Hello,
I have been researching about blockchains and stuff and it all seems like a big scam. It’s not sustainable and can be replaced by a simple database.
is there any legitimate use cases of blockchains or it is all just a big scam?
Hello,
I have been researching about blockchains and stuff and it all seems like a big scam. It’s not sustainable and can be replaced by a simple database.
is there any legitimate use cases of blockchains or it is all just a big scam?
Gods unchained is a digital TCG that is the only good use of NFTs (and thus Blockchain) that I can think of.
The idea of NFTs is you have a specific instance of a thing that you can trade around. NFT art is stupid, because at the end of the day it’s a jpg. However, with a digital TCG, each NFT can represent a singular copy of a digital trading card. It brings back the “trading” aspect of a digital TCG, made more convenient than physical cards due to digital transfers.
Could you elaborate a bit how blockchain enables something unique here? I see that it enables trade between users, but if a single company controls the game and I assume supply of new cards, does the blockchain aspect for trading really matter?
Trading itself is basic and doesn’t need a blockchain. I guess with it you have it implemented in a public and tamper proof way, but that second part doesn’t seem to matter to me if the source is centralized.
So what exactly is gained from this approach over just your average ingame auction house?
i feel like the only real ‘advantage’ here would be that the cards couldn’t be proxied which sounds like only an ‘advantage’ to the people on the rent-seeking end of the bargain.
If blockchain could be used for DRM, we’d see more of it.
That’s the thing, it’s not centralized - in this game, for the first time ever in a digital TCG, if the company hosting it closes it’s doors, you still have something in your ownership that corresponds to your cards, opening up the possibility of others re-implementing everything.
It ain’t much, and it’s a long shot, but for the first time ever it’s possible.
But who is able to mint/create those cards? Anyone or just the company? That is what I was primarily getting at.
Yes, proof that you owned cards in a now defunct game. The question is how much value is left at that point.
Barring copyright/IP law allowing it, or are we disregarding that? If someone wanted to take over they might just buy out the old company and take over.
And even when starting from scratch they’d have to evaluate if honoring/adopting the existing tokens would be worth it (would give an existing player base, but in return you don’t get any money from them and probably less than from a customer that starts from scratch).
A third option would be some form of foss project reviving the game. But the game seems independent of the blockchain aspect, which only tracks card ownership. Why would any such effort want to adopt a system build on artificial scarcity and profit?
Full disclosure, I’ve never played the game, just stumbled across it in the past and acknowledged that it was the only “use” of an NFT that leveraged the aspects of the technology well, or at least better than the ones linked to jpegs.
Probably just the company, but your ownership of that card (or something that a community can acknowledge represents the card) is independent of it
Regardless of the value of the NFT, the technology enables something that wasn’t possible before.
Not a lawyer, so the easiest solution is just to wait until it’s in public domain. Might be impractical, but again, we’re just talking about what this technology enables.
The secondary market of the “cards” can take place in between someone buying the company out, which is another boon.
At the end of the day, I’m just sharing a neat use of Blockchain. You can argue it’s not popular enough to be useful, etc., but it’s undeniable that the technology is enabling something that wasn’t possible before. I’m not going to due on the hill defending it, just thought it’s neat.
No way. There are many ways to introduce artificial scarcity to digital goods, and no it is not a new or good use of the tech… Artificial scarcity is a huge part of all of the world’s problems.
Before we start blaming a digital trading card game for the sins of capitalism, let’s both acknowledge that “artificial scarcity” is built into games. Mario suffered “artificial scarcity” when he didn’t have a red mushroom at the ready. Anything that requires “unlocking” can be argued to be artifical scarcity. At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter because these are aspects of a game and not real world resources.
Every digital TCG - Hearthstone, mtg arena, etc. all already have artificial scarcity.
This is just allowing for you, as a player, to actually have a semblance of ownership over the digital goods you obtain, independent of the company you purchased it from, which is far more than any other digital platform will allow for.
