Do NFTs suck?
Who bought it, this is the question? If they make that public every time this happens, immediately NFT's will die in a minute. But of course, these big companies that own the news media, also own the investments into these fake app "games" trying to make it seem like it it's a normal thing. The smallest available plot costs $7000 atm. No person in their right mind is going to pay $7000 for an "opportunity" to play some sim game and earn a fraction of nothing they can earn at an actual job. This isn't like little timmy asked his parents for $25 to buy a game and he's gonna make money off it when he's supposed to ENJOY the game. Chances are whoever bought a $900,000 plot is a big company scheming something up, aka, avoid this game, because you will be ripped off.
(TLDR: You'll probably be playing, earn some currency, and Peter will be taking a cut from your money or the plot owner takes a cut from your money. So for whoever bought london, depending on the size of the plot and if many players go to there to do transactions, could mean the plot owner takes a huge cut every day making their money back, if that makes sense all on your effort, like any asshole boss or manager you've ever had. At least, that's how I'd do it, and that's exactly how all the contracts on BNB altcoin work, I assume that's the same for any other coin, the coin maker takes a cut from whatever you generate, because f u)
Good job to Peter Molyneux for forgetting that games are for entertainment not jobs. The job part of it is the "Game Developer". Old people really get these confused maybe it's time for him to retire if he forgot to put the joy into it.
I do find it funny how on their website you have to buy with actual ethereum or two other actual coins, where then you will be given "Legacy tokens" in the game, aka not actual coins, aka shit coins, which is just in game currency, which might or might not work in the future, assuming everything works okay it will be adapted if enough idiots agree to use it as a currency and promote it so they can start taking their money out of the game they invested $7000 in. That's basically how every currency works, doesn't apply to just crypto. We could make water a currency if enough idiots decided that water was the most valuable currency, it is a lot more valuable than this shit imo.
Comment has been collapsed.
The worst thing is, everyone who takes part in it knows it. They are playing the Greater Fool game and they're happy about it :x Sick
Comment has been collapsed.
Last wall is starting to crubmle. The enemy is slowly breaching. The name of the enemy is: ADVERTISING. Heroes, prepare yourself, dark age is comming to games. You log in to your online game a with friends in city of Sh*twind goes to McDonalds.. happy vomiting...
Comment has been collapsed.
How people see the name Peter Molyneux and don't immediately run away is crazy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Run before he monetizes the square inch of land you're standing on.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good job. If someone stupid enough to buy a digital land for 900,000 dollars, why wouldn't you sell it?
Comment has been collapsed.
The industry is so fucked these days,its resorting to pyramid schemes.
sigh Don't suppose anyone has a spare time machine I could use to GTFO back to the 00s & away from this disgrace.
Comment has been collapsed.
lmao the only thing that NFT was missing is Peter Molyneux
Comment has been collapsed.
Frankly NFTs arent that crazy nor that damaging. Not by thenselves.
YES I SAID THAT (and no never bought any- never will)
Ok, hear me out:
1- blockchain energy wasteful tech IS DUMB
full stop.
The concept of the block and decentralization in general is genious (theres real good that can come out of it)
They could some day change the landscape in terms of power balance, removing control from few enriched hands and their agenda.
In particular some concepts flowing around like a decentralized web are freaking amazing.
SADLY that also comes with the bad- like crime and scams...
...and the worse is HOW its implemented right now- a nonsensical non-sustainable race with hardware? this is nuts.
THAT is the problem- not the concept/tech itself.
2- NFT as ownership is dumb as hell and just speculation- yes.
NFT only grace is proving a transaction was made, who to whom, who 'owns' what it represents.
But the moment someone done that to some jpeg it went downhill.
How on earth someone pays ludicrous money to not own a repicable jpeg and similars is beyond me.
BUT, that said- theres real artists finally getting what they deserved thanks to that.
For every 1 of those theres a thousand dumb rng procedural cash-grabs...
...and equally dumb people using their money on that.
So what?
People with money wasting it on dumb @#%? That has always happened.
