Ploeperpengel
Space Marshal
Crowdfunding doesn't prevent dick moves, but yeah.
Should Star Citizen consider NFT's for raising funds?
- Thread starter Montoya
- Start date
Ploeperpengel
Space Marshal
There are dick moves, and there are publisher dick moves.
You can't decry the parts you don't want like forced deadlines, publisher interference in the creative process and budget constraints while retaining the parts you might like, whatever they may be.
It'd be like being a vegetarian for everything but bacon sandwiches. Then you are not a vegetarian. Cast aside all the publisher bullshit except the bits that seem like a money spinner and you have not got rid of the publisher - you have simply replaced them and you are the publisher, and before too long those undesirable things you got rid of the publisher to loose slowly start to look just that little bit more reasonable when it gets another 2% return per quater...
Publisher dick moves. Not even once.
Ubisoft's NFT Terms of Service is a joke and as expected ... Isn't actually an NFT.
They're just going to sell people more expensive buzz word crates with individually numbered "rarity". Bank on it.
They're just going to sell people more expensive buzz word crates with individually numbered "rarity". Bank on it.
But the word "NFT" is not supposed to add or remove any value, its simply means that the market place where the cosmetic item trades is on a blockchain and not their private servers.
Like CSGO, there is already rarity in all these types of cosmetics, its not new.
Yes, but under Ubisoft's newly released TOS, they can still use your NFT any way they see fit.
It's "yours" ... just not yours. So basically ... no different than what we have now.
Not worth any additional microtransaction cost, imho.
Maybe Im misunderstanding then. What additional microtransaction cost are you referring to?
You don't think they are gonna take the same crates they sell now, add "Blockchain Bro" to their marketing, and charge MORE for the same cosmetics?
Personally ... I believe that's the ONLY reason they are doing this. Cashing in on the crypto hype to sell the same things they've always sold, at a higher cost.
That is just speculation, we have no proof that they are increasing prices of anything.
And no, adding "blockchain" is not a selling feature as we saw by the reaction from the very vocal group of gamers who are against it.
Putting their cosmetics on the blockchain is simply a way for them to offload the future transactions, financial fees and anything database related.
And no, adding "blockchain" is not a selling feature as we saw by the reaction from the very vocal group of gamers who are against it.
Putting their cosmetics on the blockchain is simply a way for them to offload the future transactions, financial fees and anything database related.
Correct. But I'd argue my opinion is based on historical evidence of the behavior of AAA game studios.
I can't remember the last time something WASN'T profit motivated and done to make investors happy.
That's part of the problem with the quality of current generation games and why so many of us our HERE in the first place, imho.
Put a gun to my head and ask me if I think Ubisoft is going to charge more for these new super special and rare microtransactions ..... the answer is a resounding, yes.
Because they never give us more for less or the same .... very much the opposite over the past 15 years.
And don't get me wrong ... I'm not a "AAA hater".
They still make good and fun games. But a spade is a spade.
And it's pretty obvious the people who run these companies now never wrote a single line of code in their life and only know business.
That's how you get AAA games that get released buggy as hell and stripped down from older versions.
Maybe if you're lucky they put the old content back in with paid DLC ... maybe.
- The poor souls coding their fingers to the bone can never convince the business folks that they need more time.
- The business people will drain every last penny from the consumer that the consumers will allow.
Dem just the facts, and it shows in the final product ... A LOT.
It's part of the love and pride people feel for this project. Finally, a game funded by the people ... for the people ... with GAMEPLAY in mind.
Not rushing a product out the door so you can show increased quarterly profits to your investors before Christmas.
Something different. So different ... it's outright special.
They still make good and fun games. But a spade is a spade.
And it's pretty obvious the people who run these companies now never wrote a single line of code in their life and only know business.
That's how you get AAA games that get released buggy as hell and stripped down from older versions.
Maybe if you're lucky they put the old content back in with paid DLC ... maybe.
- The poor souls coding their fingers to the bone can never convince the business folks that they need more time.
- The business people will drain every last penny from the consumer that the consumers will allow.
Dem just the facts, and it shows in the final product ... A LOT.
It's part of the love and pride people feel for this project. Finally, a game funded by the people ... for the people ... with GAMEPLAY in mind.
Not rushing a product out the door so you can show increased quarterly profits to your investors before Christmas.
Something different. So different ... it's outright special.
Last edited:
This has been bubbling away for a while in the back of my head and reading someones Twitter comment on Justin Bieber buying an NFT for 500 ETH crypto currency ($1.3 million) drew me to the perfect analogy:
It's like buying an acre of land on the moon. You can't interact with it, anyone can look up at the night sky and see it and say it's theirs, but when we finally get up there you have no rights to that land: you have bought nothing you have simply put your name on someone's list somewhere. Same with NFTs - you haven't even got copyright on the referent which for $1.3 million you could commission someone to create art for you and then sell you the piece and the copyright... NFTs are moon deeds.
It's like buying an acre of land on the moon. You can't interact with it, anyone can look up at the night sky and see it and say it's theirs, but when we finally get up there you have no rights to that land: you have bought nothing you have simply put your name on someone's list somewhere. Same with NFTs - you haven't even got copyright on the referent which for $1.3 million you could commission someone to create art for you and then sell you the piece and the copyright... NFTs are moon deeds.
