If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)

NFTs and gaming

  • 17-12-2021 11:46am
    Administrators Posts: 258 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭ System

    This discussion was created from comments split from: Game News 2.0.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 28,023 CMod ✭✭✭✭ johnny_ultimate

    LOL at the absolute nonsense that is this statement.

    Amazing to see companies willingly torching their reputation chasing the blockchain cultists. Kickstarter have doubled down as well despite extraordinarily negative feedback.

    EDIT: Hahaha they deleted it already. This is the statement, from GSC Gameworld about the crappy STALKER NFTs.

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,917 ✭✭✭ Mr Crispy

    It's sad. They could offer all those perks to "backers" without the need for blockchain. Besides, I thought one of the supposed benefits of NFTs was that they could be traded/sold later, but who's going to want to buy a digital certificate when it's not even their face/name in the game? Madness.

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,481 ✭✭✭✭ Jordan 199

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,369 ✭✭✭ JimBurnley

    Nice to see I'm not the only one wondering that :-)

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,369 ✭✭✭ JimBurnley

    So digital cosmetic junk, which f#cks up the environment, that can then be traded on to f#ck up the environment some more, with possible fraud type uses also. That about the size of it?

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 48,870 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Retr0gamer

    Yup. But you also forgot money laundering.

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 28,023 CMod ✭✭✭✭ johnny_ultimate

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭ J Mysterio


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,210 ✭✭✭ Grumpypants

    No. It's Digital art. It can be anything. It could be a painting or it could be a song. Anything that can be created in a digital world.

    There is a difference between the original artwork and the copies.

    If I own the rights to an original Coldplay song. And you bought it on Apple iTunes. We both essentially have the same song and they will sound the same when we listen to it, but mine is more valuable. I can license that to movies, games, or other recording artists to cover.

    That is something of value, and it makes my copy worth basically whatever someone is whiling to pay me if I sell it on the open market.

    The problem with digital art is you could buy it, I could right click and press save and we both end up with the same thing. There is no way to tell which is the original.

    Now if you are a huge band with loads of resources and lawyers you could chase it in the courts. But 99% of artists are not making huge money. There is a huge issue with artists getting ripped off, not just losing money but in some cases actually losing access to the rights to their art.

    An NFT is a simple way to sign that original piece of art to say you own it. It's very easy, it's very secure, and it's badly needed.

    The vast majority of NFTs are ERC20 tokens, created on layer 2 protocols that run on top of Etherium. And are proof of stake not proof of work. Proof of stake power usage can be as much as 1% of a proof of work model.

    Etherium is moving to a proof of stake in the coming months so the whole power consumption line will not be an issue for long.

    But it is odd to see people who watch Netflix, stream Spotify, download and play online games ( who are all using massive power hungry data centers) complain about the environmental impact of NFTs.

  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 30,666 CMod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp

    At least Netflix, Spotify et al serve a quantifiable purpose and "need" for modern living; no more than old school broadcasting caused surges in the national grid when kettles were turned on nationwide during ad-breaks. It's just a cost of the standard of living we have.

    NFTs are pointless grifts adding no demonstrable benefit except those coining it from the gullible. Just brainfarts of crypto-bros lost in their own hype, answering questions nobody asked while crucifying the environment as they go. My wife is an illustrator, and of her limited vantage, and the art community she swims, neither have either need or enthusiasm for NFTs as some protector of their rights. They're usually happy if they just get paid 🙂

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,210 ✭✭✭ Grumpypants

    You can right-click and save an Avatar. You can also take a photo of the Mona Lisa and hang it in your house and laugh at da Vinci for being a stupid painterbro.

    The art world is a weird one built on hype. But art is subjective. If someone wants to buy a painting that is a red blob they can. If they want to pay €2 or €2million for it who am i to stop them.

    I'm not arguing that NFTs in gaming is a good or bad idea. But I see no reason why it shouldn't be a thing.

    I think funding via NFTs is short-sighted at the moment. The short term ability to pay for the spiralling development costs and stay independent is going to lead to long term legal battles down the line.

    What happens when you want to shut down your online only game and everyone that owns that NFT is no longer able to access it, will you have to give them a way to access it forever. What happens if they "own it" and no longer want it in your game? Can they force you to pull it? What if there is a bug and it doesn't render properly. Will you have to maintain it for years to come?

    It will get messy.

    There is a tiny section of the NFT market that is in a silly bubble. Much like the .com and the video game bubbles in the past they will pop but the underlying technology will stay the course.

    Crypto on the other hand offers a lifeline for so many of the worlds poor that have historically been kept out of the financial system. People that live a comfortable existence in countries with stable economies forget that most of the world doesn't have access to a bank account. Countries are held hostage to the dollar. Economies are destroyed to make the wealthy elite a few extra billion.

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 28,023 CMod ✭✭✭✭ johnny_ultimate

    A copied JPG or MP3 is functionally identical to the the original. A digital or even physical copy of the Mona Lisa isn’t. That is the fundamental flaw at the heart of the NFT: physical and digital art are fundamentally different things.

    As for the final paragraph, that’s the utopian ideal that has so far not been borne out by crypto. In fact, quite the opposite has come to pass: the creation of a *new* elite, with the wealth disproportionately distributed to a tiny amount of people and the emergence of new financial speculation markets. I do think cryptocurrency has some benefit in providing a more secure platform for, say, rights activists in authoritarian states who need to operate outside the traditional financial channels. That’s a minority use case so far. And NFTs are more worthless again.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,210 ✭✭✭ Grumpypants

    That is literally the reason NFTs exist.

