Forum - View topic

This Week in Games - We Never Asked for This

That concept is not too far off from what we already have in the realm of gaming. Nintendo already does just that with Amiibos. You can use the same Amiibo to unlock different stuff in different games using the same one-time purchase. A CPU fighter in a Smash, a skin in Mario Kart, a few bonus items in Breath of the Wild and Three Houses. I never got into them myself, but I also heard Skylanders were basically that. You could use the exact same Skylander you bought in the first game through out the sequels and spin-offs.

I agree it sounds like mostly buzzwords and marketing, but the idea is promising and already out there. You get to level 20 World of Warcraft, you unlock a skin in Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm. Or even just the ability to trade Pokemon between games or unlock content in a game if you have a save file from the previous game in the series. I predict it'll mostly be limited to major companies who have an expansive library to take full advantage of the gimmick, but I'm interested to see how it goes. And in the realm where so many IPs are mingling in Fortnite, I wouldn't completely rule out cross-company promotions and integration being on the table. It sounds like the only main difference is being able to buy and sell these kinds of things on the player-end which I'd be pretty happy about since it would finally give players a bit of consumer power in our digital purchases.

) And then the corporate overlords are going to ask the developers to somehow implement “metaverse,” “blockchain,” and “NFT” into their games, to predictable and disastrous results.

Speaking of which,Troy Baker is the latest one to drink the NFT cool-aid...

It was amazing watching this article go up in the same hour his tweet went up oh my god. The reaction to it has been beautiful to behold. Like with Square Enix CEO's letter, just straight dunking on him for nearly 2 days straight so far. He sounded just as assheaded as the CEO did too. "You can hate, or you can create. Which will it be?" Goddamn.

Konami selling Castlevania NFTS is no different than them selling artwork or other collectables. If you don't find any value in it, then don't buy it.

Screaming about them destroying the environment isn't going to convince people who are not already against them to change their mind any more than a vegan yelling at someone that eating beef destroys the environment is going to suddenly convince them to eat bugs. Humans do not respond well to that kind of vitriol. NFTs inherantly are not bad, believe it or not.

johnnysasaki wrote:

Speaking of which,Troy Baker is the latest one to drink the NFT cool-aid...

It was amazing watching this article go up in the same hour his tweet went up oh my god. The reaction to it has been beautiful to behold. Like with Square Enix CEO's letter, just straight dunking on him for nearly 2 days straight so far. He sounded just as assheaded as the CEO did too. "You can hate, or you can create. Which will it be?" Goddamn.

Konami selling Castlevania NFTS is no different than them selling artwork or other collectables.

Well, yes. But Konami can already sell artwork or other collectables. Saying they're going to sell NFTs that add nothing to what they're already capable of would be like a car manufacturer saying "and now, before every car comes off the line, a witch doctor will shake a yew branch at it." It may theoretically not affect the consumer, but I'd suddenly become very suspicious about what's driving the decisionmaking at the manufacturer.

No, the right comparison would be it's no different than them selling receipts of artwork or other collectibles.

Except you don't get ownership of those artworks or collectibles.

Except you can't sell those artworks or collectibles.

But, you have the receipt. That you do own. That you can sell.

Also, you don't get to keep those artworks or collectibles at your home. They're on a shelf behind glass in a far away place and your receipt is your key with which you can view them from home.

But, if the ones who sold you the receipt ever go bust, come crumbling down or stop honoring the receipt, there won't be any artwork or collectibles, there won't be any shelf.

But hey, you will still have that receipt, so it's worth it, right?

Not that I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I can't help but sit here appreciating the irony of people mocking other people how they don't actually own the NFT thing they're paying for while they also shame people into subbing to Crunchyroll and other streaming services at the mere mention of scalations and pirate sites. The huge concern over profiting off artist's artwork illegally by the same community where you can't go down one aisle at a local convention's artist ally without people selling their My Hero Academia or Attack on Titan fanart is also something not lost on me. Or maybe since we're talking about games it's more relevant to point to all the times Nintendo got dogged on for shutting down a fan game project or any other Japanese company shutting down streamers trying to profit off their games and were called backwards and restrictive for doing so.

I can only hope this new-found disdain for big corporations sticks around the next time the discussion of piracy pops up and the logic behind paying for paying for digital video games and tv shows you don't actually own is brought into question and people can sympathize more to those who don't like doing it. If NFTs can at least start that discussion, then I consider that a silver-lining in this whole thing.