From gucci to physical 'art' auditions.
Its one of the many colaterals of capitalism. You let some have more money then they can/need to spend, they will burn it.
Theres people burning money on scams right now in the hopes of cashing in...
...same as the always did on the stock market.
And like the stock market many burn thenselves for playing the speculation game.
So far, nothing new, nothing changed.
3- Resellable digital itens exist for decades now (and is the reason why some games are still around)
Point in case for me: Tf2. I love that game. Only game i never uninstall.
Werent for the cosmetics and how theyre resellable valve wouldnt have a reason to keep servers up to this day.
4- Real Passionate and promising projects have failed in the past due to funding.
For every scam and Star Citizen nonsenses out there theres half a dozen projects that had promise but were shelved due to funding.
Alternative ways of funding are welcome and can be good.
...........................
The problem is the current state of block chain.
An easy way to transfer a proof of ownership, done correctly, all good- one more way to make a part of the market owned by firms and the rich being more acessible to everyone. No problem with that by itself.
The problem is doing so at such a high carbon/energy cost, borderline insane.
Dumb people burning money on 'jpegs'(not really btw, just in the 'proof') - well, thats just +1 of the dumb crazy fads to the huge list of dumb crazy fads. We cant get mad at people being dumb otherwise we will live 24/7 being mad. What do we gain?
'But they will ruin games with it...'
WILL THEY?
Werent they ruining games for profit already?
Was Molineux releasing a new game, a new good game, that suddenly turned sour because of nfts?
HELL NO!
The ones milking for cash grab are the ones who were already milking for cashgrabs.
The 100s or so fake games made solely for nfts... werent ever real games. What are we loosing? Nada
Is any real game maker giving up on a real game for nfts?
idk of any- but if there are... well, they werent real game makers after all then.
Frankly i wish such nonsense takes over then say 100 'expansion packs/dlc/microtransactions'.
Let the greedy publishers have a direct money funnel with their beloved wales. Isnt my money, why would i care?
All i care about is having good games, preferably full on release- something i wasnt getting anyway with AAA publishers.
My point is: theres no point getting mad at the greedy industry being greedy.
Choose better who and what you pay for.
Dont spend money on stupid nonsense like this.
If some nft npcs or cosmetics allow something like Beyond Good and Evil 2 to finally release or something like that then all the better for me- i wont pay for cosmetic or npc nft bs, but i will gladly take the game, thank you. Same way how i have fun in some (SOME) games full of microtransactions, my wallet safe and sound
If any day a new souls game theres nft itens or whatever i will just have that much more joy the day i kill a invader with a nft sword or whatever.
Im just worried by the logistics of nft/blockchains right now- but since its unustainable it WILL change, just hope it changes before the planet burns- but hell, idk if that will be possible anyway, regardless of blockchain gpus.
To me all of this is like people being mad at the mobile diablo and witcher games, stuff like that. The companies doing those werent going to be spending whatever that money cost into pc-console games. Same thing here folks.
End of the day is just spending too much time paying attention for something undeserving.
But dont bash the tech at its core just yet, there is potential there- just not realized yet.
Comment has been collapsed.
I totally get what you mean but if you're making something an NFT, one - price it reasonably and two - don't make it accessible to everyone, since it's digital. Like a private commission y'know?
That's what makes them useless. You get a picture that everyone else has seen, and has saved. There's only profit for the "artist" who draws one sketch and uses every possible color combination on it, and artists who put great effort into their unique sketches sell it for a mere 50 dollars.
And it's true, art is dead. Modern art is a scam to say the least. But even if someone owns a banana taped to the wall, they did get ripped off, yes, but no one else owns that particular banana taped to the wall, unlike in the case of NFTs.
Summed up, fuck most of modern art and NFTs.
Comment has been collapsed.
100%
Truth be told "high art" have turned into a scam for over a century now. At least once upon a time there was the status involved but nowadays even physical art is bought less for the physicality and more for the price (tax deduction, evasion, money laundry or re-sell). Coming to think of it nft is just the latest step in a trend started long ago.
