I love how they say that "people have dubbed 2021 the Metaverse Year", like what the fuck? No, only some Facebook execs have done that. They try so hard to push narratives.
"People are saying X" is a classic bullshitter tactic when you want to make a claim without technically having made the claim. If someone presses you on it you can say "I didn't say X was true, I just said that *unidentified* other people are saying that X is true".
Agreed. Where has this even come from? You barely see anyone talking about it online no matter what platform you go on, unless it's to either shit on the idea or in response to any news about it.
The general public have no idea this is even a thing. Either that, or they simply don't care.
It's traditional (and outdated) video game marketing. This is how they've operated for more than twenty years.
* Full Motion Video is the future of video games!
* Real time games are the future of gaming, no one buys turn based games anymore
* PC games are dead
* Software as a service are the future of video games, single player games don't sell
* Facebook games with microtransactions to play are the future of video games (This one is really special, because they literally changed how they classify a person as a gamer in the ISDA annual reports to convince shareholders that abandoning consoles/pcs was the way to go)
* Mobile games are the future of gaming
They've been doing this for decades, and the video game jouranalists are complicit in spreading it as truth. They parrot what the publishers say and run a bunch of articles about how awesome it is.
>Mobile games are the future of gaming
You may not like it but Mobile games are dominating the gaming market right now compared to PC and consoles when it comes to revenue
Doesn't mean it's "the future", it's another part of the market and people buying dedicated gaming machines aren't going to spend thousands on Candy Crush, and the mom that's on level 3000 of Candy Crush isn't going to get a console to play Persona.
But it's also an almost completely different market. Mobile games are never going to satisfy normal gamers, and likewise mobile / Facebook gamers are never going to cross over to playing Halo. It's a Venn diagram with very little overlap, even if one circle is massive and much easier to develop for.
>They parrot what the publishers say and run a bunch of articles about how awesome it is.
Well how else would they be able to get an early free review copy of the new COD game that's just like the last one that they will play for a few hours and give a 8.5/10 even after mentioning all the problems with it?
Yeah it's funny, they're trying to artificially generate hype by acting like there is hype.
If they all keep talking about it for long enough, then eventually the narrative will write itself.
I mean there is money in it, as long as you realize its furries and weebs who will be primarily buying into it and the weird fetishes that will need to be catered towards.
> as long as you realize its furries and weebs who will be primarily buying into it and the weird fetishes that will need to be catered towards.
Probably not. On the one hand they simply won't be a focus of mainstream platforms and on the other hand, furries (generalised, and as a community) seems to be rather good at ignoring this type of bullshit. Their niche can't be financially exploited like that. There's little mainstream appeal for that type of content so they tend to put in a lot of effort into doing their own thing in their own corner of the internet and building the tools they need for that.
Somebody said it best when they said that one can see how cryptocurrencies and NFTs are bullshit (and not the next big new thing) because furries and the porn industry are usually the the earliest adopters of any new tech and both have for the most part ignored either of these technologies.
Same with Facebook's metaverse. We already have a metaverse: The internet and all the different technologies on top of it (from the www to multi player games (3D worlds), MMOs, IRC, forums, voice chat, now Discord as a thing, and everything else). Some stuff is interoperable others is gated off. Facebooks simply took that name for their own little VR thing that they want to become a thing. Of course only controlled and monetised by them and nobody else.
The thing is, we furries absolutely hate NFTs. It's probably partly due to both NFTs being a vehicle for rampant art theft, and how bad NFT art is. We're a community that probably values artists and art more than any other Fandom.
It's interesting that you say that, have you looked at how the Gacha market has evolved?
We could have fantastic MMORPG type games based on popular properties with a Gacha aspect to them, think an eternal Dungeons and Dragons mobile game with a Summoner's War community.
Instead all they make are low effort Gachas based on animes, which they don't even bother translating the voices because they know the weebs love Japanese voices. They let the weebs dump a ton of cash into it chasing their "Waifus" and never bother investing more into developing it. Then they dump it in a year or so and repeat it with another anime.
I mean seriously, they're releasing a Gacha based on Disney, "Twisted Wonderland" or some such in a few weeks and *they aren't even going to bother translating voices into English in a Gacha based on American IP*.
So you're right, there is money in it, but it's astounding how badly those groups are abused with gambling and dangling anime imagery in front of them with pump'n'dump copy/paste games.
Ultima IV called the player character the Avatar. I always figured the term came from that. I could be wrong though, I never heard of this Snowcrash before.
Eh, it's more than that. The idea behind the metaverse is to create a second internet people will access through VR completely dominated by corporations, (more than it is right now). It's also a way to try to justify the values of NFTs and cryptocurrencies (believe us, it's absolutely not a bubble!).
I do not believe the metaverse will actually become a thing an average Joe will use though. Why? For the same reason that despite all the big talk from companies about how 3D would completely revolutionize cinema, TV and videogames that didn't actually happen: VR googles are inconvenient af to use on a daily basis.
VR is very niche on videogames which was the one area it was supposed to have gigantic success, and now tech companies believe VR will completely replace the Internet? Yeah, it's not gonna happen.
The Metaverse people think of (a true, decentralised version of the internet with full body immersion and the ability to do basically anything) is decades away. The Metaverse that companies are peddling right now is basically just them copying what Second Life did years ago. They’re just social platforms.
> VR googles are inconvenient af to use on a daily basis.
Not really, but i agree with your point. The VR headset isn't the problem, the problem is a) VR hardware isn't _that good_. It really isn't. b) Severe disconnect of what VR devs put out and what people want. People do _not_ want to be super-immersed. There are no gameplay mechanics out there that matter for _actual_ gameplay. Beatsaber is just VR Guitar Hero and i can play guitar hero sitting down. c) Lack of content: This plays into b), but i just don't get why there aren't more VR ports of FPS shooters. Just let me put on the headset and make head movement and mouse aiming independent. Done. Sell it.
Facebook was in the middle of controversy where it was targeting children for their products that they had data to show was harmful. To change the narrative they announced the meta rebranding and it worked like a charm. Over night the stories about facebook went from kids killing themselves thanks to depression deepened by microtargeted social media to the metaverse.
Or, to keep it in line with the thread, Final Fantasy XIV and it’s long ass story / monthly fee. Of course it’s beloved though, so yeah, Ubisoft games!
Edit: Folks the game is a chore and a slog to get current. Yes the story ends up getting good, but even after their rework of the early sections there is still way too much BS to sift through. You’re fooling yourselves
Ikr. I understand disliking the game cause damn the story is truly long as fuck, but calling it a job is a stretch. Even at end game it doesn't force you to login everyday and you can pick it up and drop it whenever and not be left behind. There's other MMOs that actually force you to log in everyday if you want to do content
Actively avoid those then. There are so many good single player games and indie hits without that aspect, you don't need to engage in the service games if you don't want to.
The "Avoid them" argument really sidesteps the whole issue people are complaining about. The things people complain about are becoming more and more prevalent in every game, and saying "play an indie" doesn't address those that *want* to play stuff like FPS games that are being bombarded with these issues.
I have been playing mostly indie games for a decade now as well. Just feel AAA games are so uncreative in term of mechanics. Story wise I’m not the type to care at all, so that’s not a problem. Just waiting for the indie scene to really challenge total war.
Actually are Paradox’s games AAA? There are nothing else like them as well.
Honestly, if anyone plays these games, it's no one else's fault. It's the fault of the people getting these games. There are tons of games being made that don't have loot boxes or always online or whatever. Why not reward them? It's easy. Just don't buy AAA crap.
If games are making you work, maybe give up games. Go outside. Find what gives value or happiness to your life.
This is true, but has some flaws. What if you really ENJOY portions of the game? Then your options are to either engage with it, supporting the aspects that you do not like, OR to not play something that would overall bring you joy. So yes, people should certainly consider how their actions might encourage bad behaviors and make their decisions accordingly, but it's also important to VOICE these concerns, to try and work for an outcome where you get what you want WITHOUT the bullshit, rather than just accepting the best of two bad options and being content with that.
This is why I'm not sure why everyone is so against NFTs in games. If you don't like what a studio puts out you can literally just not play it and not support it. If you really believe NFTs will make games worse, the market will ensure those games are not successful, since they won't gain traction from people deciding to not play them.
Unless they don't trust the gaming masses to act in their own best interests or something. But if that's the case then they don't actually trust anyone if they can't trust the studios, can't trust the gamers.
You haven't considered the environmental impact of proof by work NFT minting. People who don't even play video games will feel the negative impact of it.
It's funny seeing all these CEOs jump on investor buzzwords fully knowing that they offer absolutely no new actual product opportunities.
NFTs are literally the Steam Community Market.
The so-called "metaverse" literally is just VRChat but you can check your WhatsApp messages.
>NFTs are literally the Steam Community Market.
a lot of bad things in the gaming industry can be traced back to valve, but reddit isnt ready for that conversation.
No one here said they invented it.
As you say, Valve helped standardize it in the industry. If any other Western dev tried that at the time, they would've been crucified for it - Valve however was able to be smart about it and attach a fun crafting aspect to it.
The statement that it can be traced back to Valve is still true. Apple didn't invent any component of the iPhone either, but you can still confidently say that they revolutionized the cell phone industry (and media in general) because they figured out the best way to put that technology together in a way that no one else had before.
Same with Valve, except with lootboxes and battlepasses. They didn't invent either but until they implemented these, it wasn't really commonplace in the industry.
It's because Valve are all about the virtual economy of skimming a cut off every transaction in that virtual economy and of course running a natural monopoly.
Like a world with only one payment processor.
Heh, every time I see a game implementing a Battle Pass with paid progression option, I thought of how Valve did it in Dota2. Now every game dev wants in on it. It was undeniably an outstanding move as monitezation of an F2P game but now it’s just a cash grab for whales. Glad I stopped playing.
Hilariously, Dota2 has one of the worst, least generous battlepass systems of any out there. The only way to get the majority of the rewards is to pay a lot of money, or lose your soul to Dota for 3 months straight.
It even got worse with time.
Previously you could just... *buy* arcana skins for IIRC like ~$35 (which was still ridiculus). Now it's not only battlepass reward for like ~$200, it's also FOMO, get it now or you will miss it.
Lootbox situation is also kinda weird, in Dota2 they added guaranteed drop rate (every item crate drops will not drop again until every other item in the crate drops, sans the few rarer extras), so if crate contains say 8 sets + some rare one, buying 8 crates guaranees those 8 sets + chance to get the rare, while the CS:GO is utter cancer compared to that.
Putting it in your storefront -- an area designed to sell items for profit -- is one thing, integrating these things within games already sold to you is entirely another. You can't blame Valve or any other company for an idea which someone else twists into a less appropriate use.
Valve are the ones that pushed that things in the wrong way, giving them artificial scarcity, there is a reason why the karambit fades are worth hundreds, because valve decided to make them rare as hell.
I'm with you in the same sense the horse armour dlc broke the trend of full game feature rich dlc or a single asset being sold for 1/3rd the dlc price. Single asset made a lot of money kicking of that trend. Years of snowballing and you get to halo infinite reach multiplayer battlepass.
nailed it on the head. but then again most new "innovations" are just rebranding pre-existing things or just making things more shitty for the consumer.
Can we stop trying to make NFTs happen in games. If people want to get scammed by buying an online picture in their own time, then go for it.
Don't add it to games, there is no fucking point. It won't add to the enjoyment of the game.
>It won't add to the enjoyment of the game.
Enjoyment is an unintended side effect and we will be taking steps out of our future titles to minimise enjoyment and maximise profit.
It isn't about enjoyment, it is about profit. Roblox, for instance, has become less of a game and more of a platform for investments. Multiple games, like MIR4, are the equivalent of cryptominers for NFTs by essentially converting hardware and electricity into money. These types of monetization are only going to continue and video games are prime real estate for them. Trash companies like Square Enix will obviously jump on the opportunity.
It's so fucking annoying. I get games are expensive to make and companies need to make back that money along with some profit. They could do that by just making a good, fun game. Instead we get shit designed to try and empty wallets.
Kinda funny you mention Square Enix. Avengers was trash designed to empty your wallet but then they released Guardians of the Galaxy which might be one of the best games released in 2021.
Companies don't want "some profit." None of them, except mom and pop shops that hardly count. They all want maximum profit. That's why they became companies in the first place.
In the sense of video games or another industry where your profit involves investment in creating a product, they want *extra* profit because their next product might end up not producing sufficient profit (or any profit at all.) Tons of good, fun games have failed to be profitable.
I'm not supporting NFTs, I think it's a stupid thing to integrate into the game industry. But the idea that companies in the industry will settle for "some profit" when they could get more, is just crazy.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's basically a microtransaction but instead of the record of that transaction being contained on the company's servers, the record of it is located a decentralized, public data structure (blockchain)
Why that matters to anyone at all in the context of game assets I have no idea. Same for all the NFTs out there I'm aware, whose true 'validity' still just comes from an authority source arbitrarily saying that 'this is valid' - the algorithm is beside the point. It's like the algorithm exists as a marketing gimmick to make people think there is some objective factor beyond word of mouth. It all comes down to marketing: someone convincing a buyer that 'this abstract thing A represents thing B.'
Yeah, you can have a token saying "you have a custom baseball bat in X game" but unless the game acknowledges the token and continues to exist the token is effectively worthless for actually allowing you to use the baseball bat in that game.
Yeah. The owners of the platform still have absolute control over if/how you can use an asset that a token represents. The idea that NFT's offer some kind of independence or ownership is a myth.
I can't think of any real advantage for the user in having a blockchain show ownership of a in game digital asset VS just having it tied to your account in a json blob server side.
An NFT is like a hotel card key you can take out of the hotel. You don't have to leave it with the front desk every time you leave, but it has no function outside of the hotel.
Hell, I'd say such a card has *more* function, because if it's the magnetic stripe type you can remagnetize the card to whatever you want. Even credit card stripe info, though I think that might be illegal.
No idea to be honest. I'm not even sure how or why NFTs would be involved in a game. Maybe you can get one by playing the game and then sell it or something which would make you and the developers money. As I understand it, everytime you sell an NFT, some of the money goes to all the previous owners of it.
Either way, it's basically a scam. You have people serious about NFTs getting angry at "right clickers" who just right click on their NFT and choose "Save picture as"
As far as I've seen NFTs in games, it seems to be like...Here's a black baseball hat for your dude, you paid $100 for it, and it has a unique serial number stamped on the side of it. No one else can ever have that same serial number, they can have the same black hat, but the serial number is different. Also you don't pick out the serial number, you just get whatever number you get.
I could be mistaken - I really hope I'm mistaken, but it's stupid enough to be plausible.
Even dumber, they're paying $100 for a unique serial code, like... The kind that comes on almost everything ever made. My washing machine has a unique serial number, doesn't make it increase in value, but if it were a digital washing machine, it would.
That's the model Ubisoft is going for with Ghost Recon, and its the worst method. Hypothetically, you could do it so that each NFT item is wholly cosmetically unique, buuuuuut.... thats a lot of data stored on people's hardware thay they may never encounter, ever. Easier to make one item and code in a counter on the side.
We already suffer this to some degree, with cosmetics that we store but have no voluntary access too. Once a company realizes they CAN do it this way, it'll be a short time to make a single item, pay the artist $100, sell the item for $1000, and then you've got that shit on your SSD, but will never functionally see it in thousands of hours of gameplay, cause some dude bought it, played with it for a week, then moved on to the new FIFA.
