▲ 557 ▼ Buyers of Bored Ape NFTs sue after digital apes turn out to be bad investment (arstechnica.com) submitted 3 years ago by merridew@feddit.uk to c/technology@lemmy.world 128 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] 50gp@kbin.social 37 points 3 years ago (3 children) you dont need useless nft tech for that to be possible permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] billygoat@catata.fish 12 points 3 years ago (2 children) Of course not, but what little I know of NFTs is they do the two things needed for that to be possible: one, ability to transfer ownership, and two, verify ownership. I have no clue if NFTs are the best way to accomplish that, let alone even a good way, and people much smarter than me can figure that out. In the end I don’t think it matters. For it to be viable it would require the big companies to adopt it, which I never see them accepting a legal way to do second hand sales of digital goods. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@feddit.de 19 points 3 years ago (2 children) Yeah, if you are waiting for a company that loses money through second-hand sales to implement an NFT scheme to facilitate second-hand sales... That could take a while. This post of yours is one that I completely agree with. That's a fundamental issue with NFTs though. Every instance of a fitting use case already has a non-NFT way to accomplish the same in the way the people in charge want to keep it. Why would e.g. Steam want you to be able to trade games without Steam being involved/getting a cut? They can just ask you go buy from them. Why would a state want to hand over control over the land registry to some cryptobro? Why would the whole financial side of the art industry want to hand over control to a block chain and make themselves redundant? Also, revertability of mistakes is a core feature of any reasonable transaction system. A system without that is worthless. Sorry, this turned into a rant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago (3 children) I can see ticket sales being issued via nft. They could set a maximum the ticket can be resold for, thus hindering scalpers and the original seller can also get a stake in the resale of the ticket. Beyond that I have never seen another decent use. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@feddit.de 10 points 3 years ago (2 children) But again, why do that if you can also bind tickets to names and use that to make yourself the only possible place where people can sell their tickets on, with a substantial fee (like Ticketmaster does)? They have no incentive to let people freely sell tickets when thy can also force themselves in as mandatory man in the middle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) You remove the burden of verifying the names and storing the personal data and you don't need to handle the resale inhouse. Other than that yeah it's pretty much the same thing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@feddit.de 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) To a reasonable company, this might be a burden. To a big corporation it's half the reason they are doing this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yeah that is true permalink fedilink source parent [–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago* Yeah and rent-seeking is the only real big business left in town besides personalized advertising. No way a rent-seeking opportunity this great isn't going to be gobbled up by the existing players and instead given up for free so that they can use new, poorly performing, expensive technology instead. permalink fedilink source parent [–] natanael@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) You can't cap resale prices with technological limits because payment can be split between multiple channels before the seller transfers ownership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yeah, that's why I only said hinders not stops. I mean I personally wouldn't send two payments where one of the transactions is one sided because you just open yourself to bring scammed but I'm sure some people would permalink fedilink source parent [–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I could see that being a use case if it weren't for how much the underlying technology sucks ass. Blockchains spend too much time doing their silly little trust-less security nonsense dance to be able to perform at the scale needed by systems that will sell...say...Taylor Swift concert tickets. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago Steam would get a cut permalink fedilink source parent [–] Womble@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago They arent. For the NFT to do anything in a game it has to interact with the game in some way. The game gets to decide how it interacts with each NFT. So you are already using a central authority to change your NFT to something of value in the game, So why bother with the whole distributed trustless aspect of the blockchain and not just have a row in a database table? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago Also you can just do piracy permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -2 points 3 years ago (2 children) You don't, but nfts allow distribution platforms to let buyers do it while requiring little to no effort on their part. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 50gp@kbin.social 4 points 3 years ago* (1 child) they have no reason to allow you to do that, and you dont need nfts for that either permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) Never said it's needed, I said it could be used for it and would lower the amount of effort required on the distributor's side. They also have no reason to allow people to sell in game items at the moment, yet look at Steam making bank from item sales! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago* Yeah and they only make bank because they sit in the middle of the transactions as the trusted third party. The only way to possibly make NFTs work for Steam would be for them to also start up a side business of "SteamCoin" currency, because the only way to offload the enormous costs of running a blockchain network at scale is to have miners and nodes running the network for their own gains. And even then, they'd lose autonomy over their own business and it would likely be slower in terms of transactions per second for normal customers. It's a losing proposition pretty much all around. The only way that an existing company with an adequately equipped IT department would transition to this is if they were forced to by law...and I don't see that happening ever. permalink fedilink source parent [–] yata@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) They most certainly do not allow buyers to do that. And again, this is already happening with existing technology, and much more efficient and secure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) The "could" was implied, I know it doesn't happen now, doesn't mean it couldn't. Check wallet for nft proving a person owns the game (since wallet content is public), if the person sells the nft then they can't play anymore, the new owner can. Ask people to send a certain amount of crypto from their wallet to prove it's theirs and associate it with their in game account (also becomes a way to get a cut from sales). It's surprising it's not something that already exists since it solves the DRM issue (from the game distributor perspective). As far as I know there are no major platforms to that allows players to sell their digital games, only in game items. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago There's no business incentive to allow a second-hand digital games market, and there's no regulation to force them to provide one. It's pretty much that simple. NFTs won't solve this, and even if there was a mandated way to sell "used" digital games (a concept that's actually pretty bizarre when you think about it) it would not be through NFTs or block chain, because the underlying technology is slow and costs a shit ton to run. Unless you're producing a coin on the side, there's also no simple mechanism to offload the costs of running it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] billygoat@catata.fish 12 points 3 years ago (2 children) Of course not, but what little I know of NFTs is they do the two things needed for that to be possible: one, ability to transfer ownership, and two, verify ownership. I have no clue if NFTs are the best way to accomplish that, let alone even a good way, and people much smarter than me can figure that out. In the end I don’t think it matters. For it to be viable it would require the big companies to adopt it, which I never see them accepting a legal way to do second hand sales of digital goods. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@feddit.de 19 points 3 years ago (2 children) Yeah, if you are waiting for a company that loses money through second-hand sales to implement an NFT scheme to facilitate second-hand sales... That could take a while. This post of yours is one that I completely agree with. That's a fundamental issue with NFTs though. Every instance of a fitting use case already has a non-NFT way to accomplish the same in the way the people in charge want to keep it. Why would e.g. Steam want you to be able to trade games without Steam being involved/getting a cut? They can just ask you go buy from them. Why would a state want to hand over control over the land registry to some cryptobro? Why would the whole financial side of the art industry want to hand over control to a block chain and make themselves redundant? Also, revertability of mistakes is a core feature of any reasonable transaction system. A system without that is worthless. Sorry, this turned into a rant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago (3 children) I can see ticket sales being issued via nft. They could set a maximum the ticket can be resold for, thus hindering scalpers and the original seller can also get a stake in the resale of the ticket. Beyond that I have never seen another decent use. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@feddit.de 10 points 3 years ago (2 children) But again, why do that if you can also bind tickets to names and use that to make yourself the only possible place where people can sell their tickets on, with a substantial fee (like Ticketmaster does)? They have no incentive to let people freely sell tickets when thy can also force themselves in as mandatory man in the middle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) You remove the burden of verifying the names and storing the personal data and you don't need to handle the resale inhouse. Other than that yeah it's pretty much the same thing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@feddit.de 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) To a reasonable company, this might be a burden. To a big corporation it's half the reason they are doing this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yeah that is true permalink fedilink source parent [–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago* Yeah and rent-seeking is the only real big business left in town besides personalized advertising. No way a rent-seeking opportunity this great isn't going to be gobbled up by the existing players and instead given up for free so that they can use new, poorly performing, expensive technology instead. permalink fedilink source parent [–] natanael@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) You can't cap resale prices with technological limits because payment can be split between multiple channels before the seller transfers ownership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yeah, that's why I only said hinders not stops. I mean I personally wouldn't send two payments where one of the transactions is one sided because you just open yourself to bring scammed but I'm sure some people would permalink fedilink source parent [–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I could see that being a use case if it weren't for how much the underlying technology sucks ass. Blockchains spend too much time doing their silly little trust-less security nonsense dance to be able to perform at the scale needed by systems that will sell...say...Taylor Swift concert tickets. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago Steam would get a cut permalink fedilink source parent [–] Womble@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago They arent. For the NFT to do anything in a game it has to interact with the game in some way. The game gets to decide how it interacts with each NFT. So you are already using a central authority to change your NFT to something of value in the game, So why bother with the whole distributed trustless aspect of the blockchain and not just have a row in a database table? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 19 points 3 years ago (2 children) Yeah, if you are waiting for a company that loses money through second-hand sales to implement an NFT scheme to facilitate second-hand sales... That could take a while. This post of yours is one that I completely agree with. That's a fundamental issue with NFTs though. Every instance of a fitting use case already has a non-NFT way to accomplish the same in the way the people in charge want to keep it. Why would e.g. Steam want you to be able to trade games without Steam being involved/getting a cut? They can just ask you go buy from them. Why would a state want to hand over control over the land registry to some cryptobro? Why would the whole financial side of the art industry want to hand over control to a block chain and make themselves redundant? Also, revertability of mistakes is a core feature of any reasonable transaction system. A system without that is worthless. Sorry, this turned into a rant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago (3 children) I can see ticket sales being issued via nft. They could set a maximum the ticket can be resold for, thus hindering scalpers and the original seller can also get a stake in the resale of the ticket. Beyond that I have never seen another decent use. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@feddit.de 10 points 3 years ago (2 children) But again, why do that if you can also bind tickets to names and use that to make yourself the only possible place where people can sell their tickets on, with a substantial fee (like Ticketmaster does)? They have no incentive to let people freely sell tickets when thy can also force themselves in as mandatory man in the middle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) You remove the burden of verifying the names and storing the personal data and you don't need to handle the resale inhouse. Other than that yeah it's pretty much the same thing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@feddit.de 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) To a reasonable company, this might be a burden. To a big corporation it's half the reason they are doing this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yeah that is true permalink fedilink source parent [–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago* Yeah and rent-seeking is the only real big business left in town besides personalized advertising. No way a rent-seeking opportunity this great isn't going to be gobbled up by the existing players and instead given up for free so that they can use new, poorly performing, expensive technology instead. permalink fedilink source parent [–] natanael@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) You can't cap resale prices with technological limits because payment can be split between multiple channels before the seller transfers ownership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yeah, that's why I only said hinders not stops. I mean I personally wouldn't send two payments where one of the transactions is one sided because you just open yourself to bring scammed but I'm sure some people would permalink fedilink source parent [–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I could see that being a use case if it weren't for how much the underlying technology sucks ass. Blockchains spend too much time doing their silly little trust-less security nonsense dance to be able to perform at the scale needed by systems that will sell...say...Taylor Swift concert tickets. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago Steam would get a cut permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago (3 children) I can see ticket sales being issued via nft. They could set a maximum the ticket can be resold for, thus hindering scalpers and the original seller can also get a stake in the resale of the ticket. Beyond that I have never seen another decent use. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@feddit.de 10 points 3 years ago (2 children) But again, why do that if you can also bind tickets to names and use that to make yourself the only possible place where people can sell their tickets on, with a substantial fee (like Ticketmaster does)? They have no incentive to let people freely sell tickets when thy can also force themselves in as mandatory man in the middle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) You remove the burden of verifying the names and storing the personal data and you don't need to handle the resale inhouse. Other than that yeah it's pretty much the same thing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@feddit.de 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) To a reasonable company, this might be a burden. To a big corporation it's half the reason they are doing this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yeah that is true permalink fedilink source parent [–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago* Yeah and rent-seeking is the only real big business left in town besides personalized advertising. No way a rent-seeking opportunity this great isn't going to be gobbled up by the existing players and instead given up for free so that they can use new, poorly performing, expensive technology instead. permalink fedilink source parent [–] natanael@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) You can't cap resale prices with technological limits because payment can be split between multiple channels before the seller transfers ownership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yeah, that's why I only said hinders not stops. I mean I personally wouldn't send two payments where one of the transactions is one sided because you just open yourself to bring scammed but I'm sure some people would permalink fedilink source parent [–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I could see that being a use case if it weren't for how much the underlying technology sucks ass. Blockchains spend too much time doing their silly little trust-less security nonsense dance to be able to perform at the scale needed by systems that will sell...say...Taylor Swift concert tickets. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 10 points 3 years ago (2 children) But again, why do that if you can also bind tickets to names and use that to make yourself the only possible place where people can sell their tickets on, with a substantial fee (like Ticketmaster does)? They have no incentive to let people freely sell tickets when thy can also force themselves in as mandatory man in the middle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) You remove the burden of verifying the names and storing the personal data and you don't need to handle the resale inhouse. Other than that yeah it's pretty much the same thing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@feddit.de 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) To a reasonable company, this might be a burden. To a big corporation it's half the reason they are doing this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yeah that is true permalink fedilink source parent [–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago* Yeah and rent-seeking is the only real big business left in town besides personalized advertising. No way a rent-seeking opportunity this great isn't going to be gobbled up by the existing players and instead given up for free so that they can use new, poorly performing, expensive technology instead. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) You remove the burden of verifying the names and storing the personal data and you don't need to handle the resale inhouse. Other than that yeah it's pretty much the same thing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@feddit.de 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) To a reasonable company, this might be a burden. To a big corporation it's half the reason they are doing this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yeah that is true permalink fedilink source parent
[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) To a reasonable company, this might be a burden. To a big corporation it's half the reason they are doing this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yeah that is true permalink fedilink source parent
[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago* Yeah and rent-seeking is the only real big business left in town besides personalized advertising. No way a rent-seeking opportunity this great isn't going to be gobbled up by the existing players and instead given up for free so that they can use new, poorly performing, expensive technology instead. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] natanael@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) You can't cap resale prices with technological limits because payment can be split between multiple channels before the seller transfers ownership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yeah, that's why I only said hinders not stops. I mean I personally wouldn't send two payments where one of the transactions is one sided because you just open yourself to bring scammed but I'm sure some people would permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago Yeah, that's why I only said hinders not stops. I mean I personally wouldn't send two payments where one of the transactions is one sided because you just open yourself to bring scammed but I'm sure some people would permalink fedilink source parent
[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I could see that being a use case if it weren't for how much the underlying technology sucks ass. Blockchains spend too much time doing their silly little trust-less security nonsense dance to be able to perform at the scale needed by systems that will sell...say...Taylor Swift concert tickets. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago Steam would get a cut permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Womble@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago They arent. For the NFT to do anything in a game it has to interact with the game in some way. The game gets to decide how it interacts with each NFT. So you are already using a central authority to change your NFT to something of value in the game, So why bother with the whole distributed trustless aspect of the blockchain and not just have a row in a database table? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago Also you can just do piracy permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -2 points 3 years ago (2 children) You don't, but nfts allow distribution platforms to let buyers do it while requiring little to no effort on their part. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 50gp@kbin.social 4 points 3 years ago* (1 child) they have no reason to allow you to do that, and you dont need nfts for that either permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) Never said it's needed, I said it could be used for it and would lower the amount of effort required on the distributor's side. They also have no reason to allow people to sell in game items at the moment, yet look at Steam making bank from item sales! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago* Yeah and they only make bank because they sit in the middle of the transactions as the trusted third party. The only way to possibly make NFTs work for Steam would be for them to also start up a side business of "SteamCoin" currency, because the only way to offload the enormous costs of running a blockchain network at scale is to have miners and nodes running the network for their own gains. And even then, they'd lose autonomy over their own business and it would likely be slower in terms of transactions per second for normal customers. It's a losing proposition pretty much all around. The only way that an existing company with an adequately equipped IT department would transition to this is if they were forced to by law...and I don't see that happening ever. permalink fedilink source parent [–] yata@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) They most certainly do not allow buyers to do that. And again, this is already happening with existing technology, and much more efficient and secure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) The "could" was implied, I know it doesn't happen now, doesn't mean it couldn't. Check wallet for nft proving a person owns the game (since wallet content is public), if the person sells the nft then they can't play anymore, the new owner can. Ask people to send a certain amount of crypto from their wallet to prove it's theirs and associate it with their in game account (also becomes a way to get a cut from sales). It's surprising it's not something that already exists since it solves the DRM issue (from the game distributor perspective). As far as I know there are no major platforms to that allows players to sell their digital games, only in game items. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago There's no business incentive to allow a second-hand digital games market, and there's no regulation to force them to provide one. It's pretty much that simple. NFTs won't solve this, and even if there was a mandated way to sell "used" digital games (a concept that's actually pretty bizarre when you think about it) it would not be through NFTs or block chain, because the underlying technology is slow and costs a shit ton to run. Unless you're producing a coin on the side, there's also no simple mechanism to offload the costs of running it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 50gp@kbin.social 4 points 3 years ago* (1 child) they have no reason to allow you to do that, and you dont need nfts for that either permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) Never said it's needed, I said it could be used for it and would lower the amount of effort required on the distributor's side. They also have no reason to allow people to sell in game items at the moment, yet look at Steam making bank from item sales! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago* Yeah and they only make bank because they sit in the middle of the transactions as the trusted third party. The only way to possibly make NFTs work for Steam would be for them to also start up a side business of "SteamCoin" currency, because the only way to offload the enormous costs of running a blockchain network at scale is to have miners and nodes running the network for their own gains. And even then, they'd lose autonomy over their own business and it would likely be slower in terms of transactions per second for normal customers. It's a losing proposition pretty much all around. The only way that an existing company with an adequately equipped IT department would transition to this is if they were forced to by law...and I don't see that happening ever. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) Never said it's needed, I said it could be used for it and would lower the amount of effort required on the distributor's side. They also have no reason to allow people to sell in game items at the moment, yet look at Steam making bank from item sales! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago* Yeah and they only make bank because they sit in the middle of the transactions as the trusted third party. The only way to possibly make NFTs work for Steam would be for them to also start up a side business of "SteamCoin" currency, because the only way to offload the enormous costs of running a blockchain network at scale is to have miners and nodes running the network for their own gains. And even then, they'd lose autonomy over their own business and it would likely be slower in terms of transactions per second for normal customers. It's a losing proposition pretty much all around. The only way that an existing company with an adequately equipped IT department would transition to this is if they were forced to by law...and I don't see that happening ever. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago* Yeah and they only make bank because they sit in the middle of the transactions as the trusted third party. The only way to possibly make NFTs work for Steam would be for them to also start up a side business of "SteamCoin" currency, because the only way to offload the enormous costs of running a blockchain network at scale is to have miners and nodes running the network for their own gains. And even then, they'd lose autonomy over their own business and it would likely be slower in terms of transactions per second for normal customers. It's a losing proposition pretty much all around. The only way that an existing company with an adequately equipped IT department would transition to this is if they were forced to by law...and I don't see that happening ever. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yata@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) They most certainly do not allow buyers to do that. And again, this is already happening with existing technology, and much more efficient and secure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) The "could" was implied, I know it doesn't happen now, doesn't mean it couldn't. Check wallet for nft proving a person owns the game (since wallet content is public), if the person sells the nft then they can't play anymore, the new owner can. Ask people to send a certain amount of crypto from their wallet to prove it's theirs and associate it with their in game account (also becomes a way to get a cut from sales). It's surprising it's not something that already exists since it solves the DRM issue (from the game distributor perspective). As far as I know there are no major platforms to that allows players to sell their digital games, only in game items. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago There's no business incentive to allow a second-hand digital games market, and there's no regulation to force them to provide one. It's pretty much that simple. NFTs won't solve this, and even if there was a mandated way to sell "used" digital games (a concept that's actually pretty bizarre when you think about it) it would not be through NFTs or block chain, because the underlying technology is slow and costs a shit ton to run. Unless you're producing a coin on the side, there's also no simple mechanism to offload the costs of running it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) The "could" was implied, I know it doesn't happen now, doesn't mean it couldn't. Check wallet for nft proving a person owns the game (since wallet content is public), if the person sells the nft then they can't play anymore, the new owner can. Ask people to send a certain amount of crypto from their wallet to prove it's theirs and associate it with their in game account (also becomes a way to get a cut from sales). It's surprising it's not something that already exists since it solves the DRM issue (from the game distributor perspective). As far as I know there are no major platforms to that allows players to sell their digital games, only in game items. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago There's no business incentive to allow a second-hand digital games market, and there's no regulation to force them to provide one. It's pretty much that simple. NFTs won't solve this, and even if there was a mandated way to sell "used" digital games (a concept that's actually pretty bizarre when you think about it) it would not be through NFTs or block chain, because the underlying technology is slow and costs a shit ton to run. Unless you're producing a coin on the side, there's also no simple mechanism to offload the costs of running it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago There's no business incentive to allow a second-hand digital games market, and there's no regulation to force them to provide one. It's pretty much that simple. NFTs won't solve this, and even if there was a mandated way to sell "used" digital games (a concept that's actually pretty bizarre when you think about it) it would not be through NFTs or block chain, because the underlying technology is slow and costs a shit ton to run. Unless you're producing a coin on the side, there's also no simple mechanism to offload the costs of running it. permalink fedilink source parent