People misunderstand gaming NFTs all the time. Even more than art NFTs, it seems like the combination of gaming and NFTs just brings out the most tribal and confrontational aspects of people. Gaming NFTs gets folks MAD.
This Bloomberg article perfectly sums up the misinformed take that has become standard lately in gamer circles: "How Gamers Beat NFTs."
This article suggests that gaming NFTs tried to happen, but thanks to gamers rising up and protesting on social media, the NFTs did not happen. Now big gaming companies are afraid to try and use NFTs, which Bloomberg says is good, since this will save you from spending your money on NFT gaming scams.
I actually like this article because it's so absurd. I think there are certain sentences and paragraphs in here that are quite self-contradictory.
Like, if you are able to take a few minutes to really think about what they're saying in some of these paragraphs, I think it's a pretty solid case in favor of gaming NFTs. You just have to look past the way they're framing it.
This is the main sentence that IMO is the worst possible take on NFT gaming, because it gets it exactly backwards.
They're suggesting that it is ok to spend money on "digital horse armor," but only if you do not own it.
That's it. You can spend the money, but it can't be an NFT. They aren't mad about how much it costs. They aren't mad that you are spending real money on a digital object. After all, this sentence concedes that "it can at least be fun," the only thing they have a problem with, is the NFT -- which is just you having actual ownership.
It couldn't be more clear. The only thing this author is unhappy with, is YOU owning THINGS. As long as you don't own things, it's all good.
They are happy if Microsoft owns everything, and you own nothing. After all, the article celebrates the fact that "Minecraft has almost total control of in-game cosmetics through its own marketplace, and owner Microsoft Corp. sees no need to open things up to web3."
If you own some of the things, for example by having in-game NFTs, this means Microsoft owns less of the things, which this author says is bad. The author says Microsoft should own all the digital things, and you should spend money on those things but not own them.
The author's point does not make a lot of sense to me. In my opinion, it is better for gamers if they do own the things they are already spending money on.
Funnily enough I like Hive games exactly because I do own stuff and it can also be fun. Items in the games let you do more stuff, but I can sell them if I like. You still rely on whoever runs the game as without them you cannot see your NFTs and they have the power to ban you. There are usually compromises, even in platforms that have decentralisation.
Yeah 100% -- even with player-owned assets in games, there's still reliance on the game developers and others who run the game. Still, like you said, at least it lets players sell items and have real ownership.
p.s. sorry for the late reply :P
I own a lot of in-game NFTs, so I hope they are still usable in years to come. I've bought some that are purely art too. Not sure what I'll do with those.
!BEER
View or trade
BEER.Hey @heymattsokol, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @steevc for you. Enjoy it!Did you know that <a href='https://dcity.io/cityyou can use BEER at dCity game to buy cards to rule the world.
Dear @heymattsokol, sorry to jump in a bit off-topic.
May I ask you to review and support the new proposal (https://peakd.com/me/proposals/240) so I can continue to improve and maintain this service?
You can support the new proposal (#240) on Peakd, Ecency,
Thank you!