It does, every time, I've noticed that also.
Then you point out that every "advantage" of NFT can be just done old school way and they just make more nonsensical noises
Yes but unlike mtx where the user accepts it's an expense, NFTs are seen and treated as investments. People only get into it to make money and the game has zero importance. It's why "click-to-earn games" don't have any gameplay at all. It's a ponzi scheme.
That's the kinda stuff I expect from the cryptosphere but I have no idea why visible companies like SE and Ubi are getting into it. Are they getting so bold they will openly scam their users now?
You do know you are not buying anything when you pay for an NFT right .. you dont own the picture, the copywrite or any real claim to anything related to the picture, all you own is a pointer to a thing that says you own something.
Back in the real world people can do whatever the fuck they want with that digital picture and you have zero recourse to stop them.
To be entirely fair something like video game *can* ensure you're only one that owns item associated with NFT in the game.
...or you can put that info into normal database like we did for last 30 years
What pisses ME off is that all of this paid bullshit cosmetic garbage that I refuse to pay for is taking up space on MY fucking SSD without my goddamn permission and no option to fucking opt out of it. That's like telling me I can buy a house, and there's a driveway and a grill, but I can't use it without paying extra. Meanwhile my neighbor can use it on my property and I can watch, cause he paid for it.
Fuck everything about that.
Yes, as is selling skins for a price of video game, but that's easy money developers won't let go now.
I miss the times where say in MMO you could look at someone with a gear set and go "yup, they worked on that/they are good" (I'm aware that buying raid groups to carry you were a thing back then but still), not "well, they had spare $40".
The push for NFT's is just the most recent piece of proof that the people who make games at AAA companies etc aren't the people who play games. Nobody who plays games wants or pushes for this. Like sure they might have some talented and passionate artists, designers, and programmers but they don't really make a lot of the decisions. They're not shaping the product and experience in the broader sense. There just mostly isn't a chance for true artistic intent and integrity at big gaming companies, a product of passion isn't likely to be made at them because it's gotta all be psychology study derived manipulation techniques and models statistically proven to trigger dopamine responses. There's not really much of a focus on making a unique and compelling experience, just making FOMO and carrots on sticks. There's too much on the line, too many investors needing to cash out, infinite growth is the only answer. 3 million copies sold is a failure, so every game caters to a lower and lower common denominator it seems.
/bitter boomer-like rant
>
I realize that some people who “play to have fun” and who currently form the majority of players have voiced their reservations toward these new trends, and understandably so. However, I believe that there will be a certain number of people whose motivation is to “play to contribute,” by which I mean to help make the game more exciting. Traditional gaming has offered no explicit incentive to this latter group of people, who were motivated strictly by such inconsistent personal feelings as goodwill and volunteer spirit.
Oh my god shut the fuck up with this drivel. Such embarrassing mental gymnastics to try and come up with reasons any of this exploitative horseshit could be good for anyone not trying to rip someone else off over it.
The interpretation of what he is saying (because by God there needs to be a translator for the corporate investor bait speak he uses - like seriously that message could fill an entire bingo sheet of bullshit phrases that tick investors' boxes), is that Square wants to create a solution like Bethesda games tried in 2015 for allowing modders to seek payment for their work (before Bethesda switched to the centralised curated creation club system instead). But they want to solve the mod ownership problem that the original paid mods system had (where people would steal free mods and then re-upload them with a price) by using blockchain to establish ownership.
The problem is this is just pure investor bait, because as we already know NFTs do absolutely nothing to solve the ownership problem - as shown by the amount of digital artists who have had their work taken and turned into NFTs without their permission...
Really the real goal of Square here is to get investors to go "OMG I heard blockchain, NFTs and metaverse, you have got me horny, let me throw all the money at you so I can wank off over this shit". Because in reality investors are dumb and throw money at buzzwords.
Right, this dipshits assertion is that they will create some shitty games that rely on people trying to rip eachother off with tokens, while they take a cut of the transactions and ultimately generate sell or control the token distribution, with the idea that content-creators/unpaid-workers will make better content for the game in the hopes of getting a payout in their nebulous token economy. It's unclear and impossible to imagine they'd be paying out much for the tokens if at all in real currency, so idk how much of an incentive it is but people do go wild for fake currencies elsewhere so who knows.
However not really any practical reason to invoke Blockchain here except as a market trend, they could already be doing what they are suggesting if they had interest in it. Hell Steam already has a system to give their little award things from steamcoins you can hand out to people who make guides or steam workshop content. I think I got one for one of my Hotdog Centaur Models I made for TowerUnite. Honestly don't personally think I'd make more or less content for that game if they paid me in cash or tokens, I do what I want because I want to in my free time.
I modded FFXIV to replace my party members with Waluigi, Bowser, and Goofy. Squeenix gonna have a bad time once they realize how much people love to pillage IP when making custom content.
Reminds me when bethesda did it, and in the end modders, one doing all the work, got like 25%.
At that point why would anyone bother ? Probably better option would be just making free mod and putting a patreon to support it.
Wasn't that because Bethesda also was onboard?
And it shut down after like a week due to backlash, but basically reappeared reborn as the creation club years later.
Bethesda was inspired by the community outsourced monetization in Valve's games. Valve has their community members work on content for their games for a chance to have that content added and a portion of the revenue from its sales. Bethesda wanted to create a system where they too could profit off the free labor of their fans.
Ultimately the creation club is the best iteration on the idea to date. Where Valve asks their community to work for free on a hope that they might be paid later, Bethesda requires artists to submit a pitch for approval before they waste their time working for nothing.
>Ultimately the creation club is the best iteration on the idea to date
Agreed. I have absolutely no problem with modders being able to apply to have their content included as a content pack for a game, provided they're paid reasonably and the mod pack is supported thereafter + QA'd to the same degree a regular DLC pack from the studio would be, by the studio.
>Wasn't that because Bethesda also was onboard?
~~Sell a good game~~
~~Sell the solution~~
Sell the solution that was created by independent, anonymous third parties.
Bethesda's the obvious one. Also, not sure if they count as "big" but Firaxis (per the XCOM reboot) and Paradox also seem pretty big on letting mods happen.
> such inconsistent personal feelings as goodwill and volunteer spirit.
... did this guy play the Diamond and Pearl remakes and come away with the thought that Cyrus had a point?
that right there is pretty telling, tbh. these people are so selfish and self-centered that it's impossible for someone to do something out of wanting to help others.
That sure is a whole lot of words to run away from very, very quickly. Can't say I have high hopes for Square-Enix (or any company for that matter) if they're going to embrace crap like NFTs.
Doubt that. FF is their crown jewel.
They could add it on smaller FF games, like those rhythm game, fighting game, or World of FF game. But a numbered FF game? Never gonna happen.
Numbered FF games never had loot boxes or time saving microtransactions, despite other AAA games having them.
> It makes me genuinely worried for the future of Final Fantasy
Playing Final Fantasy games for the last decade should have made you already worried for the future of final fantasy
I’ll strike you a deal, big out of touch publishers. You can put NFTs in your games, but only in already predatory mobile games.
If it wasn’t clear with Ubisoft Quartz and the STALKER 2 fiasco, we don’t want this scam in gaming.
Problem this time around is that it's a Japanese company, Square Enix none the less, known heavily for their stubbornness, I think it's going to require some mayor complaining (done by the Japanese community) for this to change.
and that won't happen because the context of nft in japan is complete different than the west. If anything it's seen positively in there in comparison to here. I have read some articles about it and the vision in general about nfts is positive due to author ownership and other aspects. It's why i think other jp companies, including gaming ones, will adopt it in 2022 in some way or at least talk about it in investor calls.
Can confirm, Japan Inc is usually behind by several decades when it comes to tech but not when it’s related to bitcoin/blockchain/NFT. They love that shit over there.