Last edited:
Wow this is some steamy thread going down here 
Can anyone think of an example of an NFT that has more intrinsic value (derived from what it is and/or what it can do, not value derived from how much someone is prepared to pay for it) than e.g. dutch tulips in 1634-1637, beanie babies in the late 1990s, the US housing market bubble of the mid 2000's, or any of the other asset bubbles here? Crypto currencies - at least those that are widely accepted for a while - have decent intrinsic value, though maybe only a fraction of their current market value and their intrinsic value is somewhat affected by governments allowing or preventing their legal use. Some of the other assets in bubbles had intrinsic value too, but much lower than their market value during the bubbles.
So which NFTs have any intrinsic value?
So which NFTs have any intrinsic value?
Last edited:
I think the answer to that is the answer to the question "what value is there in a digital asset".
Beyond the initial work to make a digital asset, there is no value in the first, last or any of the copies in between of it - it's just a handful of electrons or a faint magnetic resonance depending on how it's stored which could be rearranged into a trillion different things and may as well be classified as not existing.
In fact, there is actual cost to you rather than value in having an asset be digital rather than physical.
To explain that further cost to you, consider a piece of currency which can exist as a physical item or a digital asset with the same value - a single pound. To have that pound you have to earn it, and you now have a physical quid and a digital quid. You can put your physical pound in your pocket at zero cost. You physically have that pound. But to access and interact with your digital pound you need some technology - a PC or a phone to access your account. The machine you need to use to interact with it costs you. The power to run that machine costs you. Your connection to the net to interact with your account costs you. The maintenance of the globe spanning digital financial transaction systmem costs you a percentage of every purchase you make with it. The cost of access and production of the means of access to assets which are digital has been put mostly on a user now and you have to spend every time you wish to interact with it... This is why convergence has been so important for phones and other digital devices. It shares that cost over many things, but if all you have your phone for is accessing your account to see that pound, you have spent loads just to do with what's otherwise a piece of metal in your pocket at zero cost to you.
Digital account access has some benefits over physical money, physical money has some benefits over digital account access - the cost to you to access and use it being one of the major ones.
Last edited:
Pounds (dollars, dirhams etc.) are fungible. It's an essential property for a currency. One pound is worth exactly the same as any other pound, at least nominally. Let's not quibble about how a pound coin might be more or less preferable than 100 x 1p coins depending on what you plan to do with the money next. Your bank account is a non-fungible asset, and your credentials represent a token that gives you (and only you) access to it. So you can store that token on your phone, and only you have the right to make those tokens (you might have a similar one on your computer, tablet etc. too).
If the NFT acted as a license key that granted you exclusive access to e.g. a piece of software or a movie, or a digital service that does something valuable (even if it's just providing entertainment) it's easier to see why it has some intrinsic value - access to the (fungible) money, or to play the game.
But what I don't get is why so many NFTs appear to be for stuff that's already in the public domain, or were just churned out by some lame randomizer to be unique, but aren't very interesting otherwise. Looking at Crypto.com NFT | Explore NFTs and Digital Collectibles leaves me none the wiser.
As another example, this story about an NFT for a YouTube video being sold by auction for US$760,999 (£538,000). According to the report, the buyer is "quite happy" for them to leave the original clip up. It's not even slightly exclusive. It is still on YouTube and elsewhere. Owning the NFT didn't appear to grant its owner any more rights to that video than everyone else. So what on earth makes it worth that much money?
I did a quick Google and The Verge seems to think much the same: "You might be wondering: what is an NFT, anyhow? After literal hours of reading, I think I know. I also think I’m going to cry."
I guess a fool and their money are easily parted, but no NFT I've seen for sale appears to have any intrinsic value at all. I haven't noticed any NFTs which give you access to something you might actually want, and/or can't get for free. What am I missing? This is the emperor's new clothes, isn't it? They're intrinsically worthless, right?
If the NFT acted as a license key that granted you exclusive access to e.g. a piece of software or a movie, or a digital service that does something valuable (even if it's just providing entertainment) it's easier to see why it has some intrinsic value - access to the (fungible) money, or to play the game.
But what I don't get is why so many NFTs appear to be for stuff that's already in the public domain, or were just churned out by some lame randomizer to be unique, but aren't very interesting otherwise. Looking at Crypto.com NFT | Explore NFTs and Digital Collectibles leaves me none the wiser.
As another example, this story about an NFT for a YouTube video being sold by auction for US$760,999 (£538,000). According to the report, the buyer is "quite happy" for them to leave the original clip up. It's not even slightly exclusive. It is still on YouTube and elsewhere. Owning the NFT didn't appear to grant its owner any more rights to that video than everyone else. So what on earth makes it worth that much money?
I did a quick Google and The Verge seems to think much the same: "You might be wondering: what is an NFT, anyhow? After literal hours of reading, I think I know. I also think I’m going to cry."
I guess a fool and their money are easily parted, but no NFT I've seen for sale appears to have any intrinsic value at all. I haven't noticed any NFTs which give you access to something you might actually want, and/or can't get for free. What am I missing? This is the emperor's new clothes, isn't it? They're intrinsically worthless, right?
Thanks for your response, I have reworded my original response slightly as I had gone off on a tangent about all digital assets, not just NFTs.
To TL;DR all of my responses on there: NFT's are nothing but an expensive way to put your name on a list which means nothing to its referent and even less than that when the original asset it is linked to goes offline and all you have is an epitaph to a 404 page not found error. They are a reciept for a pebble on a public beach which you can only point at and claim you own. They are moon deeds which when we finally get to the moon will give you no rights over that patch of land because the person who sold it to you gave you no rights over it as for most of the time they didn't have them in the first place and for the times they did have them mostly kept for them themselves anyway.
In short, it's shite.
That doesn't mean I don't have an idea on how to make a project with NFTs, but I'm not in a position to do anything about it as I'd need literally 1 million of them.
Last edited: