Sony is considering NFTs (probably)

[IntentionalPun]

Oh and guess what has been hit the worst by the NFT market collapsing?

Games:

The Biggest NFT Video Game's Economy Is Collapsing Because NFT Games Don't Work

The biggest NFT game currently in the marketplace is Axie Infinity, a game—similar to Pokémon—in which players collect and battle monsters which resemble

reason.com

'memba Axie Infinity? Here's their "coin" value:

This game wasn't making anyone enough money for it to be meaningful outside of very poor countries. Almost haf of the userbase is (or was) in the Philipines. People played the game as a "job" depending on the game for food.

The value of the currency is now down 90%.... so those poor folks in the Philipines got fucked by the biggest NFT game out.

Why?

BECAUSE THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF THESE GAMES NEVER MADE SENSE

They became essentially pyriamid schemes.. and very likely were used for money laundering. Now criminals and shady countries are probably not going to be using NFT for money laundering.. you can't hide those transactions when anyone not a criminal has lost hope in the value of NFTs.

They are done for.. and Sony isn't going to get into NFTs.. because they aren't idiots who can't read a market lol

 

[adamsapple]

Sony will get into NFT's and their ardent fans will eat it up.

 

[Yurinka]

I think the big issue with NFTs in terms of gamers accepting them, is that practically EVERY mention of them we've seen from actual companies and businesses wanting to push them, have had the greediest reasons for wanting to do them. Every example of NFTs I've seen thus far has been horribly egregious in terms of the rather ripoff pricing associated with them, combined with the relative (lack of) quality of some of the NFT items I've seen (like the horrible "virtual drawing" NFTs various celebs have made).

No one's really presented a sensible NFT product yet that doesn't stink of greed or restrictions for the consumer. And while Sony might be able to come up with uses for NFTs that are much better than most, the BS they've been doing with GT7's premium cars (in terms of their MTX pricing) doesn't inspire too much confidence on that front, so understandably gamers are worried.

Sure, NFTs as a technology can be used for good, but it's up to companies to actually do that by showing that good use, before customers start accepting them in their products. And that's 100% fair IMO.

Those are neat uses, but like @IntentionalPun said I don't know if you actually need NFTs for any of those features. Maybe some underlying aspect of the technology, but at this point it might be better to just take that specific technology which would be useful for enabling those features, spin it out, and rebrand is something not NFTs.


Because truth is NFTs have an extremely bad rap with hardcore/core gamers and it's probably too alien a concept for casuals to wrap their head around yet, much less accept considering the costs associated.



Some of these didn't see as much pushback as it may seem. I don't remember people on dpads "hating" analog sticks, for starters because they weren't forced on people and most games (at least on PS1 & Saturn) didn't support them. But also, Super Mario 64 was HUGE right at launch and the N64 had very strong adoption rates in the West, both that game and the console were built around analog controls.

Same way, I don't remember a lot of people hating the switch to discs becoming mainstream. Cartridge games were getting more and more expensive, and storage space wasn't increasing in line with the increase in costs. Systems like the 3DO failed because of reasons aside of supporting discs, because the PS1 did very strong right out of the gate and was a disc-based system at its core.

I wouldn't even be sure arcade gamers hated 16-bit or 32-bit consoles because most people who went to arcades were console gamers anyway, and for certain games if you wanted the absolute best version, you still needed an arcade even towards the end of PS1/N64/Saturn era.

Arcade versions were better, but you had to play every time you wanted to play. Consoles instead required you to pay once and you were allowed to play as much as you wanted, and to do it at home. For that reasons people prefered consoles so people from arcades moved to console.

Maybe you don't remember or saw people complaining about disc games having loading times or about analog controls for 2D games because as happens now with nft or cloud gaming hate it was a small minority of hardcore gamers not representative of the whole market.

I agree on some of the other things though; thing is, they became acceptable because over time enough examples of beneficial, good usage came from various games and gamers chose to eventually be okay with them because of that. NFT acceptance is, understandably, much further behind and will take some years before it's accepted (IF it's accepted), and that will depend on devs/pubs actually utilizing the technology in ways beneficial to gamers, fair to gamers, and doing so over a long period of time.

NFT just means to certify the ownership of a specific digital, unique item in an external server that can't be hacked.

It's like when they certify that a Michael Jordan tshirt it's the one he used in certain NBA finals. You can go to the store and buy a tshirt that is exactly like that: looks the same and does the same. But it's not the one he had and collectors value this.

Tracking the ownership outside the game and allowing transactions between players in a secure way outside of it benefit devs in many areas like avoiding many issues, headaches and paperwork: they simply get a revenue cut of the transactions.

Outside that, it's up to the devs on what or where, or how they do implement it. It isn't good or bad: it's only another possible revenue source/business model. Which can be combined with selling the game (or not), with having dlcs or mtxs in the game (or not) and with having season passes (or not).

I don't know if the combination of F2P, aggressive MTX and NFTs are going to be a net benefit to gamers or the industry without some catastrophic consequences. You'd think the presence of NFTs would lead to a general curtailing of MTX pricing and practices (i.e will EVERY single simple color variant of an armor be its own NFT?), but we know publishers don't think like that.

The F2P did open the market of gaming to a way wider amount of regions where they didn't have (modern) consoles or that were a small minority there for several reasons, specially if they were playable in low end PCs and phones. Mainly South America and South Africa. In some of these countries P2E are growing fasters since gamers earn more money playing than with a normal job.

F2P also means way more people playing a particular game. Which means in competitive games that it's easier to find players connected for a matchmaking, closer to your home and with a more similar level to you.

Like everything over time mtxs gets iterated trying to find the sweet spot between what players and devs prefer. As an example, in the past pay to win was the norm, while today most f2p games only sell cosmetics and they don't sell anything that affects gameplay. If nfts allow devs earn money by getting a commision of transactions between players selling each other user generated content, unlocked skins, colors, weapons, armor or any kind of loot like potions or stuff like that they will become less agressive with wanting to sell you mtx.

Like everything, nfts will get iterated and improved over time. We'll see many early implementations that will suck at the start (like horse armor dlc back in the time) but over time with iterations and time they will improve.

 

[SSfox]

 

[SSfox]

Sony will get into NFT's and their ardent fans will eat it up.

You're confusing Playstation fans to Xbox and Nintendo fans.