this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
168 points (96.7% liked)
Technology
58451 readers
5648 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nfts don't give you ownership over anything but the nft itself. Everything else is a license system that says, "You can have this because you have an nft," you know, the exact same system we have now but will more bullshit .
It's quite amazing that these people don't realize that they're just reinventing DRM, but worse.
Less shit. You could actually trade your fucking games and would not be limited to one platform
you're still limited to one platform, the vendor has to recognise the NFT, and vendors are only going to recognise their own NFT's that they saw value from selling.
there is no benefit to bullshit NFT tokens, unless you are running a ponzi scheme.
Then those games would be subject to Gresham's law LMAO. I would never trust a company that allows transfers between platforms.
Why would allowing transfer between platforms be a bad thing? You wouldn't necessarily have to be able to buy on any given platform, but it could be the case that the license allows use on multiple different platforms.
You would have a platform to trade games, and another to keep them. The trading platform will be able to undercut the holding platform due to practices such as exclusivity deals. This, in turn, will make the holding platform require a commission fee whenever a game is transferred to it.
If you could get a game for free in the Epic store and transfer it to Steam, where does Steam get the money from?
If you can transfer / buy everywhere, how would there be any exclusivity, though?
Platforms are all already dealing with the possibility that they don't make money but still have to distribute the games. If you bought a game for $0.99 on Steam 15 years ago, and you download it today, they're not making money off you. If you download a F2P game via Steam and never buy anything, they lose money. Hell, I've never bought anything on Steam, but I've probably downloaded terabytes of data from them. They're not making money on me, except maybe with ads (which would apply to this other scenario too).
The platforms also already have to deal with the issue of not getting paid because you bought / got the game somewhere else. You can buy from GMG, etc. and then download from Steam. And publishers give away games frequently during anniversaries, etc. that you then download from Steam or Epic.
My thinking is that the platforms would obviously want to make money, so they're going to price compete to make sure you buy it there instead of buying it somewhere else and downloading it from there.
I also think an inevitable outcome of digital distribution in general is that companies are going to start charging for downloads. Digital games are one time purchases requiring lifetime support. They're not going to let it work that way forever.
The NFT is the item though, and it can be easily resold
So? If the licence holder wanted, they could just put an option in for you to sell what you have. The nft does not matter. It is not needed and is just added bullshit
How do you think they can force me to sell?
Force? No one said force. I am talking about something like steam letting you sell your game. They could if they wanted and it doesn't need nfts. Nfts are just bullshit coins that serve no real purpose.
Everything you might claim you can do with nfts, you can do today without nfts, or it's a ponzi scheme.
NFTs are a necessary prerequisite for trading games with peers without being locked into some bullshit monopoly like steam community trading
you're still locked in because the licence provider has to recognise the NFT, the lock-in is with the licence provider. all the NFT is, is a ticket that says "I'm allowed".
it's the exact same thing but will added bullshit.
if you want a tradable token that doesn't require lock-in, that token has to have intrinsic value. Like with a physical disk with a movie on it. there is no lock-in to a vendor system, it's got everything it needs right there. it has intrinsic value.
NFT's are a bullshit ticket that says "please give me access, you pwomised", that you can sell if you want. but you could just do the same thing inside the vendors own system and it's all exactly the same because the vendor has to say yes/no in the end, as the nft has no value.
This to me would be the potential big benefit. One of the problems right now is that there really isn't an organization that everyone would trust to just hold onto their licenses without demanding some kind of exclusivity, etc. If Valve is the one holding your license to Borderlands 3, they're not gonna let you play on Epic using that license. They want you to use their services.
If there's a third party that is just in charge of licenses, and those licenses work everywhere, that basically makes launcher exclusivity impossible and also makes it so that licenses continue to live even if the launcher dies.
For the record, I think NFTs / Blockchain solutions are typically the stupidest shit in the world, but there was a Blockchain game licensing proposal some years back, and it actually would have avoided some of the vendor lock-in / licenses evaporating when the vendor dies type issues we're dealing with now.
The problem is just that none of the publishers or launchers would ever play ball with the idea. They stand to make more money by not playing nicely with everyone else.
A movie is not an NFT...