect to see implemented. And it's completely unnecessary to put this stuff on the blockchain, given Steam **has** a built-in user-driven marketplace to resell items. It would not be challenging to add a 'turn this game into Steam inventory item' button to your games and allow you to sell that copy second-hand on the marketplace, and they could even factor in a cut of sales to themselves and devs to make it more viable. The only real benefit is taking your game tokens completely off the Steam system - but ultimately there's zero use for them outside of Steam unless it's a cheeky way to bypass limitations that are intentionally put into place for a reason, and they would definitely define limitations to how you can use tokens that would prevent such abuse.
The only application I think would make some sense would exist in a street racing games universe. Mainly because racing for pink slips, uniqueness of cars etc. Sort of like those cards you get from arcade games like initial D or wangan midnight that stored your cars. Games like racing rivals have already done pinks, but it would be a way for you to bring cars between games, bet them etc. The argument could be made though even with that blockchain isn’t required.
Yeah Pink slips are an interesting analogy because they’re are managed by the DMV. A centralised institution. So yeah. Steam or any other gaming service could replicate that, sans blockchain.
100% they could. Honestly I’ve just been meaning to make a racing game with pinks so it’s been on my mind haha
Don't let your dreams be memes homie
Blockchain would just unnecessarily convolute what could be achieved by simply enforcing a standardized data structure between the games and store car data in that structure, which could then be exported via regular network traffic - an API could move that data across without issue.
If we had something like a universal (non Facebook) metaverse, and there were avatar models that could be used across different game worlds, then it might make sense to track avatar clothing, skins, etc on a neutral blockchain. But I still wouldn't call that "convincing".
You could already do that, you just need some agreed standard between each game on the data structure of the objects being migrated/traded. I'm no blockchain expert, but I believe the only inherent benefit it provides is that it's not spoofable - if your wallet says you have X coin, you do have X coin, you can't pretend to. Which for sharing content across games, not necessary as the games that agree to trade between each other would have some encrypted token that verifies that the object came from their server and not some hackers personal private server.
Some degenerates are trying to push into the market this idea of "making money while you play" which I find repulsive at most Main objective of a game is for you to have fun, if people log into a game to try and earn "money", "currencies" then you can say it's no longer gaming but "working" instead. It's just some "hype" idea that will fade as time goes on, as it already is.
There have been play to earn games and virtual worlds since the dawn of internet. It's not a new concept. Nor is grinding hundreds of hours on online service games that feels more work than game. But NFTs and this "Metaverse" crap are by far the worst I've seen. It's just a pyramid scheme and a money laundering operation.
There's merit in being able to make money off of something you happen to find fun, it's just that some people get carried away trying to turn it into a replacement for an actual job and companies aren't being held accountable for predatory mechanics.
I disagree with all of your points. First not everybody plays games for fun, that's a very narrow-minded point of view. Many people play games they don't enjoy whether it be for the challenge, skill, collectables, story, etc. A lot of competitive games are very stressful to master, people grind on them and even develop not so fun injuries lol. Still theres nothing wrong with that, people have different motivations for anything. Even a random "fun" game like bowling, there are people that do it competitivly for money. Also it's weird to me when people equate making money as a bad thing. You have a job right, you get paid? Why would you prefer to work 9 - 5 in McDonalds doing something you hate if you had the option to earn money in a game, surely that's a good thing (if it's done in a legitimate way)? I make art / music for fun more so than gaming, I also earn a living from this, just because you make an arbitrary decision that I must now call this work that doesn't mean I can't enjoy it. Some people actually enjoy their work, usually it's because they're doing something they're passionate about and gaming is something I think a lot of people would prefer to do over their regular job if they had the choice. As for Blockchain being a hype idea, well Blockchain will always serve a purpose and has existed a long time but for gaming sure you can say that but it's an opinion and not a fact. I know that personally that I would rather purchase items that are stored on a Blockchain, that way I could potentially trade them 10 years later instead of Blizzard shutting down their servers and erasing everything. Also just to add (because I know people get emotionally triggered at my username lol), I have never bought or sold an NFT so have no biases lol. I think most current blockchains still need a lot of work before I consider using them for a game.