What i dont get is why theyre not selling some sort of ip rights alongside the tokens (maybe they are im unaware?). That would at least allow the buyer to act upon licesing rights, like suing anyone reproducing the image if they wanted to go throught that trouble.
My guess is NFTs were meant to be used that way but something got in the way- maybe the abscence of the right legal terms (like selling the license to reproduce without taking the autorship away from the artist) or more likely that legal part couldnt be done quickly, meaning exchanging contracts and signing up on every transaction (wich would kill the the flexibility that made nfts viral)
But frankly outside a minority (really stupid) like the ones who ask online for people to not copy/share their token... the huge majority of people lining money on this couldnt care less about actual ownership or the content.
Its just a lower risk bet. Doesnt matter if it really doesnt mean anything, the moment you can sell for a higher price it means that- profit. Anything else are details.
My point is- they 'own it'. Not the art or whatever. But the id/token to be sold. Anyone can copy and share some dumb procedural gif token, but if someone want to pay 300 bucks for it only the guy with the nft can cash it. Thats it.
Its the metaest meta of capitalism, but hey, the stock market already been working like this for like forever now
Comment has been collapsed.
Huh, you make "blockchains" sound like something actually interesting and innovative. I mean, I legitimately have no clue what they are or what they do/can do- the moment they got associated with "cryptocurrencies" I just dismissed them as part of that money laundering scheme (because everything just has to always be about money nowadays, doesn't it?!... like you said- art is dead, if it was ever even alive to begin with). I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole thing... I mean, I could look it up for some actual details but... why bother...
I could try to argue against the idea of leaving things to just play out, where the foolish and vulnerable get consumed by the exploitative, proving that exploitation is the way to go and keeping that messed up loop going forever, or until the bubble that is the pretense of civility finally bursts... but, eh... you can't do anything about it; I can't do anything about it; heck, even the people doing the exploitation can't do anything about it if they had a reason to (if they all stopped, others would just fill the void). That's just how humanity is... Why even discuss it... Why even discuss anything?
Comment has been collapsed.
If serious no need to be so down, if not good point. Its good we discuss things (would be better if more often that reflected in change tough), thats why whenever i see a trend of one opnion and when i have another angle i feel compeled to post. A bit of devils advocate in me i think.
Block chain is only the latest of a long (loooong) debate/line of tought around decentralization that poped up in tech- heck even the internet is in part consequence of it. Before we even had webpages/html the greatest dream and promise of interconectivity was decentralized. Html came upon being under that thought, hyperlinks were meant to make a global enciclopedia (later came wikis)...
One of the main concepts/ways of achieving it is nodes but how many nodes and who mantain then becomes a logistical problem. If too little big companies/government would hold control of the nodes. Peer 2 peer (like torrents) came up with every user being a micro-node for filesharing. Then theres tor, with a bunch of self-deployable nodes...
One of the problens with nodes is that each node (server holding data) have its own specs, problens, etc- where it is geographically, how much bandwith it have, if a node goes down it could affect other nodes or even break chains of communitcation and so on. Its a hard problem to tackle.
Block chain does the crazy thing making every node having all the data of every other node; Essentially everyone holding the network have a copy of everything, and that is also used for added protection and other fancy features (too complex to explain shortly).
Thats why block chain works best with smaller data- the way it is we probably wouldnt ever see something like a youtube alternative on block chain because videos are too large and everyone having all the videos would be impossible..
So it focuses on lists of text(data)- like transactions, thus cryptocurrencies.
Theres already experiments trying to spin things up with other kinds of data and purposes, but they get clouded- the news only focus on the crazy people spending crazy amounts of money in nonsense (and scams). Thats also why the cryptocurrency side of things spread and developed faster- most of the folk going in are in for the money, bunch of startups (and scammers) developing further on the concept not for what it could do more- but focused solely on making new types of money they could sell to get rich... in turn making a bubble i hope doesnt bloat too much exploding in our faces.
