Ubisoft has sold a whopping... 15 Quartz NFTs

Since Ubisoft's release of their 'Quartz' NFT's on December 9th... they've sold a mere 15 of the two thousand odd NFT's they minted. Literally around 350USD worth.

This is shortly after the devs behind the latest Stalker game pulled the plug on their NFT plans due to large amounts of backlash.

Seems pretty clear that the gaming community wants nothing to do with NFT's. But it does lead one to wonder if this is one alternative money-maker that will eventually penetrate into normality the way micro-transactions eventually did.

Mind you the biggest adopter of micro-transactions aren't """gamer""" gamers - you know, the kind like myself sitting in front of a self-assembled gaming rig - but school kids on mobile phones with access to their parents credit cards. Maybe they'll sneak their way into games aimed at younger kids in the same way that Roblox has a real money stock market of sorts that kids have access to.

So I'm curious, what's the take on NFT's in games from other devs here?

I understand Unity has a stake in them now, though I've know idea of the details behind it. Personally I'm looking forward to NFT's and Cryto-currencies eventually being regulated into the ground like the environment killing trite they are.

 

Ugh.

 

Ugh indeed. I wrote that with great reticence and knowing it might draw a negative reaction.

I could elaborate on what I meant by it, if would make you so inclined to contribute productively to the thread.

 

Please don't. There is no way you can elaborate that would make it better.

Microtransactions became the norm because people bought the horse armor for oblivion, school kids found a world were selling skins and hats for insane prices and scamming and loot boxes is already the norm, with Roblox taking it to its logical conclusion, so there is no way to spin "real gamerz did no wrongz0rz1!1oneoneone" in a way that makes it better.

 

We had some discussions about NFTsin around March.
https://forum.unity.com/search/10076685/?q=NFT's&t=post&o=date&c[title_only]=1
Specifically here
https://forum.unity.com/threads/nft-non-fungible-token-unity-and-nfts.1071932/

It was a loud buzz word, with some interest spikes on the market for next two months or so.
Who meant make money, already did.
Then subject and global interest quickly died out, with few smaller exceptions.

As I pointed out at that time, there is little value for average Joe game developer.
Much quicker and cheaper is to use standard Database, to solve the ownership problem.
I.e. Owning items in a game.

Ubisoft probably spent fraction of its own resources on this experiment. So is not an issue to them. But assuming the article is correct, about handful sells, it shows, either Ubisoft had no marketing involved into planning mintig NFTs, or indeed NFTs is nothing more, but just a buzz word of the past.

Some people will still find a value, but that will be very niche. Especially in game dev world.

EDIT: Funny saying, I watched vid briefly after my post, and just it covers pretty much all my points.

 

Nah, corporations just started getting involved. The allure of a good pyramid scheme / scam is too big.

Unity is opening their own "web3" / nft department.

 

I will believe when I see it happens and work.
For Unity, it most likely will be another of many services, which has no use for developers. We don't need NTFS NFTs to see that.

 

I agree, I never liked that file system either

 

I suppose it means there are a lot people with a functional brain. it is a good thing.

Unity flirted with crypto before. Was it Enjin? What happened to it, I wonder.

 

Honestly with all the talk about NFTs, crypto, blockchain etc these days, I bet the marketing team behind unity are still trying to push for something (and hopefully will fail)

 

https://theislandnow.com/blog-112/best-nft-games/

 

Microtransactions solve an actual problem, though. "There's an audience who are happy to pay for our stuff, but not a big chunk in one hit. How do we design a financially viable product for that audience?"

I've yet to hear anyone articulate a problem that NFTs or blockchain in general solve for a gaming audience. How does it make what better, for who? Which isn't to say it doesn't exist, just I haven't heard it yet. It took microtransactions a while to get out of the Horse Armour phase, so maybe it'll get there.

 

I will translate it for real though:

"There is a big chunk of the audience who can be exploited properly offering low priced useless crap because they have all sorts of mental problems or they are children who can't make proper decisions about money at the first place. How do we design the most predatory way possible to make them addicted to shopping and spend all their money on our useless digital crap?"

 

I was going to type nearly the exact same thing, but then I thought, "thats just going to sour my mood 3 points."

Angry penguin has painted it in the most positive way and I suppose a very innocent developer could implement the same design into their game with pure intentions described that way. But I think the practical reality is that this is a method for whale hunting, which apparently is more lucrative than catching a reasonable amount of normal fish daily.

 

I know it's not the most popular viewpoint here nowadays (and it's a bit more complex than this), but: This is why I hate Epic's free stuff the most. Enjoy your free stuff, you're enjoying some families' today's lunch they can't have so you can have your free crap making more "games" to exploit the same families more. And to be fair, Unity is just a tiny bit better at this, they at least don't do it themselves but empower and encourage others to do it.

 

Other side of the coin, that's the only way for poor people like me to even entertained playing any game as of right now, and not being left out the social culture of gaming. I have 1000+ hours in fortnite i have yet to break 60€ spent in the game, and they are very generous handing out cosmetics that are not brand ties in.

Which family get exploited? It's not like nobody get exploited in a 60€ games, or even for making the piece if hardware you game on, you gotta need cobalt and the crunch tears of developers. Greed, greed always find a way, not the tools fault.

 

It doesn't make anything better.

It is a distributed ledger with unique records, where a record can be stored at apparently high cost.

Someone touted idea of it being used for proof of ownership and people jumped at it. The thing is, as far as I'm aware, it has no legal power, and also there are unpleasant questions regarding "uniqueness". Basically, NFT stores data as json and I've been unable to find any information regardging, for example, handling of whitespaces in it. Because

{"name": "john"}

and

{"name" :"john"}

are two different strings, yet they store same inforamtion.

Additionally in many cases data is not even stored in the nft itself. It is "off-chain", meaning you get a certificate with no legal power which says that a picture at "http://example.com/hello_kitty.jpg" is yours. It is like a certificate for a star name, pretty much.

Related:
https://twitter.com/Merryweatherey/status/1464731081182171136

This sort of mindset can lead to severe depression while actually solving nothing.

A life of an average human is usually built on someone else's suffering and misery and nothing can be done about it. For example, you may be using electronics constructed in a factory with suicide nets. Delivery or mail worker might hate their job and having to deliver stuff to you won't make their day better. And so on.

Additionally, no matter what you do, someone can get weird ideas from thing you created or use it to hurt someone else.

Epic is likely not even the most aggressive F2P, Electronic Arts used to be one.

In case of F2P, healthy players treat it "I buy entertainment with money". Unhealthy players instead go "I have to buy more no matter the cost". One thing to take a look at in those cases is how are "unhealthy player" cases are treated.

For example, here are fun story about roblox, of all things...
https://parents-together.org/warnin...ing-thousands-of-dollars-on-free-roblox-game/

 

I think what people are not explaining is the part where nft have code where a fraction of the item sold is given to the original creator of the nft.

It solve the second hand market by enforcing royalties basically. Ie ownership is shared between moral and private.

If those ubisoft items get into welathy collector that are willing to pay million, Ubisoft will get a fraction of that, at 1% that's 10000 for ubisoft. Ie constant stream of revenues.

Think about it, you get paid at the initial micro transaction then further for each resell of the item.

 

What is it about having a unique ID hash to verify ownership to game servers or other gamers and accumulated skills and bonuses to a gaming asset that is so baffling? Explain how this is non-utlitarian. If you use analogies to money please recall if you use paper dollars you are not trafficking in money but chits of debt whose authenticity is verified by a unique serial number/hash ID. They have value because consensus gives them value. Same as any NFT worth anything.

 

Yeah. Yer kid is feeling down so ignore him, give him a credit card and no supervision. Brilliant parenting Karen. Now she will want the weight of the armed government to descend on the industry because she is a lousy parent.

 

I think there is way more to these story than just Karen though

 

We can debate who is the worst of the worst contender all day long, they still remain very bad. But Roblox is one of those I throw up in my mouth every time I read about them.

 

Ah. So it is a blockchain-based MLM scheme.

It is detached from a game in question. Basically, you build a huge network of distributed nodes with obnoxious power costs (supposedly it takes 300+ kWh to make a single nft) to make a checkbox in a menu. The utility is dubious.

The difference from real money is that real money is backed by the law of the country you live in. That is important, because ultimately you'll be using law system and infrastructure of the country and to receive protection of their system you'd need to be in agreement over some things.

 

Nothing. The "baffling" bit is why people think this solution is somehow superior to others which already exist and run far more efficiently, such as a good ol' database.

But @neoshaman gave a potential answer to that:

 

I thought I explained it quite neutrally, actually. I didn't go into how they're giving entire audiences access to media that they'd never otherwise be able to afford, etc. etc. I talked only in terms of getting money from an audience.

Exploitation by no means requires microtransactions, by the way. Plenty of up-front paid products are also exploitative or otherwise rip people off. I can't play the Destiny campaign I purchased because they decided to turn it off. Not too long ago I purchased a game that specifically advertised multiplayer only to find out, afterwards, that the servers were down permanently. Many games now have "season passes" designed to get people who are already paying full premium rates for a game to shell out more, otherwise they'll feel like they're missing out. Similar deal with "limited" or "collectors" editions. Not too long ago I purchased a game when the publisher said it would be removed from sale, which it then wasn't.

Penny pinchers will exploit their audience regardless of the underlying model being used.

- - -

That aside, my strong preference as both a developer and a gamer is for up-front rather than free-to-play. Not because I believe one to be morally better than the other, but because I much prefer how games can be designed with an up-front model.

With an up-front game the developer already has the players money by the time the title screen appears, so from there on out they can focus 100% on giving their audience the best time possible. With a free-to-play game it's the other way around. The title screen is where the selling starts, so the designer must necessarily split their focus between giving players a good time and making sales to them.

Of course, in a literal sense I can afford to have that point of view. I live in a wealthy nation and have a regular income. If I want a game I can just go buy it, no worries. There is a huge number of people in the world for whom that's not the case.

 

NOT MLM, just the creator receive fraction of each transaction, no other intermediary. It's royalties.

Crypto are backed by the security technology, it's an infrastructure in itself (the blockchain part) and enforced unicity of transaction, the law is the how the system function (proof of work/stake/other is the authority that enforce transactions) and is modeled after libertarian ideology (you are responsible of your actions and wallets, "security" is the agreement).

Now the main difference is that it's a tech solution to a social problem, and therefore is "abusable" in the social domain (deception into agreement is common, education is touted as the cure).

What country's institution solved is the social part, not the tech part, that's why current institution are interested in crypto too, to get the layer of tech that will minimized the investment in the social part (better surveillance of transaction because the blockchain is a ledger you can't cheat technically).

A crypto mlm would be fun to see though, I'm amazed nobody had that idea with all the scam flying around.

Crypto are closer to a ponzi scheme, but that scheme is also how real currency work, the difference is trust and authority (as in there is a production that guarantee real values, like the GDP of a nation for fiat currency). Real money are really just an abstract ledger, they tracked your participation to the economic system (allowance for producing values, spending for consuming value, enforcing balance around resources), which is why inflation and similar are things that matter (imbalance between overall value of the economic ecology), which mean you need to create (printing) or destroy (taxes) money to maintain the economic value of the money OR let it fluctuate.

Crypto generally choose the latter under the assumption that the former is susceptible to abuse of authority (hence fear and debate around money printing and taxes). USA choose a mixed of the two to maintain social order (skew toward the wealthy now, hence abuse), inflation destroy values over time to favor spending, but the fluctuation is technically tempered by taxes and printing, except political points (and fear of social unrest by squeezing the not wealthy) mess with that.

 

Have you ever heard of the "five wallets scam"? It appears to operate in exact same way, although I admit, sans duplication.

Five wallets scam:

Spoiler

You receive a letter.
"Hello, I've come across amazing way to earn money!

See the wallet numbers below:
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
YYYYYYYYYYYYY
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
WWWWWWWWW
QQQQQQQQQQQ

It is easy! Just send a small amount of money to them all, remove the top one and write your own at the bottom and send it to your friends! Do not mess with the approahc or it will stop working!

Royalties do not operate in the same way, because in case of royalties original creator do not get profit from anything but the first sale.

That's a bad thing. Because technologies tend to die, and that makes any value stored in blockchain ephemeral. The technology stack exists today, but may be gone in a few years and with it, all the records will poof.

In comparison a country you live in will likely last a few more centuries. What's more a country law has means of being enforced by the authority, while any sort of altcoins have none.

We had them. Most of the ICOs fall under that scheme.

 

It's nothing like the five wallet scam, no intermediary get money, and i still have worthless coin of franc that have no values since the euro, even for collector, and have you heard of Zimbabwe, entire country can go poof too. Heck Venezuela fits the bill. Nothing is durable, not even the dollar, there is a slight possibility for it to go poof with the trade deficit.

Blockchain isn't perfect, but it's a simple tech not tied by hardware, it's a encrypted ledger, the resilience is baked through decentralization and proof of stuff security for robustness, it's more of a protocol, or process, than a regular tech, it's just a glorified list where pointer to node are encryption to enforce strict history of items.

The validation proof for encryption is a separated tech imho. The combination of these twp tech is what makes it probably more trustworthy than country who can cook books for political point. But it's a trade off, both have pro and con, like paper money only need energy to get produced, and can be stored in low tech hardware like chunks of metal and paper.

Blockchain probably go poof, either by social shift that makes everyone move away, or a technological collapse like so called solar flare. Quantum supremacy can help, but then the tech will shift to quantum encryption.

 

There's a matter of likelyhood of events happening.

A country that lasted few centuries is unlikely to perish tomorrow. However, the situation is different for a tech that is only a few years old.

What's more if you buy a gold brick, it will be worth /something/ for a long time.

As far as I'm aware the reality is exact opposite of what you describe.

Block chain is very much tied by hardware, because it relies on storage of massive amounts of data. You need to store the whole thing, if you want decentralization to occur. According to online sources Etherium currently requires 990 gigabytes of storage. Bitcoin is smaller, sitting at 330 gigabytes, but that's not the size you can download in a blink.

There are lightweight implementation, but by removing need to download the whole chain, they give up the features you advertise.

The tech is not simple.

It is also not robust. Bitcoin had ridiculous speed limit (7 transactions per second, I believe), for example.

Then there are massive costs of it operating. I already mentioned that minting an NFT supposedly can take 300 kilowatt hours. And for what?

----------

When all of those issues are known, the quesiton arises : why bother with it when a database will do? The value only lies in chasing buzzwords. The tech itself brings no advantages.

 

With carbon taxes and related goals for net zero ..that's a lot of energy to expend, the "poof" could happen when a % of that expenditure must go to the government, because whose pocket will it come from? The government won't accept payment in form of % ownership of some NFT.. imho.

 

Robust mean it's not easily attacked, you need a 50% attack to break it because the validation rely on network consensus, that makes it more resilient than a database with a single point of failure. Which is why blockchain is hyped, heck poor country have been early adopter for remittance to avoid the stupid exorbitant fee, fir years, i doubt many people in africa have a gigabyte hd laying off their houses. The word you are looking for is efficient, which is the main trade off. Those do not affect resilience, and we rely on worse tech just fine.

You don't need to download the whole thing, i have both bitcoin and ethereum on my phone, i don't have the space you claim. Validator node are few.

Energy efficiency is a concern, but generally tech consuming energy is a concern. Rendering 3d images with raytracing on blender is as much as an issue, so is combined idle time of all computer, and most people use overkill processor and gpu to run soft like word who would run on less compute.

Look i get you don't like crypto, the culture around is horrendous, only rival by video games. But taking it down should be based on rational argument. The proliferation of cryptocoin for example is a problem, the efficiency i named is a problem, but it's external to the tech. Bitcoin is best seen as an experiment to build on, to me the whole crypto scene is an experiment to push the limit of what can be done and what to fix. Tulipmania didn't made stock trading stops, the invention of checks and paper money is eerily similar to crypto, even current banking with fractional reserve got is excess, yet here we are a few century after.

Blockchain isn't really new, it's an evolution of very old tech. It's a F***ing ledger, it's a database, you can't say you can do it woth a database because that's the same thing, like i said it's a linked list of data with clever use of encryption to make sure history is secured. No concept it used is new, only their combination.

 

Also looking at current global political climate with what's likely trillions of dollars a year of debt due to impact of Covid, brownouts and blackouts being common some places, potential is increasing for starving mobs with no heating in the winter carrying torches and pitchforks down the street looking for whoever's been sucking the electrical well dry. Some of whom will likely be savvy enough to actually get names and addresses.. in some parallel universe where things could get so bad and there's still an internet. I'm just being dramatic and creative - I don't actually care, I just hope Unity Engine still works without an internet to check license to open a project, because solar power laptop chargers are a thing, and game dev could still be a thing as well, if Unity cares to continue enriching our lives in a post-apocalyptic, post-Internet world, where it's like Mad Max, but with solar powered laptops and game jams instead of the other stuff

 

Also for better understanding of the historical context of nft.

It's a honest buzzword.

Nobody care until a popular artist casually sold is art on it, expecting reasonable price and broke banks.

Then greedy grifter tried to capitalized on the social shock rippling through the culture.

Nobody cared nft was bad for the planet before that, it's just envy now.

Also nft isn't a tech per see, the tech is smart contract, that is code stored in blockchain that fires when there is a transaction to enforced terms, opening the door to defi ie decentralized and automated finance. Nft is just digital certificate stored and executed on smart contract, it's not even reserved to art, it can be applied to any asset. Could be stored anywhere else not just blockchain, blockchain is just a type of database it can be used on, blockchain is just the currently more secure way to store it. It's as good as any digital certificate.

Too bad we are in the era of planned hardware obsolescence and there is no way to gorge chipset in the kitchen. If anything current pandemy leading to global chips shortage show how dependent we have been on tech and their fragile production logistics. Don't break that computer.

 

The NFT only make sens, as long data bases storing relevant data exists, to confirm ownership.
So imagine you bough a hat in for a X game in 2021. You are happy owner of it. All nice ane dandy sits in NTF block chain. Then game and its servesr shuts down in 2022. You are still un-happy owner of NTF, but you don't have an access to an item, as DB is dead, so is a game.

Hence as already pointed by others, NTF solves nothing, what DB solved already for long time.
Regarding DB single point of failure. Now we have clouds systems. DB are not sitting on the one server, but are spread over many in the world. At this point, DBs can be verified with each other for an integrity, if there is any hack in.

Major difference is, DB is most likely owned by a company, who make a game. While block chain is spread across users, ideally. All though, an actual hat item is still on DB anyway.

A bit exaggerated example, but problem stil stands:
Let's say, if someone hacks into a server for sake of breach argument, they can teoritacally replace your hat with a stick. Now you proudly own a stick, even if chain says it is a hat.
Sure we can apply clud based DB etc. But then we come to initial case, what is the point of NTF in a first place?

In my view, the only real value of it is, if it stores a string info in itself. Let's say as an example DNA for kittens. And no additional external DB is involved.

However, when we discuss these NTFS chains for games, where these block chains are really stored? Do they get distributed to users? I.e. in case of Ubisoft title. Did chains were distributed to players? Or the chain was stored on their own servers? If on servers, then value of NTF approach is even lesser for such games.

What I am missing here?