    You can get an expert to look at a copy of the mona Lisa and say it is fake. You can't do that with most digital art because it can be copied exactly 1 to 1.

    So how else do you show that it is the original?

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 28,023 CMod ✭✭✭✭ johnny_ultimate

    Digital media can be infinitely replicated by its very nature. The concept of the ‘original’ file becomes meaningless. Adding a digital blockchain signature that affords no legal rights does not change that. It’s manufacturing an awkward non-solution that’s inherently contradictory to the nature of the medium, grounded in a deeply, regressively capitalist view of art and technology.

    Besides, the whole central problem with blockchain is that it insists on placing ‘ownership’ - and, by extent, financial worth - on the file. That is fundamentally and dramatically at odds with the utopian ideal of a free, democratic internet that blockchain advocates purport to support. It’s all about trading and money - a very particular, narrow-minded and unequal perspective of artistic and technological freedom.

    This is an excellent analysis that gets at the fundamental contradictions of Web3 in a way I cannot at:

  • Registered Users Posts: 31,615 ✭✭✭✭ Penn

    Why do you need to prove which is the original? With physical media, sure, but not with digital. Artists should ensure they hold copyright over the art/song so that it can't be used or profited on without their permission, but the concept of ownership over a digital file in a public space is ridiculous.

    NFTs have created the concept of ownership of digital files, in order to justify the existence of NFTs. You're not buying a product, you're buying a receipt. Even if you can prove a digital file is the original, why does that matter? Again, physical media, sure. But a digital file? So what? If I can rightclick the image and save it, I have an exact copy. That doesn't work with physical items, they're completely incomparable.

    Again, NFTs have created the concept of ownership of digital files in order to justify NFTs.

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 48,870 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Retr0gamer

    I really don't see what NFTs do that can't already replicated with a piece of paper and current copyright law. It really is a technology looking for a solution.

  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,645 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox

    Your example of buying the rights to a song versus just buying that song via Itunes/Spotify is an interesting one, because buying an NFT does not confer any rights to you. You've got exactly the same rights to use it as someone that right clicked it, i.e. none, apart from the right to tell people that you "own" it. You can't license it commercially, you can't put it in an advert, etc.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 31,615 ✭✭✭✭ Penn

    Something is only worth as much as someone else is willing to pay for it. The people who created the concept of NFTs and are propogating them have created the hype/value of NFTs. People are buying the concept/privilege/rights of owning something, as opposed to actually owning something.

    Let's not also forget how exploitative things like this can be, especially in gaming. The whole CS:GO Lotto thing comes to mind in particular. Games introducing NFTs, to me, could see an introduction of similar means of exploitation. Lootboxes on steroids.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,210 ✭✭✭ Grumpypants

    Wikipedia just sold there first edit as an NFT. It went to auction at Christy's and they got 750k. That money will be used to keep Wikipedia going.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,210 ✭✭✭ Grumpypants

    It depends on what is in the contract. Some NFTs will bring with it full copyright and publishing permissions others will simple be a proof of ownership but without the ability to sell or even display it and the artist would hold the publishing rights.

    When you make the NFT you set the terms. Then someone that wants to buy it on those terms can. Simply and without a hitch ge cost of getting copyright lawyers involved.

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 28,023 CMod ✭✭✭✭ johnny_ultimate

    It won’t go to Wikipedia though. It’s going to a social network thing Jimmy Wales set up called WT.Social.

    “The Wikimedia Foundation confirmed in an email to Slate that its board of directors requested that Wales not earmark the funds for the foundation to make clear that this was Wales’ personal venture and not a Wikipedia-endorsed fundraising initiative.”

    It also caused a huge debate in the Wiki community itself, mainly over the argument that an NFT is a fundamental betrayal of Wikipedia’s core ethos.

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭ BlitzKrieg

    I know the environmental aspect gets brought up a lot and I understand thats a big issue.

    But putting it aside. Is this just not the same sort of c*nts that ruined comics in the 90's with over speculating their value and in the end forced us to endure a whole bunch of rubbish because the industry thought every shiny comic issue could be worth millions in the future?

    You can talk about the potential of NFTS for ensuring that someone can claim ownership over something but

    1. Currently thats not happening as anyone can put an image through to the blockchain and put it up to sale. There is no end of the stories of artists having their work turned into nfts and sold off without their permission (including some ghoulish sorts who did it to the work of an artist who passed away)
    2. The Non fungible aspect of it hasnt stood any real sort of test legally or practically. I mean the human error aspect of it is already shot full of holes with social hacking proving more then capable of stealing them out from under most of the nftbro's noses. And there's as far as I've been aware no legal challenge to claim ownership of something via NFT. We'll have to wait til some tv show or something sticks one of those horrible apes in the background and gets sued.

    Frankly it just feels like the same sh*tty speculation bullsh*t we get everywhere else just trying to hip with the kids.

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,917 ✭✭✭ Mr Crispy

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 48,870 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Retr0gamer

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,118 ✭✭✭ BeerWolf

    A pox on NFTs and all things cryptocurrencies.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,917 ✭✭✭ Mr Crispy