Let's say all your skins in CSGO are suddenly NFT's, which can be sold on a market outside of steam for whatever cryptocurrency, which can eventually be swapped for fiat currency. Would that not benefit the player, rather than having all the money spent on skins in a closed system like steam.
NFTs are a link to a picture that only exist as long as people keep paying for the server upkeep to maintain the link. There's nothing stopping anyone from copying the image, re-upload it or do anything they want with it. And this is what people are trading with each other in the belief they are going to become millionaires.
Quoting Johnny's post as it contains a (very long) video that basically charts the history of NFTs and why, ultimately, they are nothing more than a Greater Fool scam masquerading as transformative tech. As I say it's long, and can veer into the technical but if you wanna learn everything about NFTs - you can't really do better than this video. The advocates' zeal that we might have ALL our private data from social security, driver's licenses and health info sitting on a secure cloud is a chilling prospect
The same. I feel like an outsider when I see that all people are aware of NFTs and use them, while I don't even understand what it is.
Not only can the digital outfit still be copied, I’m not really sure why the initial sale couldn’t be done using a standard digital marketplace that doesn’t use the blockchain? Second Life has had a robust economy for user-generated content for two decades (even if it is largely relegated to the furry community). Why the sudden need for a ‘signature’?
One of the great boons of digital media has been to make content more freely accessible due to its inherently replicable nature. To suddenly start imposing artificial rarity - which doesn’t even stop the material from being copied - is making digital media worse, and only shows a hyper-capitalist trend towards further commodifying absolutely everything.
NFTs are, once again, a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. The dramatic market crash of recent weeks shows there’s little interest in them from the general public. It’s a relief seeing this most redundant, dubious and wasteful of technologies crash and burn spectacularly.
Or they could upload it to somewhere that's actually secure.
And NFTs will not stop this either. You do know that only a tiny amount of code can be put in a token so basically it will just be a link to their item with the same level of security that people can copy anyway. As for smart contracts, they haven't been tested in a court of law and again there's not enough room for the code to house a contract so again it will be a link to a contract within a token.
And all this can be solved by using proper security like encryption and password salting. So again, where is the benefit?
I've friends that hang out in these VR worlds. Kinda like a second life thing where you have a character and can wear clothes etc and walk around chatting with other people. Some of the designers on there will spend hours and hours designing a piece of clothing and then when it's uploaded to gitlab someone else can just copy it. They see tech around NFTs as a solution to having their design singed to them so their effort is linked to their content.
I've still yet to hear any beneficial concepts for this "tech"!
Brilliant! Warms my heart 🥰
There's something deeply funny about an entity that fiercely touts itself the future of currency, that uses SCRIP to artificially bolster its scam based economy; NFT Pokémon ripoff is having troubles...
I've still yet to see any beneficial use of this tech.
Looks like the silly season bubble has started to burst. The guy that bought Jack's first tweet for 2.9 million tried to sell it for 49million and the highest bid was €270.
Hopefully that's the peak of inflated expectations done and once we are through the trough of disillusionment we will start to see this tech implemented properly.
It's geared to be an online multiplayer game. Saying they're stopping new content or updates is the death-knell for the game. It means they're not interested in trying to grow it any further, get new players or provide anything new for existing players.
So while I'd agree 2.5 years (it released Oct 2019) of content and updates for a game that sold disappointingly at launch is good, it is also only 4 months after introducing NFTs into the game. NFTs which will now substantially reduce in value because support is ending for the game.
Ubisoft sold the NFTs, and then end support for the game. Probably because they only sold about $800 worth of NFTs in the first month.
They aren't shutting down the game, they are stopping making new content. It came out in 2019 so three years of new content and updates is pretty decent. From now on, it is just keeping the game online the same as they do with Wildlands.
Great video posted by brianboru on AH about NFTs
Gamestop are about to launch their NFT marketplace, which will attempt to make this far more mainstream.
Kind of hope it fails, as its only going to be used for a way to fleece people out of even more money. I can only imagine what 2K will do with this when they release their next series of sports games. And i say that as someone who owns some of the platform that its based on (Loopring), and will benefit if it works.
This earlier post explains better than I can.
A few months after Ubisoft introduced NFTs to Ghost Recon Breakpoint, they're now shutting down the game.
"You own a piece of the game and have left your mark in its history."
Translation: "Cheers for the money bud! We're making what you bought completely redundant, but you can buy another NFT in our next game and have absolutely zero effect on that game too!"
I get the feeling it will be like second life where all the media and academics are excited about it and everyone else doesn't care.
The metaverse seems to be the latest trend in that regard-stories recently about how hundreds of millions have been spent to buy virtual space.
But again, all you’re actually buying an NFT tied to this ‘land’ so naturally you need crypto to buy it, and because it’s crypto it’s probably people selling land to themselves to hype up people into parting with their hard earned cash. It would be funny if it weren’t so depressing.
Besides, there’s only one metaverse dammit, and it’s used to steal peoples hearts!
It's a speculative market. They're hoping their NFTs take off and as people sell them amongst each other they will charge a transaction fee.
Of course wealth and growth are infinite and NFTs are the next Apple stick because they read about people getting rich in the tabloids so the value will only ever increase exponentially and people will keep trading them just like Pogs. They'll just keep skimming off the transactions fees and live in perpetual wealth.