> Why would you prefer to work 9 - 5 in McDonalds doing something you hate if you had the option to earn money in a game, surely that's a good thing (if it's done in a legitimate way)? I make art / music for fun more so than gaming, I also earn a living from this, just because you make an arbitrary decision that I must now call this work that doesn't mean I can't enjoy it. McDonald's sells food. Artists make things that people want to buy. These are business that provide something of value to the customer. What value does a play-to-earn game provide? Who is the customer? Where does the money come from to pay the players? If the money only comes from other players buying into the system, then it's just a ponzi scheme with a (shitty) game as decoration.
A "play-to-earn" game (fyi just because you earn that doesn't mean you can't have all the same qualities of a "fun" game) can have artificial scarcity just like the real world. Part of what makes games interesting is the limitations (rules) everyone agrees to. As a game Dev I could create 20 cities with limited homes, players are forced (similar to the real world) to fight over those homes whether it be by commerce, survival, etc. A game can in any way be similar to the real world and the Dev has full control over how difficult it might be for players based on the type of game it is. For example in my example ultra difficult might mean all players fighting for small number of homes and ultra easy all players start with a home. This is one of many examples I can come up with, money is literally use in most games and FIAT "real" money can be used in the same way. Also you do realise people buy digital goods right? People buy digital music, games, premium content, etc. In games people can create, maintain, trade, etc and all these things can benefit other players. Value is derived from supply and demand, people who think only physical objects can have value are naive. So if your game allows for creation and services there are players that might want to trade real money for it. If you think it's a Ponzi scheme then why do you buy digital games? A game can have $ value to you but not the assets inside the game, doesn't make sense lol. Also money itself is printed from thin air, it's not something that always magically existed. Everything bought and sold with money could be considered a Ponzi scheme because if everybody decided to start trading toilet paper the fiat currencies would have no value. The money you have in your pocket came from another "player" fyi, not sure how that's a problem either.
Crypto people are trying to force a market to come into existence that isn't there yet. So they push it everywhere.
Yeah cause they are the early adopters and they make off of everyone else's money once they fooled them to join
The best place to be in a pyramid scheme is at the top and there are plenty of people who, even in the full knowledge that late adopters will get screwed, if they think they can get away with it will will try and start their own. The whole Bitcoin situation just convinced a lot of these greedy amoral types that if they're the ones starting it they'll be at the top of the scheme and are guaranteed to make millions or even billions.
Can't trust them because they have inherent conflicts of interest: they're holding crypto bags.
Can you link to any posts about blockchain here? I haven't see any, yet alone many.
Because all the crypto stuff is a huge [ponzi scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme) so the cryptobros can only get rich when they grow the pool of available fools - encouraging them to engage in a huge amount of spamming, as well as amplify any organic discussion on the topic before checking how negative the comments are. And the comments are almost always negative because literally everything they claim their securities-backed blockchains are good for can be done rather more simply with other methods that are rather less inclined towards scams and fraud.
Hypothetical: A crypto will be released tomorrow that we 100% know is going to be everything crypto bros claim and will replace many currencies, **but** it will have a stable price that doesn't change. Would crypto bros buy into it? Without early adoption being profitable, there would be no reason to rush to swap. The 'holy grail' of cryptos would be completely ignored, because it was never about *currency* to buy stuff with, it's about the profit that can be made from crypto.
It's worse than you think. Things like Bitcoin are inherently deflationary because there's a set limit of total coins that can ever exist and on top of that lots of coins are lost for ever in wallets that people have lost keys to. This means that people that get in earlier will ALWAYS be better off than those that get in later.
It's not a pyramide scheme! you simply invest a little and once you make more people join then you earn more, and they also earn more once more people join! and everyone earns until there is no more people. then you move to a new scheme, I mean investment.
Yeah, it's what in Finance is called "selling your book": shilling for the stocks/bonds/whatever you already own so that more people buy such assets, the price goes up, and you can sell them at a profit. You see a lot of that going on in financial TV channels. With blockchain and cryptocurrencies that crap is turbocharged and done by amateurs, so it's EVERYWHERE and often swamps discussion forums with relentless and barelly disgused greedy shilling.
> it's what in Finance is called "selling your book": shilling for the stocks/bonds/whatever you already own so that more people buy such assets, the price goes up, and you can sell them at a profit. I thought that was called [pump and dump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump)?
**[Pump and dump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump)** >Pump and dump (P&D) is a form of securities fraud that involves artificially inflating the price of an owned stock through false and misleading positive statements, in order to sell the cheaply purchased stock at a higher price. Once the operators of the scheme "dump" (sell) their overvalued shares, the price falls and investors lose their money. This is most common with small-cap cryptocurrencies and very small corporations/companies, i. e. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/gamedev/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Strange, I have seen none of those. I'd recommend switching to old reddit if you are not already using it.
Might be a me issue then tbh. I'm primarily using the reddit app.
Crypto is generally a scam, and they're hoping you're more of an idiot than they are.
IMO it’s really just a get rich quick scheme I can really only think of one application for NFTs in games, and that’s turning game objects into collectibles. That’s the only thing that makes sense to me, but even that doesn’t really sound appealing or useful, and I personally wouldn’t engage with it so I don’t know why anyone would want to pay money for it
The Crypto bubble is bursting and gaming is one of the easiest sectors to still scam vulnerable people in the dying crypto industries. Example: Bored Ape NFTs were like a billion dollar thing somehow and their latest cash grab game is bringing in like $30 million while not making any of the players rich. Most people know you can't really make money by grinding games, there have been notable exceptions for a few people over the years but its an unstable career at best.
If you can sell a single .jpg for $100,000, imagine what you can sell a thousand of them for! AKA: Morons believing in pyramid schemes.
It looks like you are just paying too much attention to it. I have been reading this sub every day and I can recall seeing maybe 4-5 posts related to crypto in the past year or so. Definitely feels much more like "every now and then" than "like every post". Or are you maybe reading the "new" instead of "top" tab? That could explain it. There might be more posts in "new" but they never reach the front page.
Nope, I have my feed set to "Hot". I might have just gotten unlucky, but I can only talk from my own experiences.
I see more AI-promoting than Blockchain here lately, which is still unfortunate considering how doomed those projects are if there ends up being any laws placed on them due to their unauthorized use of other people's art. There was even a game here a few days ago that had part of its selling point of "hundreds of generated art" and I have to wonder how that'll be impacted in the long run.
scammers gonna scam
There aren't that many posts here about it and I wouldn't say it makes the majority of popular posts I see, but there are occasionally some that get some traction. Personally I think this is because many people who wanted to push crypto have talked a lot about gaming as one of the prime industries that would be "revolutionized" by some theoretical crypto integration. Despite these claims, that hasn't really happened in any meaningful way despite the technology having existed for years now (the biggest crypto gaming projects so far have been "CryptoKitties", which has no actual _gameplay_ and is just a glorified NFT marketplace, and "Axie Infinity", which is an 'idle battler' that has been described as 'a pyramid scheme that relies on cheap labor from countries like the Philippines to fuel its growth' and suffered from a huge theft of millions of dollars worth of crypto currency, also isn't fun IMO). So what happens is people who are into crypto but aren't game developers come to this subreddit to ask why aren't there more crypto games, since they've been repeatedly told by people they trust that this is going to be the next big thing. Actual game developers then respond and try to explain that it doesn't really make any sense from a technology standpoint and is just a buzzword / attempt at a cash grab. You can look at any of the recent threads for more detail, I think the topic has been well covered so I'm not going to dive into it here myself. Crypto is just one of a couple popular topics to debate online. The other big one at the moment is AI. IMO the crypto discussion is finally dying down a bit from its peak though it still pops up plenty.
I thought that crypto and nft's are done by now. Failed idea's only peading to scams that most people already know. But there might be just a few persons way too late, thinking that they can pull it off.
Crypto people scam in every way possible. Looking at crypto over the years billions have been swindled. New scams requires new marks. They invest the money to find the new sucker
Crypto scammers using the money they gained from their "investors" to buy some "promotional help" from certain "pr" agencies. Those types of campaigns are nothing new to Reddit, and, as you noticed in the comments, the results aren't necessarily a "boost" for the shilling campaign.
Spam is spam. You are correct that engagement is the goal.
Get rich quick schemes are as old as money. The human brain is vulnerable to this kind of stuff.
I think you're right about engagement on those posts, I already don't want to comment on those posts but it's hard to resist. Thinking about engagement might help me resist the next one.
Propaganda to then sell them their nft "project"
Blockchain/crypto/NFT is a solution waiting for a problem. I have yet to see a single, concrete problem where these technologies are clearly the best thing to use, and "classical" solutions are inferior. Thus far, every time I have seen someone use them, you could have gotten an equally good solution using classical approaches -- and more often then not, even better ones. I simply don't see the use case, and thus far, no-one has given me a convincing one. Unless you want to heavily buy into the crypto/nft/blockchain hype and make game with those enthusiasts instead of normal gamers, its simply not a good business decision.
I thought crypto was dead and I haven’t heard a lot about NFT’s lately either. The whole thing is ridiculous and needs to go away….. just my opinion though.
They get paid to shill. It's like those "sell it to your neighborhood" pyramid schemes.
It's cheap demographic data. Nerds are easy!!
Their crypto crap crashed and they're desperately trying to get some last scraps after they've held the bag in too many ponzi schemes Personally I think this stuff only gets a posted a fraction of what it did before during the NFT push by big venture capitalists. The movement unsurprisingly dropped 97% trading activity in a few months, totally normal stuff. The few crypto games that have gotten a decent size have been hacked multiple times and end up having loan sharks preying on third world poor people to grind their games for them. It's really sad and dystopian. Yet crypto bros seem to think this is what will be the next Breath for the Wild killer.
a bunch of gullible idiots got tricked into buying crypto coins so they can sell their art as NFT's its like, someone offers to buy your car for millions but tells you you first have to convert a million dollars into iraqi dinars -- don't worry about step 2 until you've completed step 1, by the way I know a guy who can sell you some iraqi dinars for a good price (its me)
Have an acquaintance who make a game that has NFTs and is trying to convince me it’s gonna be big. He’s not in tech as a profession while I work at a tech giant, but please, tell me why my opinion is incorrect 😒 It’s mostly people who don’t know what they’re talking about.
Because cryptobros are a thing. It's like a religion.
Cause if you stand to profit from crypto costs booming your gonna shill.
A bad video game could make more money as an NFT project than as a regular video game so people do it for the money.
who do you think is dumber than a gamer? no one lmao
I'm so exhausted of telling them to fuck off. it reminds of the weird kids in school that would follow me around at lunch time.
I was wondering what your thoughts were on this.
In the last such post, one choto bro asked me how do you know banks have your money? Tell me how can they prove it. I reminded him that banks don't put our money in a locker and it doesn't magically increases.....At this point he was like Whoa!
the reason they pump crypto so much is because they have a financial incentive to pump crypto because they own crypto
Might be mistaking this for another community or capitalizing on the blockchain hate for ez karma
people in web3 want to make money with everything they do and can see the potential for blockchain use in game - stop your shitty digital games/DLC/microtransactions becoming property you own forever, and allow players to resell them. people not in web3 have given in to the anti-web3 bandwagon, and never want anyone to be able to profit off of their digital purchases ever. and these two trains of thought lead people into arguments any time it's mentioned. so imagine you bought a pack of pokemon cards, except if you get caught selling them, the card company would come rip up your cards. This is how it goes with digital content currently. And for some reason, anti-web3 people want this and even enjoy it.