Im on the alpha for an app called Anytype (Anytype.io) thats is making like a notion/evernote in such a way that everyone using it basically have 'unlimited' cloud storage (almost) thanks to a bunch of in-development tech mixing peer 2 peer and block chain concepts. Its crazy stuff to even wrap the head around, i only know then(as the app interest me) but theres a bunch of other folk around the same initiative for different purposes, i recall there was some experimental decentralized web/blogging and whatnot using the tech... all from the same branch and concepts as block chain and crypto.
BUT
Since those initiatives arent selling infinite digital 'goods' to be bargained for much more no one is talking and theres just a couple of investors. because MONEY, as always. Also Amazon, googles alphabet, microsoft etc etc- the biggest players dont want decentralized anything, they want to monopolize every service for thenselves.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I looked it up... So, do I get this right- "Blockchain" is just a data storage protocol? Well... ok... (I'd immediately kinda question how it prevents malicious actors from inserting false information into the system, but whatever, they probably figured something that sounds like it works.)
With the whole generating-money-out-of-nothing craze this caused I kinda expected something ridiculously made-up. ^_^'
Meanwhile, if I'm getting this right, cryptocurrencies are basically a big fat gold rush? (Which annoyingly affects everyone interested in tech rather than just the ones who fall for it since their "pickaxes" are important hardware for everyone. <.< ) So there really is nothing to talk about it. Just... this is all so pointless, I'm sorry I asked and wasted your time. :/
And, yes, I am serious.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, right now thats all there is to it: a big gold rush.
It wasnt made for that, blockchain had security reasons, the first crypto was meant as the one alternative to current systems (not a scammy make your own coin to get rich) and the tech itself was never locked down in a single path. But as soon as the first crypto started increasing in value nonstop... the floodgates were open.
And yes, sadly this one affects us all. Btw the reason people behind it overlooked the problems with the method (requiring gpus and so much energy) is most likely the creator itself never expected it to get so huge. Comparing to similar technologies that depend on people willing to become nodes thenselves like Tor, the expectation at the start were a few hundreds then a few thousands across the globe keeping the system running- a scale where crypto would spend a fraction what is spent yearly in things like servers, much smaller then say what netflix alone spends in servers and gpus...
But then the moment it becomes a gold rush with 100s of new coins being invented yearly is where things gets nuts and a race to the bottom with scalpers. Wasnt meant to be like that.
Im a bit less worried with crypto and that side of it because of the very nature of crypto- this hardware race is unsustainable and part of the scam (of making new coins and hoping yours get more valued) is highly affected by what it supposedly provides better then the others- you add the pressure from critics to very tangible policies against it (like chinas recent ban, because it was spending too much energy) and now theres a pressure and demand for new alternative ways to 'mine'... for example one came up using hard-drives recently (wich just shifts the target of scalpers yet).
Point is- theres now a bunch of people racing to make the next bit coin, one that would require a fraction of the energy and or hardware to mantain... And since theres so much money in potential at play that makes it a certainty. The whole gpu thing will change soon, something else will come up and shift the trend... only a matter of time. Its a certainty because it interests then so much. The scalpers with warehouses full of gpus at dimishing gains woul sell their liver for a coin that didnt require all that insane upfront investment and upkeep (and btw the scalpers are fighting against each other, as the very crazy race makes it impossible for any company to meet the actual demand).
You were on point- the main thing about blockchain is security. Because everyone have a copy of everything and the way everything is networked cheating the system would require someone to change things in all nodes or too many, wich is impossible. Like you could invade a banks servers to change things or insert fake data that would trick one company because theyre centralized. Even if someone tried some scheme with thousands of machines in the network trying to cheat the system it would still be only a fraction- and the system is made in such a way it would avoid that.
Im oversimplifying but thats essentially it- all the time all machines bouncing the updates amongst thenselves are always in sync. The moment 1 or a thousand bounce something wrong/at odds they cant just take over, the majority wins. For example if the system were mantained by smartphones (like, if each and everysmartphone were a node) a hacker would need to hack into every smartphone in the world to cheat the system. Its like that, unfeasible.