It's weird seeing desperate people touting these borderline scams just because they want to be trendy or think they're going to be rich just by knowing about them. I've a housemate who bangs on about investing in cryptocurrencies because her relatives are wealthy and yet she's still living in a houseshare years after ploughing money into them.
Specifically on gaming, how would a company make money? Would they just flog things like pictures of characters and bits of the soundtrack as NFT's?
If there's anything that encapsulates how pointlessly c*ntish this species can be so perfectly, it's NFT's.
HitPiece are selling music (including video game tracks) as NFTs without permission.
I mean Jesus.... If even EA are shying away from them....
Team 17 announced yesterday they're getting into NFTs.
Team 17 announced today they're now not getting into NFTs.
Games companies, save yourself the hassle of announcing you're no longer going to get into NFTs by simply just not trying to get into them in the first place!
Team 17 has become the latest company forced to backtrack and cancel a moronic NFT plan after being stupid enough to announce one.
I bring this up solely because a number of developers who worked with them released some gloriously blunt statements in response to the initial announcement. Fair play to all of them for speaking out.
The Aggro Crab statement in particular should be a template for any developers responding to this sort of horseshit.
Troy Baker cancels plans to sell his voice as an NFT
Not sure if he's backing out just because of the backlash he received, or if it's because Voiceverse started posting audio clips of their work and he realised he didn't want his voice to be associated with that sh*te.
After 20 years of the internet, this was written. Bitcoin has been around for 12. The technology has evolved a great deal since its inception and it will continue to evolve.
After two decades online, I’m perplexed. It’s not that I haven’t had a gas of a good time on the Internet. I’ve met great people and even caught a hacker or two.But today, I’m uneasy about this most trendy and oversold community – the internet.
Visionaries see a future of telecommuting workers, interactive libraries and multimedia classrooms. They speak of electronic town meetings and virtual communities. Commerce and business will shift from offices and malls to networks and modems. And the freedom of digital networks will make government more democratic.
Baloney. Do our computer pundits lack all common sense? The truth is no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works.
Consider today’s online world. The Usenet, a worldwide bulletin board, allows anyone to post messages across the nation. Your word gets out, leapfrogging editors and publishers.
Every voice can be heard cheaply and instantly. The result? Every voice is heard. The cacophony more closely resembles citizens band radio, complete with handles, harassment, and anonymous threats. When most everyone shouts, few listen.
How about electronic publishing? Try reading a book on disc. At best, it’s an unpleasant chore: the myopic glow of a clunky computer replaces the friendly pages of a book.
And you can’t tote that laptop to the beach. Yet Nicholas Negroponte, director of the MIT Media Lab, predicts that we’ll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the Internet. Uh, sure.
What the Internet hucksters won’t tell you is that the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness. Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore and what’s worth reading.
Logged onto the World Wide Web, I hunt for the date of the Battle of Trafalgar. Hundreds of files show up, and it takes 15 minutes to unravel them–one’s a biography written by an eighth grader, the second is a computer game that doesn’t work and the third is an image of a London monument.
None answers my question, and my search is periodically interrupted by messages like, “Too many connections, try again later.”
Won’t the Internet be useful in governing? Internet addicts clamor for government reports. But when Andy Spano ran for county executive in Westchester County, N.Y., he put every press release and position paper onto a bulletin board. In that affluent county, with plenty of computer companies, how many voters logged in? Fewer than 30. Not a good omen.
Then there are those pushing computers into schools. We’re told that multimedia will make schoolwork easy and fun. Students will happily learn from animated characters while taught by expertly tailored software.
Who needs teachers when you’ve got computer-aided education? Bah.
These expensive toys are difficult to use in classrooms and require extensive teacher training. Sure, kids love video games–but think of your own experience: can you recall even one educational filmstrip of decades past? I’ll bet you remember the two or three great teachers who made a difference in your life.
Then there’s cyberbusiness. We’re promised instant catalog shopping–just point and click for great deals. We’ll order airline tickets over the network, make restaurant reservations and negotiate sales contracts. Stores will become obsolete.
So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire Internet handles in a month?
Even if there were a trustworthy way to send money over the Internet–which there isn’t–the network is missing a most essential ingredient of capitalism: salespeople.
What’s missing from this electronic wonderland? Human contact. Discount the fawning techno-burble about virtual communities. Computers and networks isolate us from one another. A network chat line is a limp substitute for meeting friends over coffee.
No interactive multimedia display comes close to the excitement of a live concert. And who’d prefer cybersex to the real thing?
While the Internet beckons brightly, seductively flashing an icon of knowledge-as-power, this nonplace lures us to surrender our time on earth. A poor substitute it is, this virtual reality where frustration is legion and where–in the holy names of Education and Progress–important aspects of human interactions are relentlessly devalued.
STOLL is the author of “Silicon Snake Oil–Second Thoughts on the Information Highway” to be published by Doubleday in April.
"No, it's the children who are wrong".
I just finished watching it. It's fantastic.
Dan Olson’s new feature-length (!) video on NFTs and cryptos is superb: a clear, concise explainer of complex concepts and an absolutely stellar critique of the rot at the centre of the whole fad. Really gets at the lies or naivety behind the purported idealism of many crypto bros, and why ultimately it’s all just a financial death spiral.
A great bit of video journalism / essaying that is well worth carving out the time for, although you might want to take it in chunks :)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d3e92925f7bde702415f91ea088d4f7a.svg)