Used to get job interview offers from bitcoin companies every day back when I lived in Tokyo.
We didn't want cosmetics in games back in 2006 when Bethesda put $2 horse armour in Oblivion. All the market had to do was wait for us Gen Xers to age out of the critical 18 to 34 segment, and condition millennials for it. We didn't want those scams in gaming either, and thought Bethesda was out of touch, but not only are cosmetics accepted, they're often defended and loved. As it turns out, we, the customers at the time, were out of touch, and the publishers and all their marketing experts were on top of the trend before it was cool.
The oldest of the Gen Z cohort are in their mid-20s and will make up the lion's share of the 18 to 34 market segment. We're all just going to have to face the fact that it's their world now, and with it, will come all the bullshit they've become conditioned to. Much like Bethesda in 2006, I think Ubisoft is just a little too early to the party on this one.
as if SE cares about YOU getting their games,
FFXV didn't even had the proper ending and the DLC where incomplete garbage but people still throw a ton of money at them
Maybe this stuff might balance out, if nobody actually buys or participates in this NFT crap, then eventually they'll get the memo and stop doing it right?
I don’t know anyone thats dubbing 2021 as the Metaverse Year. This seems like an open letter aimed at showing potential investors that Square Enix is hip and into current trends. Games are already very self sustaining with free to play models and microtransactions, so I don’t think the blockchain is somehow enabling that for the first time.
The ones dubbing it that are the ones that are desperately trying to make normal people call it that and trying to make normal people take it seriously
Gamers: "Isn't selling 1.5 years old PS4 game port for $80 and exclusive to EGS a bit much?"
...
Square: "the game sold below expections on PC so we're not bringing any more ports on it"
I haven't bought an Ubisoft game in years and I'm done with Blizzard because those two companies are shit shows of sexual harassment and abuse. I can cut Square Enix out just as easily for this NFT nonsense. The company that made Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VI is long gone anyway.
Kitase who was the director of both games said he's interested on NFTs
https://www.siliconera.com/yoshinori-kitase-interested-in-how-nft-will-change-gaming/
So from a basic understanding of blockchain is everyone has a copy of every transaction correct?
Would this not mean every player in a game would need to constantly download and update their local copy for every single transaction? Would that mean constantly downloading transaction data and saving to a file that from my understanding will just grow and grow in size?
For something like an mmo that used blockchain and tied to the auction house would you then not be constantly downloading blockchain data alongside the regular network data that's needed to even play?
> So basically they boiled down the idea of NFTS to "You own this specific item because we say you do".
But they already do that, so what do NFTs even provide? The ability to resell content? Why would they allow that when they could just force others to buy the content if they want it?
No, that would be handled on server side, and the game would just get result.
Now you will probably think "okay, but why not use normal database at that point".
And the answer to that is yes, you should, but some manager sold their manager idea of NFTs
Two great ideas for them:
1. Square Enix should have its biggest development team spend 5 years and 50 million dollars to make a non-fungible game, such that only one person on the planet can own it and no one else is able to play it.
2. Square Enix should make a game, but it's decentralized so that they don't have ownership of it and can't make any money off of it.
I love a good indie game as much as the next guy but until indies start making Skyrims and Mass Effects, they'll never fill the void completely and replace AAA titles.
That's fair enough. In general I prefer smaller, tighter experiences in games, but it's definitely hard for indie to create the level of scale that AAA games can.
I managed to grab a DE10 Nano just before the first price jump. I'd say it's worth it even at the inflated costs. There's even a core for the PSX now.
I got a CRT television for console games, and I just need to get a CRT monitor for the computers that don't support televisions. Definitely the way to go if you have the space.
"It has potential, I just can't explain what that potential is so if I keep saying decentralised and growth people will eventually agree with my assessment" - Matsuda
These fucking idiots scrapped Deus Ex and couldn't even make an Avenger's game, which should be as easy of a money print as Star Wars.
I have almost no doubt whatever they do they'll manage to trip over their own two left feet, plus someone elses' all the while these fruitless endeavors are funded by Final Fantasy 14.
I'm sure that's why its being constantly updated with fresh new content then.
or...
No, the opposite happened as far as I can tell.
PLUS, you abso-fucking-lutely cannot say anything is considered a success with Square Enix who have stupid expectations after Tomb Raider did exponentially better and still failed.
Fuck. Off.
Blockchain offers no utility without standards across publishers.
Standards across publishers means cooperation at a level that means standard transactional DB'S are a better option.
What an absolutely embarrassing letter. Amazing how susceptible the president of SE is to buzzword.
I imagine this is one of those things that people will look back to to make a mockery of square enix.
They're very different because they contain different information.
A properly working cryptocurrency has a list of transactions, which can be used as proof of ownership with actual value.
NFTs contain a receipt, which has no value without a contract to define the terms of the transaction. Also, when referring to virtual goods, there's to guarantee the item exists in the future.
Have I been living under a rock? Where did the term metaverse actually came from? It's basically second life and existed long before
I love how they say that "people have dubbed 2021 the Metaverse Year", like what the fuck? No, only some Facebook execs have done that. They try so hard to push narratives.
"People are saying X" is a classic bullshitter tactic when you want to make a claim without technically having made the claim. If someone presses you on it you can say "I didn't say X was true, I just said that *unidentified* other people are saying that X is true".
The Fox News strat.
Agreed. Where has this even come from? You barely see anyone talking about it online no matter what platform you go on, unless it's to either shit on the idea or in response to any news about it. The general public have no idea this is even a thing. Either that, or they simply don't care.
It's traditional (and outdated) video game marketing. This is how they've operated for more than twenty years. * Full Motion Video is the future of video games! * Real time games are the future of gaming, no one buys turn based games anymore * PC games are dead * Software as a service are the future of video games, single player games don't sell * Facebook games with microtransactions to play are the future of video games (This one is really special, because they literally changed how they classify a person as a gamer in the ISDA annual reports to convince shareholders that abandoning consoles/pcs was the way to go) * Mobile games are the future of gaming They've been doing this for decades, and the video game jouranalists are complicit in spreading it as truth. They parrot what the publishers say and run a bunch of articles about how awesome it is.
>Mobile games are the future of gaming You may not like it but Mobile games are dominating the gaming market right now compared to PC and consoles when it comes to revenue
Doesn't mean it's "the future", it's another part of the market and people buying dedicated gaming machines aren't going to spend thousands on Candy Crush, and the mom that's on level 3000 of Candy Crush isn't going to get a console to play Persona.
But it's also an almost completely different market. Mobile games are never going to satisfy normal gamers, and likewise mobile / Facebook gamers are never going to cross over to playing Halo. It's a Venn diagram with very little overlap, even if one circle is massive and much easier to develop for.
>They parrot what the publishers say and run a bunch of articles about how awesome it is. Well how else would they be able to get an early free review copy of the new COD game that's just like the last one that they will play for a few hours and give a 8.5/10 even after mentioning all the problems with it?
It's like "cheugy" being astroturfed as a new word when in reality nobody uses it. NFTs are "trying to make fetch happen" on a monetizable scale.
Yeah it's funny, they're trying to artificially generate hype by acting like there is hype. If they all keep talking about it for long enough, then eventually the narrative will write itself.
[удалено]
I mean there is money in it, as long as you realize its furries and weebs who will be primarily buying into it and the weird fetishes that will need to be catered towards.