............................................................................................
That said i think its extremely important we discuss things. For example the pressure for changing how the proof is made (the part involving gpus) came from debating and criticism. The risk of a bubble and a upcoming crysis from it is real... we cant just drop the subject. Policies regulating it are needed. Even the rampant scams out there could lower if people knew better - sure its the dumb burning their money, but implications for economy (or how scalpers affect us) make it our problem too.
Also because the tech could be used better and it IS very promising- im also afraid the gold rush ends up just burning the concept to the ground. For example if it becomes a bubble that implodes before blockchain start being implemented for good in other areas it would tarnish the very term, making investors to never touch the projects that would use it for our benefit.
For example just recently there was the log4j security breach, that affected everyone (all big tech companies, most small companies, even steam). So far attackers havent made a mess yet, hope everyone fix everything in time, but log4j couldve become(still can, were not fixed yet) the first worlwide crysis from cyberattack alone. If some attacker makes a mess or take down any of the big ones for example we could see a major domino effect as entire industries could be affected- and if corona was any lesson, even 1-2 months of such a crysis could lead to 2 to 10 years of recession until the sideffects are fully overcomed...
Blockchain is right now the best bet (the single one currently, being frank) for a future where such things wouldnt even be possible. It could one day become a standard, a protocol as essential for how the web and world work like say http and such. Were far from that yet, thats why im so worried the whole deomonization of it because of the crypto scams ends up making the market throw the baby out with the bathwater
PS:
Thats why i like to mention the whole gold rush thing shouldnt be target at crypto. Thats the market mentality for ages now, thats how the stock market been working for awhile (with negative results so very common). The gold rush mentality is terrible and one of the many bad side effects of capitalism- fixing it if possible at all would require changing how we behave and or how the capitalist status quo works. My point is the blame for that isnt in crypto- those same people are a fraction of the many people salivating at any and all possible 'the next big thing' where they could be early investors and cash in early. Could be crypto or any other thing- if cyrpto ends today it would be some next fad, even a fabricated one. That problem is a whole other beast
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm with you on this, and I'm glad you took the time to type all this out. The whole thing is like a knife: it's a useful tool for a wide variety of things, but all you see is people using that tool to stab people to death... also those people bleed oil and pollute the environment, I guess. Okay, so not the best analogy, but you know what I mean: you hear "knife"; you think weapon.
Another point I really like is that this is mostly going to be a trend for games that were going to suck, anyway; garbage that only keeps selling because of brand recognition from the hivemind. Call of Duty is a popular punching bag, so let's use that as an example: the franchise has been a joke for well over a decade, but you know damn well that it's going to sell insane amounts of copies, even likely to a large portion of the group that has been bashing it; adding NFTs to that isn't going to ruin a franchise that's already been ruined by bad design decisions and excessive monetization. Same with EA sports titles; same with a lot of the big boys (I'm not giving them the satisfaction of calling them AAA). I'm not trying to be [i]that[/i] gal, because the indie scene has a lot of trash and cheap cash grabs, too, but that's where most of the new titles that interest me come from these days. If we'd all just stop boarding the always-disappointing hype train and stop buying EVERY major release that comes out, then maybe game coverage would get better and show off a variety, rather than just, "OMG 10/10 PERFECT GAEM" for every major release that's already going to be shoved down your throat with ads, anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Tottally agree.
My hopes tought is considering if alternative ways for publishers to make the $$$ they so much want couldnt end up good for us.
Doesnt need to be nfts, but something along those lines (a way for wales to funnel money to then) is the best bet for that happening i think.
For example EA after all the backlash over battlefronts loot boxes and canceled star wars games decided to give in the pressure and release a normal non-lootbox non-nonsense singleplayer star wars game (that was good).
Now imagine if nfts or something similar existed and were normalized as means for then to make more cash from the start...
...chances are they wouldnt even have planed for lootboxes. Maybe some of the canned projects would have been kept in development, using nfts in some way instead.
