Technology

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.