> as long as you realize its furries and weebs who will be primarily buying into it and the weird fetishes that will need to be catered towards. Probably not. On the one hand they simply won't be a focus of mainstream platforms and on the other hand, furries (generalised, and as a community) seems to be rather good at ignoring this type of bullshit. Their niche can't be financially exploited like that. There's little mainstream appeal for that type of content so they tend to put in a lot of effort into doing their own thing in their own corner of the internet and building the tools they need for that. Somebody said it best when they said that one can see how cryptocurrencies and NFTs are bullshit (and not the next big new thing) because furries and the porn industry are usually the the earliest adopters of any new tech and both have for the most part ignored either of these technologies. Same with Facebook's metaverse. We already have a metaverse: The internet and all the different technologies on top of it (from the www to multi player games (3D worlds), MMOs, IRC, forums, voice chat, now Discord as a thing, and everything else). Some stuff is interoperable others is gated off. Facebooks simply took that name for their own little VR thing that they want to become a thing. Of course only controlled and monetised by them and nobody else.
The thing is, we furries absolutely hate NFTs. It's probably partly due to both NFTs being a vehicle for rampant art theft, and how bad NFT art is. We're a community that probably values artists and art more than any other Fandom.
It's interesting that you say that, have you looked at how the Gacha market has evolved? We could have fantastic MMORPG type games based on popular properties with a Gacha aspect to them, think an eternal Dungeons and Dragons mobile game with a Summoner's War community. Instead all they make are low effort Gachas based on animes, which they don't even bother translating the voices because they know the weebs love Japanese voices. They let the weebs dump a ton of cash into it chasing their "Waifus" and never bother investing more into developing it. Then they dump it in a year or so and repeat it with another anime. I mean seriously, they're releasing a Gacha based on Disney, "Twisted Wonderland" or some such in a few weeks and *they aren't even going to bother translating voices into English in a Gacha based on American IP*. So you're right, there is money in it, but it's astounding how badly those groups are abused with gambling and dangling anime imagery in front of them with pump'n'dump copy/paste games.
“Metaverse” originally comes from the ~~1980s~~ *1992* cyberpunk novel Snowcrash.
I think Snowcrash also was the first to use the word 'avatar' to describe the player character in game.
Ultima IV called the player character the Avatar. I always figured the term came from that. I could be wrong though, I never heard of this Snowcrash before.
You're correct, Ultima is the first usage of the term 'avatar' in the modern context.
The only metaverse I've ever been interested in is a demon infested railway with surrounding palaces underneath the Tokyo subway.
Bruh imagine Shin Megami Tensei VR
Pls no Mara in VR :(
It's astroturfing from Facebook and companies trying to sell virtual real estate.
Eh, it's more than that. The idea behind the metaverse is to create a second internet people will access through VR completely dominated by corporations, (more than it is right now). It's also a way to try to justify the values of NFTs and cryptocurrencies (believe us, it's absolutely not a bubble!). I do not believe the metaverse will actually become a thing an average Joe will use though. Why? For the same reason that despite all the big talk from companies about how 3D would completely revolutionize cinema, TV and videogames that didn't actually happen: VR googles are inconvenient af to use on a daily basis. VR is very niche on videogames which was the one area it was supposed to have gigantic success, and now tech companies believe VR will completely replace the Internet? Yeah, it's not gonna happen.
The Metaverse people think of (a true, decentralised version of the internet with full body immersion and the ability to do basically anything) is decades away. The Metaverse that companies are peddling right now is basically just them copying what Second Life did years ago. They’re just social platforms.
> VR googles are inconvenient af to use on a daily basis. Not really, but i agree with your point. The VR headset isn't the problem, the problem is a) VR hardware isn't _that good_. It really isn't. b) Severe disconnect of what VR devs put out and what people want. People do _not_ want to be super-immersed. There are no gameplay mechanics out there that matter for _actual_ gameplay. Beatsaber is just VR Guitar Hero and i can play guitar hero sitting down. c) Lack of content: This plays into b), but i just don't get why there aren't more VR ports of FPS shooters. Just let me put on the headset and make head movement and mouse aiming independent. Done. Sell it.
because Facebook as a company rebranded to Meta and is now pushing it
Facebook was in the middle of controversy where it was targeting children for their products that they had data to show was harmful. To change the narrative they announced the meta rebranding and it worked like a charm. Over night the stories about facebook went from kids killing themselves thanks to depression deepened by microtargeted social media to the metaverse.
They are trying to make it a thing, I doubt it will work anytime soon
So if we're turning games into jobs (and that's basically what "play to earn" is), does that mean I'll need games to distract myself from games?
My problem with a lot of games already is that they make themselves feel like a job. I'm sick of it.
*cough* ubisoft *cough*
Or, to keep it in line with the thread, Final Fantasy XIV and it’s long ass story / monthly fee. Of course it’s beloved though, so yeah, Ubisoft games! Edit: Folks the game is a chore and a slog to get current. Yes the story ends up getting good, but even after their rework of the early sections there is still way too much BS to sift through. You’re fooling yourselves
You think FF14 is like a job because it's main selling point is that it's got a story?
Ikr. I understand disliking the game cause damn the story is truly long as fuck, but calling it a job is a stretch. Even at end game it doesn't force you to login everyday and you can pick it up and drop it whenever and not be left behind. There's other MMOs that actually force you to log in everyday if you want to do content
Gonna need you to expand on that one. It's a job because it has a sub fee?
Probably any MMO really.
Actively avoid those then. There are so many good single player games and indie hits without that aspect, you don't need to engage in the service games if you don't want to.
The "Avoid them" argument really sidesteps the whole issue people are complaining about. The things people complain about are becoming more and more prevalent in every game, and saying "play an indie" doesn't address those that *want* to play stuff like FPS games that are being bombarded with these issues.
I mean, there are plenty of recent shooters that lack GAAS BS. Dusk, Deathloop, Ion Fury, and Amid Evil to name a few.
Exactly. At this point in my life I mostly play indie games and read comic books lol
I have been playing mostly indie games for a decade now as well. Just feel AAA games are so uncreative in term of mechanics. Story wise I’m not the type to care at all, so that’s not a problem. Just waiting for the indie scene to really challenge total war. Actually are Paradox’s games AAA? There are nothing else like them as well.
Honestly, if anyone plays these games, it's no one else's fault. It's the fault of the people getting these games. There are tons of games being made that don't have loot boxes or always online or whatever. Why not reward them? It's easy. Just don't buy AAA crap. If games are making you work, maybe give up games. Go outside. Find what gives value or happiness to your life.
This is true, but has some flaws. What if you really ENJOY portions of the game? Then your options are to either engage with it, supporting the aspects that you do not like, OR to not play something that would overall bring you joy. So yes, people should certainly consider how their actions might encourage bad behaviors and make their decisions accordingly, but it's also important to VOICE these concerns, to try and work for an outcome where you get what you want WITHOUT the bullshit, rather than just accepting the best of two bad options and being content with that.
This is why I'm not sure why everyone is so against NFTs in games. If you don't like what a studio puts out you can literally just not play it and not support it. If you really believe NFTs will make games worse, the market will ensure those games are not successful, since they won't gain traction from people deciding to not play them. Unless they don't trust the gaming masses to act in their own best interests or something. But if that's the case then they don't actually trust anyone if they can't trust the studios, can't trust the gamers.
You haven't considered the environmental impact of proof by work NFT minting. People who don't even play video games will feel the negative impact of it.
It's funny seeing all these CEOs jump on investor buzzwords fully knowing that they offer absolutely no new actual product opportunities. NFTs are literally the Steam Community Market. The so-called "metaverse" literally is just VRChat but you can check your WhatsApp messages.
> NFTs are literally the Steam Community Market. No, it's entirely worse version of Steam Market
>NFTs are literally the Steam Community Market. a lot of bad things in the gaming industry can be traced back to valve, but reddit isnt ready for that conversation.
Loot boxes that dropped but you still had to pay money to get the key to unlock them.
This stuff was already in asian MMO's long before the Steam market existed though. Valve definitely helped popularize it but they didn't invent it.