For us the end result would be the same or better- the same singleplayer game, maybe some more (i recall one sounded really promising- so much they cancelled because they couldnt milk it)... and what? what if there were nfts involved, if some people made a gold rush buying those nfts or exchanging insane cash for like, idk, being or 'owning' an npc in the game? They wouldve spent the money, EA would have made their so beloved quaterly increase... at no expense for us in gameplay.
Unlike lootboxes and freaking micro-transactions.
Right now theres no lack of pure scam 'games' with nft, like molineux next scam but Stalker? Stalker 2 was in plans before the nft craze. The devs were making not some gatcha with procedural whatever nfts... theyre making freaking STALKER fgs.
Im really angry right now because the stalker games are amongst my favorites of all times and they have always been somewhat AA janky because of the studio size and being niche. If the nft thing went through and enought of the nft-buyers got in - aka, a huge cash injection and more reasons to make a really good game since that would increase those nft values even more... stalker 2 could grow from slight bigger to idk, metro exodus or higher in terms of size, polish or even hype.
Maybe they werent and just a few would buy, or the devs would burn the money elsewhere- but the chance of that happening was just killed because people were being too critical of nft as an idea alone.
It is and should be an red flag right now, but its all in the execution. If they were turning the project from the previous stalker 2 to, idk, 'now its focused on generating random stalkers just for selling'- THAT would get me mad. But wasnt the case fgs...
Comment has been collapsed.
I was just thinking about that game (Legacy) and wondering what became of it. It looked really cool back in the day, but I couldn't really find any updates when I searched, so I assumed it had been scrapped.
I just want to play the game, I really don't want to try to make money from it. I wonder if it'll have an offline / non-NFT mode?
Comment has been collapsed.
When I read a discussion and don't understand what it's about it.
I had to look up what NFT meant. Sometimes I'm happy I live under a rock when it comes to imaginary tech.
Comment has been collapsed.
the Stalker 2 discord shows that they've cancelled their NFT idea. As does their Twitter
(https://twitter.com/stalker_thegame/status/1471620399997886472)
Comment has been collapsed.
Viewed in historical context after centuries of extreme materialism large parts of society re-gain a believe in the immaterial. From believing paper rectangles have value it isn't a big leap to believe secret colons of zeros and ones have value.
Reminds me of the Middle Ages where the Catholic Church made people believe if they paid enough money to the church they would be cleansed of all their sins and avoid purgatory or even worse hell.
Comment has been collapsed.
I will never understand this world. 🤯But I think I'm beginning to accept that fact. Well.. most days.
Sometimes though, I want a new planet.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess you mean the buyer or the greedy idea and I dislike this, too. However, we have to accept that greed and the drive to achieve things are requirements for making progress. Unfortunately there are always some people producing strange effects with those good ideas. And better not start thinking about how the money could have been used else.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.ign.com/articles/peter-molyneux-nft-game-sells-plot-for-900k
This is a stupid, stupid trend. Ubisoft, GSC (not anymore) and would ya guess it Peter Molyneux.
Who needs a Kickstarter or funding when you can make a cryptocurrency and profit off of something that hasn't released and would likely suck anyway.
In a nutshell, Legacy, his new game, is an immersive business sim that's so immersive that you require to buy a digital plot of land for real-world prices. It really does make you feel like you own a piece of land even though you don't!
So anyway, some idiot bought a digital plot of land in London for 900,000 dollars with which I'm pretty damn sure you can buy an actual plot of land with.
Out of all the NFTs in gaming, this is probably the worse since you can't really even use it yet, and it is REQUIRED to play the game. And considering it's a Peter Molyneux game, he'll probably drop support 6 months after release, tops.
Other greedy-ass dick moves by developers -
Ubisoft Quartz - https://www.ign.com/articles/ubisoft-quartz-announced-blockchain-nfts-digits-cosmetics
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 NFTs - https://www.ign.com/articles/stalker-2-nfts-metahuman-npc
Edit: Gone! - https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/stalker-2-will-have-nfts-with-some-owners-appearing-in-game-as-npcs
Further reading - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain_game
Comment has been collapsed.