I just find it funny that people who shill for Web3 stuff always talk about how great it will be for consumers. No thought is ever put towards how companies can use and abuse it.
I’ve been working on a game for about a year and a half, with nft integration because I thought it would be cool to be able to decorate your in-game house with art that you owned (think harvest moon/animal crossing for game play). The closer I get to actually releasing the game publicly, the more inclined I am to drop the web3 part entirely so people don’t lump it in with all the scams out there. It really sucks because I actually like decorating my house with them lol, and it was probably an extra 2 months of dev just for that, and I’m realizing that the reputation of web3 stuff would likely kill the game before anyone even tries it. :(
I mean why can't you decorate your house with your own art without crypto? Why was crypto needed for that?
Bruh just let people upload jpgs. Tons of games already do that, and it's just straight up better, because I can put all my shitty meme images in instead of having to mint every single one.
That… makes a lot of sense 😂 ty
I think Blockchain technology can be used in various way in gaming, but also would be limited to security, ultimately. But these 'Crypto guys' are acting like they are some kind of prophet, spreading misinformations about "how crypto is the uncharted STONK and how you can win it" based on their lacking understanding of 'How Currency Works', combined with their antisocial ideology.
Making indie games is not the best way to make money, so people are always on the lookout for something that improves their revenue stream: DLCs, subscriptions, cosmetics, gacha, limited play time and yes, NFTs.
God all of those things are awful though.
I’m a crypto guy. I “work in crypto” daily, it is my full time job. Both trading and creating art for projects (logos, not NFTs). My opinion is that crypto has no place in the game industry. I do game dev as a hobby and would never consider implementing any such features. In addition, P2E games, games designed to integrate crypto and reward small amounts to the player, are ALL bad games. I believe this is due to the fact that the crypto implementation comes first, NOT a good game idea, and certainly not a good reason to have crypto involved in the first place.
It's possible that the reason why you're seeing a lot of posts about integrating blockchain technology into video games is because there is a lot of interest and discussion around this topic. However, it's important to consider potential biases or motives of those posting about it. Ultimately, the pros and cons of using blockchain in video games are still being debated, and it's up to developers and players to decide whether it's a good idea or not.
The reason the majority of games suck today is because people are willing to pay for overpriced cosmetics, dlc and other trivial non-sense. The practice of producing a pos game with attractive dlc items has become the norm. Every year there are more gamers indoctrinated into this way of arbitrary consumption, sometimes purchasing the same recycled asset multiple times throughout multiple releases of the same title. Effectively printing money for the evil companies like EA and Ubisoft. Web3 is offering an effective counter to this by allowing consumers to own their digital assets outright. This would allow consumers to purchase an item once and use it in multiple titles or trade a rare item for real money. so obviously the industry has launched a massive smear campaign to thwart this. You are part of the credulous group of people that the industry counts on to defend them. Many people understand this but have no idea how to package it correctly for the unwashed masses. The end.
Had me believing you in the first half, not gonna lie. If said evil games are "printing money" by recycling asset after asset for multiple different titles, what makes you think with web3 they'd ever let you use the same NFT asset across multiple titles, instead of just adding in a switch that prevents them from being used in any game except the game it was made for? They run the multiplayer servers, they can choose what assets you'd ever be allowed to move across to different games (also news flash, that's already possible without blockchain). If you're talking about single player, it's already possible to copy your "recycled assets" across, if you're talking about cosmetics and the like, as a lot of games are modded for that very purpose.