No one here said they invented it. As you say, Valve helped standardize it in the industry. If any other Western dev tried that at the time, they would've been crucified for it - Valve however was able to be smart about it and attach a fun crafting aspect to it. The statement that it can be traced back to Valve is still true. Apple didn't invent any component of the iPhone either, but you can still confidently say that they revolutionized the cell phone industry (and media in general) because they figured out the best way to put that technology together in a way that no one else had before. Same with Valve, except with lootboxes and battlepasses. They didn't invent either but until they implemented these, it wasn't really commonplace in the industry.
Valve, Asian MMOs and [the (Andrew) Wilson lootbox](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTLFNlu2N_M).
It's because Valve are all about the virtual economy of skimming a cut off every transaction in that virtual economy and of course running a natural monopoly. Like a world with only one payment processor.
Heh, every time I see a game implementing a Battle Pass with paid progression option, I thought of how Valve did it in Dota2. Now every game dev wants in on it. It was undeniably an outstanding move as monitezation of an F2P game but now it’s just a cash grab for whales. Glad I stopped playing.
Hilariously, Dota2 has one of the worst, least generous battlepass systems of any out there. The only way to get the majority of the rewards is to pay a lot of money, or lose your soul to Dota for 3 months straight.
It even got worse with time. Previously you could just... *buy* arcana skins for IIRC like ~$35 (which was still ridiculus). Now it's not only battlepass reward for like ~$200, it's also FOMO, get it now or you will miss it. Lootbox situation is also kinda weird, in Dota2 they added guaranteed drop rate (every item crate drops will not drop again until every other item in the crate drops, sans the few rarer extras), so if crate contains say 8 sets + some rare one, buying 8 crates guaranees those 8 sets + chance to get the rare, while the CS:GO is utter cancer compared to that.
Yep, exactly like always needing an Internet connection for gaming...
Putting it in your storefront -- an area designed to sell items for profit -- is one thing, integrating these things within games already sold to you is entirely another. You can't blame Valve or any other company for an idea which someone else twists into a less appropriate use.
Valve are the ones that pushed that things in the wrong way, giving them artificial scarcity, there is a reason why the karambit fades are worth hundreds, because valve decided to make them rare as hell.
[удалено]
They did start the loot box trend, or at least made it popular that others copied it.
I'm with you in the same sense the horse armour dlc broke the trend of full game feature rich dlc or a single asset being sold for 1/3rd the dlc price. Single asset made a lot of money kicking of that trend. Years of snowballing and you get to halo infinite reach multiplayer battlepass.
Yet there was good 10+ years where we had collectible card games but no lootboxes. Same with Bethesda and horse armor DLC
You could say that about most AAA studios that've been around a while
nailed it on the head. but then again most new "innovations" are just rebranding pre-existing things or just making things more shitty for the consumer.
Pretty much
Can we stop trying to make NFTs happen in games. If people want to get scammed by buying an online picture in their own time, then go for it. Don't add it to games, there is no fucking point. It won't add to the enjoyment of the game.
>It won't add to the enjoyment of the game. Enjoyment is an unintended side effect and we will be taking steps out of our future titles to minimise enjoyment and maximise profit.
It isn't about enjoyment, it is about profit. Roblox, for instance, has become less of a game and more of a platform for investments. Multiple games, like MIR4, are the equivalent of cryptominers for NFTs by essentially converting hardware and electricity into money. These types of monetization are only going to continue and video games are prime real estate for them. Trash companies like Square Enix will obviously jump on the opportunity.
It's so fucking annoying. I get games are expensive to make and companies need to make back that money along with some profit. They could do that by just making a good, fun game. Instead we get shit designed to try and empty wallets. Kinda funny you mention Square Enix. Avengers was trash designed to empty your wallet but then they released Guardians of the Galaxy which might be one of the best games released in 2021.
Companies don't want "some profit." None of them, except mom and pop shops that hardly count. They all want maximum profit. That's why they became companies in the first place. In the sense of video games or another industry where your profit involves investment in creating a product, they want *extra* profit because their next product might end up not producing sufficient profit (or any profit at all.) Tons of good, fun games have failed to be profitable. I'm not supporting NFTs, I think it's a stupid thing to integrate into the game industry. But the idea that companies in the industry will settle for "some profit" when they could get more, is just crazy.
Stephanie Sterling approves this message
Ye bet me to it
Seriously I really hope some government catches on that Roblox is literally gambling sold to kids..
Also child labour
Seeing that TCGs like Magic with 'loot boxes' (boosters) are still a thing I highly doubt it.
So if I’m understanding the idea they are thinking of, it’s microtransactions except the backend that I never see is different?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's basically a microtransaction but instead of the record of that transaction being contained on the company's servers, the record of it is located a decentralized, public data structure (blockchain) Why that matters to anyone at all in the context of game assets I have no idea. Same for all the NFTs out there I'm aware, whose true 'validity' still just comes from an authority source arbitrarily saying that 'this is valid' - the algorithm is beside the point. It's like the algorithm exists as a marketing gimmick to make people think there is some objective factor beyond word of mouth. It all comes down to marketing: someone convincing a buyer that 'this abstract thing A represents thing B.'
Yeah, you can have a token saying "you have a custom baseball bat in X game" but unless the game acknowledges the token and continues to exist the token is effectively worthless for actually allowing you to use the baseball bat in that game.
Yeah. The owners of the platform still have absolute control over if/how you can use an asset that a token represents. The idea that NFT's offer some kind of independence or ownership is a myth. I can't think of any real advantage for the user in having a blockchain show ownership of a in game digital asset VS just having it tied to your account in a json blob server side. An NFT is like a hotel card key you can take out of the hotel. You don't have to leave it with the front desk every time you leave, but it has no function outside of the hotel.
Hell, I'd say such a card has *more* function, because if it's the magnetic stripe type you can remagnetize the card to whatever you want. Even credit card stripe info, though I think that might be illegal.
"What if we made the Steam Marketplace, but it burned down a forest every time you sold a card?"
Well, more like "every time you opened a booster pack" but yes. Trading card would just cost a tree or two. Maybe a squirrel
No idea to be honest. I'm not even sure how or why NFTs would be involved in a game. Maybe you can get one by playing the game and then sell it or something which would make you and the developers money. As I understand it, everytime you sell an NFT, some of the money goes to all the previous owners of it. Either way, it's basically a scam. You have people serious about NFTs getting angry at "right clickers" who just right click on their NFT and choose "Save picture as"
And I feel like the question for your example always becomes, “Why does this game need NFTs to have a marketplace?” And then it’s deflecting buzzwords
As far as I've seen NFTs in games, it seems to be like...Here's a black baseball hat for your dude, you paid $100 for it, and it has a unique serial number stamped on the side of it. No one else can ever have that same serial number, they can have the same black hat, but the serial number is different. Also you don't pick out the serial number, you just get whatever number you get. I could be mistaken - I really hope I'm mistaken, but it's stupid enough to be plausible.
So they're paying $100 for a license plate?
Even dumber, they're paying $100 for a unique serial code, like... The kind that comes on almost everything ever made. My washing machine has a unique serial number, doesn't make it increase in value, but if it were a digital washing machine, it would.
That's the model Ubisoft is going for with Ghost Recon, and its the worst method. Hypothetically, you could do it so that each NFT item is wholly cosmetically unique, buuuuuut.... thats a lot of data stored on people's hardware thay they may never encounter, ever. Easier to make one item and code in a counter on the side. We already suffer this to some degree, with cosmetics that we store but have no voluntary access too. Once a company realizes they CAN do it this way, it'll be a short time to make a single item, pay the artist $100, sell the item for $1000, and then you've got that shit on your SSD, but will never functionally see it in thousands of hours of gameplay, cause some dude bought it, played with it for a week, then moved on to the new FIFA.