 

Yeah.. well, if bad enough we have no power grid, there will be lots of brand new computers in boxes, worth nothing, except to people who have solar chargers (I'm going to start saving for one now, or not), we can trade a can of food for a new laptop, or get robbed ..50/50 chances. But ..I won't give any food for NFT.

 

Database nft dichotomy is not applicable, the way the sever side database can checks each other can be implemented using blockchain too, it's a method, the validation step don't need to be proof of something either, that's another tech for ensuring consensus by scale.

Nft tried to solve the economic rivality and proof of ownership. Rival goods can't be duplicated easily, they have inherently value in scarcity. Non rival good, like information, can be duplicated infinitely without real original, ie digital goods, see napster culturel events, there is no inherent scarcity, nft use cryptography to introduce scarcity through certificate.

There is a large literature about how certificate of ownership is stupid, like in the book the little prince where he met someone who own stars in the sky through a dumb paper, nft debate of ownership didn't started with crypto, it's old, one key ideology against it is communism. You can say you own the plot of land, but nobody will believe you unless you show a certificate of ownership, that's not a nft property per see, that's just how certificate works, nft is just a new way to secure it. Nft solve some part of the falsification problem on digital platforms.

Nft are databases, you could store item on it, ie nft native art, in this case the nft is the art. And jpg aren't tied to a specific server, if you make item viewable outside of the game, it's the same, hence the hype for metaverse skin sharing ala vr chat. Storing art on decentralized network like ipfs is also a solution, the nft being the key to access it on these type of network.

So the problem is really an ideological one, should digital property exist?

The internet was founded on communist ideal of sharing information by tech hippies. Nft goes against that, it's also an answer for digital artist who get their work and credit stolen due to non rivality and a way to build back values into digital art by creating scarcity of sources, bringing back authority to artist on their own creations, in a way similar to the paper as proof of owning a plot of land. And ultimately it allows artist to control their revenue by getting a cut of each transactions on their creations.

The blockchain make sure they don't rely on third party like youtube, patreon, tumbler or only fan, who can change their terms at any moment and screw artist, as they don't own the platform. By design, the blockchain network cannot be controlled or own by a single entity, therefore the artist retain control and is protected by the distributed nature of the network.

The dark side is replacing artists above by big corporations. For them nft solve second hand market, which was impractical to trace before, also see black market. Nft enforced traceability and revenue on each transactions. Dlc, micro transaction, player market, always online and mandatory launcher with login where ways to implement similar idea.

Another application, along with other distributed tech, is for small dev to bypass owning and operating a server, by having the load be p2p, yet still secured.

 

@neoshaman that's all fine.
But let's focus on block chains in game applications.
General block chains art stuff is handled in much different way. Specially, users can choose, where they want to sell it, and which chain they want to belong to.
In case of games, players don't have such options.
They are limited to local market place. And even less, if at all, they can relly on law enforcement, to validate ownership of digital goods.

So let's consider items duplications. These are stored in some form of DB or chain. What makes one method over other more secure, to prevent items duplication? Both can check, if item does exist. DB probably can do it even faster.

In my view, items duplications in not the issue of tools choice DB vs Chain, but logic in a code, which validates or not, if item is duplicated.

Minecraft server were often suffering with items duplications. But chain will not solve the problem, if code doesn't validate for uniqness of an item.

 

I was editing to add more relevance to game as you posted lol

But understanding the use case and context was important to understand how we can apply it to game. I feel like procedural and user generation game like roblox can abuse the system, just like some artist did (the nft ape dude, but to be frank crytoKitties was the pionner, remember that?)

 

Nft IS code, it's encryption hash and code, ie it prevent duplication by design, in fact that's why it was created (double spending problem)

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smart-contracts.asp

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/doublespending.asp#:~:text=Double-spending is the risk,power necessary to manipulate it.