Just because the artificial scarcity is digital doesn’t magically make it different. If the intent is to get more money, it is exactly the same. No wait, it’s even more despicable because there’s no reason for actual digital scarcity.
Just like most games that were designed to eat quarters in arcade machines do not receive any honor after their time, these decisions invariably go down in history as just greedy fucks being greedy fucks.
It sounds like your issues are with that of games in general, which is outside of the scope of this discussion, so I don’t have much to say in response. Hope you have a good day!
No, you’re just proving to be too dumb to understand the nuance I’m aiming for.
Do you think there would be dozens of versions of Mortal Kombat if it stayed as the arcade machine? Or did removing the monetization when they released it on consoles allow far more people to truly engage and fall in love with it?
I’m sorry you’re too dumb to understand the problems of rent seeking from modern corporations, but denying them won’t fix anything.
Did they release that shit for free or something? Are you claiming “they” released dozens of versions of it after “they” stopped using the game as a source of profit?
You realize making an arcade game that eats quarters for breakfast is a monetization scheme… Don’t you? You realize Mortal Kombat and many, many older games started in arcades, right?
How can you be so dense as to fail to realize the similarities between microtransactions and arcade games eating quarters? Except microtransactions are much worse because they do not enable a secondary economy like arcades did.
Again, artificial scarcity is bullshit. It was BS back then, and it’s WAY more BS these days. It is not something to celebrate, unless you’re a piece of shit that wants to leverage things against other human beings for profit unnecessarily.
And is “releasing it on consoles” not a monetization scheme? If they didn’t give it away from free, they…sold it for money, which means it’s a monetization scheme.
What’s worse is that on consoles it’s simply a digital copy of a file being made - at least arcades needed maintenance, justifying an ongoing cost. Arguably your example of games being released on consoles is an even worse example of artificial scarcity - why should they charge for a digital copy of a game that costs them nothing to copy? Is that not a textbook example of “artificial scarcity”?
Are we in agreement that digital cards as NFTs does enable a secondary market, especially when compared to digital cards not associated with NFTs?
How is this different from MODO?
Not sure what that is, searching doesn’t help
Magic Online with Digital Objects, also known as Magic Online
If wotc closes down modo, you’re left SOL.
Because transactions and ownership are not controlled by the hosting company, I believe there’s opportunity to keep the game going even after the company closes doors.
Long shot, but it’s the first peek at “digital ownership” where you actually own something, independent of the company that gave it to you, they can easily be traded.
I know this is dodging your point, but WotC has already divested themselves of MODO and a third party now runs it. I know what you mean, a central server going down destroys access to the game you pay for. And indeed we see that happening with plenty of live service games, to the point that its starting to weigh down the entire industry, or at least that sector of it.
But I ask, is it really that different? Various NFT projects have come and gone, and most of the NFTs people have paid for have succumbed to link rot already my guy. The average life span for a live service game is like, what? 2 years? And even the successful ones, what? Like 7? I haven’t played God’s Unchained, but I can’t imagine being a blockchain game will make any difference, especially because the games that do survive and are remembered have the following factors:
Can easily be modded/ hacked Can be easily emulated Were cherished and beloved
Deus Ex can be downloaded for free. Pokemon red and Sim Tower and Oregon Trail can be run in a browser. Breakout can be run in a search engine. As far as the comparison to MODO, those cards were fungible. When you completed a whole set, you could contact WotC to take them out of your account, and they would send you a copy of the whole set in paper. It’s why MTGOexchange was called that; before bitcoin, you could trade magic cards for drugs.
I haven’t played the game before either - I just know that for once folks can own a digital aspect of a game independent of the creators of the game, which I think is notable and qualifies as a “legitimate use of Blockchain”.
That’s real neat re: MTGOexchange! I played in the past and knew about card redemption, I didn’t know about drugs lmao