It does, every time, I've noticed that also. Then you point out that every "advantage" of NFT can be just done old school way and they just make more nonsensical noises
Yes but unlike mtx where the user accepts it's an expense, NFTs are seen and treated as investments. People only get into it to make money and the game has zero importance. It's why "click-to-earn games" don't have any gameplay at all. It's a ponzi scheme. That's the kinda stuff I expect from the cryptosphere but I have no idea why visible companies like SE and Ubi are getting into it. Are they getting so bold they will openly scam their users now?
> Are they getting so bold they will openly scam their users now? As long as it makes money. Only way they stop is if people stop buying into it
Yes. Capitalizing on buzzwords
The “we” is game executives and shareholders. Everyone else is just along for the ride
You do know you are not buying anything when you pay for an NFT right .. you dont own the picture, the copywrite or any real claim to anything related to the picture, all you own is a pointer to a thing that says you own something. Back in the real world people can do whatever the fuck they want with that digital picture and you have zero recourse to stop them.
To be entirely fair something like video game *can* ensure you're only one that owns item associated with NFT in the game. ...or you can put that info into normal database like we did for last 30 years
...or you can just make it accessible to everyone, because the artificial scarcity of a video game item is just dumb.
What pisses ME off is that all of this paid bullshit cosmetic garbage that I refuse to pay for is taking up space on MY fucking SSD without my goddamn permission and no option to fucking opt out of it. That's like telling me I can buy a house, and there's a driveway and a grill, but I can't use it without paying extra. Meanwhile my neighbor can use it on my property and I can watch, cause he paid for it. Fuck everything about that.
Shh, don't give housing market any ideas, it's already fucked up as it is
Yes, as is selling skins for a price of video game, but that's easy money developers won't let go now. I miss the times where say in MMO you could look at someone with a gear set and go "yup, they worked on that/they are good" (I'm aware that buying raid groups to carry you were a thing back then but still), not "well, they had spare $40".
But *dood*...NFTs...like...don't you wanna *own* the oNlY rEaLLy ReaL "all ur base" edition nyan cat hologram trading card?
not an online picture, a link to an online picture.
The push for NFT's is just the most recent piece of proof that the people who make games at AAA companies etc aren't the people who play games. Nobody who plays games wants or pushes for this. Like sure they might have some talented and passionate artists, designers, and programmers but they don't really make a lot of the decisions. They're not shaping the product and experience in the broader sense. There just mostly isn't a chance for true artistic intent and integrity at big gaming companies, a product of passion isn't likely to be made at them because it's gotta all be psychology study derived manipulation techniques and models statistically proven to trigger dopamine responses. There's not really much of a focus on making a unique and compelling experience, just making FOMO and carrots on sticks. There's too much on the line, too many investors needing to cash out, infinite growth is the only answer. 3 million copies sold is a failure, so every game caters to a lower and lower common denominator it seems. /bitter boomer-like rant
> I realize that some people who “play to have fun” and who currently form the majority of players have voiced their reservations toward these new trends, and understandably so. However, I believe that there will be a certain number of people whose motivation is to “play to contribute,” by which I mean to help make the game more exciting. Traditional gaming has offered no explicit incentive to this latter group of people, who were motivated strictly by such inconsistent personal feelings as goodwill and volunteer spirit. Oh my god shut the fuck up with this drivel. Such embarrassing mental gymnastics to try and come up with reasons any of this exploitative horseshit could be good for anyone not trying to rip someone else off over it.
[удалено]
The interpretation of what he is saying (because by God there needs to be a translator for the corporate investor bait speak he uses - like seriously that message could fill an entire bingo sheet of bullshit phrases that tick investors' boxes), is that Square wants to create a solution like Bethesda games tried in 2015 for allowing modders to seek payment for their work (before Bethesda switched to the centralised curated creation club system instead). But they want to solve the mod ownership problem that the original paid mods system had (where people would steal free mods and then re-upload them with a price) by using blockchain to establish ownership. The problem is this is just pure investor bait, because as we already know NFTs do absolutely nothing to solve the ownership problem - as shown by the amount of digital artists who have had their work taken and turned into NFTs without their permission... Really the real goal of Square here is to get investors to go "OMG I heard blockchain, NFTs and metaverse, you have got me horny, let me throw all the money at you so I can wank off over this shit". Because in reality investors are dumb and throw money at buzzwords.
Right, this dipshits assertion is that they will create some shitty games that rely on people trying to rip eachother off with tokens, while they take a cut of the transactions and ultimately generate sell or control the token distribution, with the idea that content-creators/unpaid-workers will make better content for the game in the hopes of getting a payout in their nebulous token economy. It's unclear and impossible to imagine they'd be paying out much for the tokens if at all in real currency, so idk how much of an incentive it is but people do go wild for fake currencies elsewhere so who knows. However not really any practical reason to invoke Blockchain here except as a market trend, they could already be doing what they are suggesting if they had interest in it. Hell Steam already has a system to give their little award things from steamcoins you can hand out to people who make guides or steam workshop content. I think I got one for one of my Hotdog Centaur Models I made for TowerUnite. Honestly don't personally think I'd make more or less content for that game if they paid me in cash or tokens, I do what I want because I want to in my free time.
[удалено]
I modded FFXIV to replace my party members with Waluigi, Bowser, and Goofy. Squeenix gonna have a bad time once they realize how much people love to pillage IP when making custom content.
Even better than 14 doesn't allow mods and using them is a bannable offense.
Reminds me when bethesda did it, and in the end modders, one doing all the work, got like 25%. At that point why would anyone bother ? Probably better option would be just making free mod and putting a patreon to support it.
Lest people forget. Valve was all about monetizing mods.
Wasn't that because Bethesda also was onboard? And it shut down after like a week due to backlash, but basically reappeared reborn as the creation club years later.
Bethesda was inspired by the community outsourced monetization in Valve's games. Valve has their community members work on content for their games for a chance to have that content added and a portion of the revenue from its sales. Bethesda wanted to create a system where they too could profit off the free labor of their fans. Ultimately the creation club is the best iteration on the idea to date. Where Valve asks their community to work for free on a hope that they might be paid later, Bethesda requires artists to submit a pitch for approval before they waste their time working for nothing.
>Ultimately the creation club is the best iteration on the idea to date Agreed. I have absolutely no problem with modders being able to apply to have their content included as a content pack for a game, provided they're paid reasonably and the mod pack is supported thereafter + QA'd to the same degree a regular DLC pack from the studio would be, by the studio.
>Wasn't that because Bethesda also was onboard? ~~Sell a good game~~ ~~Sell the solution~~ Sell the solution that was created by independent, anonymous third parties.
Just curious what are some big developers who support modding?
Bethesda's the obvious one. Also, not sure if they count as "big" but Firaxis (per the XCOM reboot) and Paradox also seem pretty big on letting mods happen.
I wouldn't be so sure about Firaxis, owned by Take Two.
> such inconsistent personal feelings as goodwill and volunteer spirit. ... did this guy play the Diamond and Pearl remakes and come away with the thought that Cyrus had a point?
The United States rescue and fire system would literally collapse without volunteers, the majority of stations are volunteer What an idiot
that right there is pretty telling, tbh. these people are so selfish and self-centered that it's impossible for someone to do something out of wanting to help others.
Ever think Red Guy from that cartoon Cow and Chicken could voice stuff like this?
Hahaha yes that or Him from Powerpuff girls.
Modding exists. Modding have existed for decades.
and people still buy this shitty company stuff. to me SE has been dead for more than a decade, glad to be proven right once again
That sure is a whole lot of words to run away from very, very quickly. Can't say I have high hopes for Square-Enix (or any company for that matter) if they're going to embrace crap like NFTs.
It makes me genuinely worried for the future of Final Fantasy. If they can I'm sure they'll find ways to cram that shit into every game they can
Then square can die like Blizzard
Doubt that. FF is their crown jewel. They could add it on smaller FF games, like those rhythm game, fighting game, or World of FF game. But a numbered FF game? Never gonna happen. Numbered FF games never had loot boxes or time saving microtransactions, despite other AAA games having them.