But basically it's not unique to blockchain, if each item has a unique identifier then you check if there is two item with similar identifier, creating items is the equivalent of mining in cryptocurrencies. A naive implementation could be hashing the position of the source of the creation, the time of creation and the person involved in the creation, with a salt, then storing it, every time the iem is used, checks if there is a similar hash in the database (not necessarily blockchain), if the database is secured then no duplicated items can exist, that's basically similar to the singleton. The issue then is "similar items" ie same item with different hash, which is where restriction on creation must exist as validation (the proof of something in blockchain tech).

Also speed of transaction depend on network scale, scale is used as protection to secure the blockchain (generally), as it must reach consensus of majority to validate a single transaction. Hence vulnerability to a 50% attack, assuming you can have as much processing power as half the network (which is why proof of works is so inefficient, the inefficiency IS the protection, the mining power arm race protect from any party having that much power when the network is big enough).

 

No, the internet was founded by the US military as a way for communications and data to survive nuclear attacks. The ability "sharing computer time" (not information) came next because computers were expensive, and not always in use by the places that had them. Later on information sharing became part of the internet as it initially grew. Then came the "tech hippies" trying to make a buck off of it.

 

I was making shortcut obviously, I'm doing enough of mini essay to not clog with technicalities, similarly, the army created ARPANET not internet, and then there is the difference between capitalized internet and non capitalized. I mean do we need semantics? that dilute the discussion :sad pepe.gif:
And french were pionner with minitel anyway : P
/jokes

The main idea is still that the design of current internet was founded on hippies ideal, hence why you can f12 any site to see source code, ie sharing freely code sources instead of close source, the whole open source movement. This has been a cultural fixture of internet, and is the same ideal behind crypto, napster, bittorrent, etc ...



I feel like properly placing NFT in context is important right now. So people can have properly placed anger

 

A database can be hacked and wiped out or an internal dev can manipulate it to give his pals an advantage, such as in an eSport tourny. where his pal wins and they split the cash.. Because a distributed ledger does not allow fraud by developers either. The legacy ownership and provenance can be checked by anybody on the network, The asset is also portable to other games if set up for such. I finished a contract recently for such an ecosystem.

 

At 200 kilowatt hours per transaction it is not worth it.

That means that the bigger block chain is, the easier it is to perform 51% attack. As fewer and fewer nodes would actually verify it.

No. Not on the same level.

Here's an illustration of the problem.

Spoiler

It is one hundred thousand times less efficient.

Insane energy consumption for ultimately nothing special. It would be probably a good idea to ban all cryptocurrencies that use proof of work, to be honest.
----

ippdev, in this case malicious user will hack the client. And will initiate token transfer to a 3rd party. And it will be irreversible. In case of datrabase, while developer can maliciously edit database, they can also edit it to return stolen assets. In blockchain solution what's stolen will be gone forever.

Can a player gift blockchain item? Yes? Well, then all his stuff can be stolen from him permanently.

 

Not gonna happen with a crypto wallet unless phished. And that is user error not blockchain wallet error. Tech is coming soon to eliminate the heavy proof of work energy consumption. The tech is constantly evolving. As to our lawful money. $1 in 1970 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $7.16 today, an increase of $6.16 over 51 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.94% per year between 1970 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 616.36%. The inflation rate in 1970 was 5.72%. Blockchain was implemented to stop central banks control of money..not governments as none can produce "money" [fiat chits of debt pointing at debt obligations while they horde material wealth collateral..real estate, minerals, metals, hard goods] except through a central bank which can print willy nilly.. Exceptions. North Korea and Syria.

 

You made a claim that was untrue to support some sort of point. That is not a "shortcut" or "semantics", that is just arguing pointlessly. Arguing is not allowed here. Arguing by making up stuff borders on trolling. Also not allowed.

---

NOTICE:
Everyone, this thread is about the Ubisoft nft thing, which is sort of game related and can stay around IF the topic remains on that track. If it continues about NFTs/crypto/etc in general, it will be closed. Absolutely not the place for all that nonsense here. Take it reddit or where ever.

 

Closed. Not an appropriate topic for this forum.