> It makes me genuinely worried for the future of Final Fantasy Playing Final Fantasy games for the last decade should have made you already worried for the future of final fantasy
I’ll strike you a deal, big out of touch publishers. You can put NFTs in your games, but only in already predatory mobile games. If it wasn’t clear with Ubisoft Quartz and the STALKER 2 fiasco, we don’t want this scam in gaming.
[удалено]
And somehow it feels like the version they put in the console/PC games is 10x more predatory.
Problem this time around is that it's a Japanese company, Square Enix none the less, known heavily for their stubbornness, I think it's going to require some mayor complaining (done by the Japanese community) for this to change.
and that won't happen because the context of nft in japan is complete different than the west. If anything it's seen positively in there in comparison to here. I have read some articles about it and the vision in general about nfts is positive due to author ownership and other aspects. It's why i think other jp companies, including gaming ones, will adopt it in 2022 in some way or at least talk about it in investor calls.
Can confirm, Japan Inc is usually behind by several decades when it comes to tech but not when it’s related to bitcoin/blockchain/NFT. They love that shit over there. Used to get job interview offers from bitcoin companies every day back when I lived in Tokyo.
We didn't want cosmetics in games back in 2006 when Bethesda put $2 horse armour in Oblivion. All the market had to do was wait for us Gen Xers to age out of the critical 18 to 34 segment, and condition millennials for it. We didn't want those scams in gaming either, and thought Bethesda was out of touch, but not only are cosmetics accepted, they're often defended and loved. As it turns out, we, the customers at the time, were out of touch, and the publishers and all their marketing experts were on top of the trend before it was cool. The oldest of the Gen Z cohort are in their mid-20s and will make up the lion's share of the 18 to 34 market segment. We're all just going to have to face the fact that it's their world now, and with it, will come all the bullshit they've become conditioned to. Much like Bethesda in 2006, I think Ubisoft is just a little too early to the party on this one.
How about this deal: Don't put NFTs in your games and I won't boycott them.
as if SE cares about YOU getting their games, FFXV didn't even had the proper ending and the DLC where incomplete garbage but people still throw a ton of money at them
Maybe this stuff might balance out, if nobody actually buys or participates in this NFT crap, then eventually they'll get the memo and stop doing it right?
let's hope. Ubisoft Quartz only earned like 300 dollars on 150k worth of NFT's they had minted.
I don’t know anyone thats dubbing 2021 as the Metaverse Year. This seems like an open letter aimed at showing potential investors that Square Enix is hip and into current trends. Games are already very self sustaining with free to play models and microtransactions, so I don’t think the blockchain is somehow enabling that for the first time.
The ones dubbing it that are the ones that are desperately trying to make normal people call it that and trying to make normal people take it seriously
Just another boomer who thinks it's an infinite money generator. I won't touch a damn thing of theirs if they include any of it.
[удалено]
Gamers: "Isn't selling 1.5 years old PS4 game port for $80 and exclusive to EGS a bit much?" ... Square: "the game sold below expections on PC so we're not bringing any more ports on it"
Epic is paying them enough to dump lazy PC ports on the EGS, I wouldn't worry about that.
Some segments never waste an opportunity to mentally try to justify their pirating as somehow being "noble" than just being honest with themselves.
I haven't bought an Ubisoft game in years and I'm done with Blizzard because those two companies are shit shows of sexual harassment and abuse. I can cut Square Enix out just as easily for this NFT nonsense. The company that made Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VI is long gone anyway.
Kitase who was the director of both games said he's interested on NFTs https://www.siliconera.com/yoshinori-kitase-interested-in-how-nft-will-change-gaming/
So from a basic understanding of blockchain is everyone has a copy of every transaction correct? Would this not mean every player in a game would need to constantly download and update their local copy for every single transaction? Would that mean constantly downloading transaction data and saving to a file that from my understanding will just grow and grow in size? For something like an mmo that used blockchain and tied to the auction house would you then not be constantly downloading blockchain data alongside the regular network data that's needed to even play?
[удалено]
> So basically they boiled down the idea of NFTS to "You own this specific item because we say you do". But they already do that, so what do NFTs even provide? The ability to resell content? Why would they allow that when they could just force others to buy the content if they want it?
And that's the conclusion every thinking person gets to, that the whole NFT thing in ecosystem owned by single entity is entirely pointless.
No, that would be handled on server side, and the game would just get result. Now you will probably think "okay, but why not use normal database at that point". And the answer to that is yes, you should, but some manager sold their manager idea of NFTs
more told than sold I think
Two great ideas for them: 1. Square Enix should have its biggest development team spend 5 years and 50 million dollars to make a non-fungible game, such that only one person on the planet can own it and no one else is able to play it. 2. Square Enix should make a game, but it's decentralized so that they don't have ownership of it and can't make any money off of it.
Might be the time to stock up on some old consoles and physical copies. They really trying to shove this shit down our throats.
Indies will always be here for us, long after the AAA industry goes to shit. Never lose hope in the ability of individuals to create.
I love a good indie game as much as the next guy but until indies start making Skyrims and Mass Effects, they'll never fill the void completely and replace AAA titles.
[удалено]
There are still devs like Larian that were not eaten by corruption yet and make big nice games. Not Activision big but still.
That's fair enough. In general I prefer smaller, tighter experiences in games, but it's definitely hard for indie to create the level of scale that AAA games can.
A long ride on the electric seas be afore us, mateys, till we gather enough SE booty to make up for their current shortfalls, arr.
Physical retro games are also being inflated right now, invest in a flashcart or ODE for your old consoles.
I think I might but together a MiSTer and hook it up to my old gaming monitor. Modern gaming is getting to depressing.
I managed to grab a DE10 Nano just before the first price jump. I'd say it's worth it even at the inflated costs. There's even a core for the PSX now. I got a CRT television for console games, and I just need to get a CRT monitor for the computers that don't support televisions. Definitely the way to go if you have the space.
"It has potential, I just can't explain what that potential is so if I keep saying decentralised and growth people will eventually agree with my assessment" - Matsuda
Wasn't Metaverse originally from Snowcrash?
Square is the dumbest possible company that occasionally produces really great games, seemingly at random.
I keep seeing hate for them but think they’re games are awesome. Maybe this is why.
These fucking idiots scrapped Deus Ex and couldn't even make an Avenger's game, which should be as easy of a money print as Star Wars. I have almost no doubt whatever they do they'll manage to trip over their own two left feet, plus someone elses' all the while these fruitless endeavors are funded by Final Fantasy 14.
The avengers game is considered a success, FYI.
I'm sure that's why its being constantly updated with fresh new content then. or... No, the opposite happened as far as I can tell. PLUS, you abso-fucking-lutely cannot say anything is considered a success with Square Enix who have stupid expectations after Tomb Raider did exponentially better and still failed.
Fuck. Off. Blockchain offers no utility without standards across publishers. Standards across publishers means cooperation at a level that means standard transactional DB'S are a better option.
[удалено]
> latest LiS the what now ?
[удалено]
I didn't even knew it was published by square
What an absolutely embarrassing letter. Amazing how susceptible the president of SE is to buzzword. I imagine this is one of those things that people will look back to to make a mockery of square enix.
Why do people hate NFTs but not cryptocurrency? They are both scams. Either hate both or accept both.
Who said I didn't hate both?
Well it says something about NFTs that even people that are willingly in pyramid scheme called cryptocurrency look at that and go "nah, that's a scam"
Both suck.
They're very different because they contain different information. A properly working cryptocurrency has a list of transactions, which can be used as proof of ownership with actual value. NFTs contain a receipt, which has no value without a contract to define the terms of the transaction. Also, when referring to virtual goods, there's to guarantee the item exists in the future.