Ubisoft’s first NFT plans make no sense(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Ubisoft’s first NFT plans make no sense
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/12/ubisofts-first-nft-plans-make-no-sense/
191 comments
Surely Ubisoft is just storing metadata about the items in the blockchain, not the actual model or anything. This whole thing is purpose-built to support the game. If the NFT says player X owns red_skin #33856, then the game will say such, but Ubisoft would still be free to change the model at their discretion or remove the item from the game if they want, making the NFT useless in such a case.
It really is not any different from Valve's system except it's way more complicated, it's using a trendy thing, you don't need Ubisoft to trade things (although you still have to complete trust in Ubisoft for the NFTs to have any use as they still have to mint the items and could still remove an item or ban a specific item number), item duplication is impossible, and fraud protection is impossible.
It really is not any different from Valve's system except it's way more complicated, it's using a trendy thing, you don't need Ubisoft to trade things (although you still have to complete trust in Ubisoft for the NFTs to have any use as they still have to mint the items and could still remove an item or ban a specific item number), item duplication is impossible, and fraud protection is impossible.
> Surely Ubisoft is just storing metadata about the items in the blockchain, not the actual model or anything.
So Ubisoft could delete the item from the game, and therefore owning the NFT means nothing. What's the point of using NFT instead of a Ubisoft owned DB?
So Ubisoft could delete the item from the game, and therefore owning the NFT means nothing. What's the point of using NFT instead of a Ubisoft owned DB?
Boom! Now you know what NFTs are.
> What's the point of using NFT instead of a Ubisoft owned DB?
Now they get to say they're using NFTs in their press.
Now they get to say they're using NFTs in their press.
Bingo. One of the biggest challenges these days for entertainment companies is successfully marketing their product. By saying they are using NFTs they've captured all sorts of free media attention.
And they've even launched this on an older game, so they can test if it results in increased engagement or revenue.
And they've even launched this on an older game, so they can test if it results in increased engagement or revenue.
> What's the point of using NFT instead of a Ubisoft owned DB?
Less work. Maintaining a marketplace is resource intensive. If the same functionality can be achieved with NFTs, it makes little sense to use a proprietary solution.
Less work. Maintaining a marketplace is resource intensive. If the same functionality can be achieved with NFTs, it makes little sense to use a proprietary solution.
There are simpler and cheaper databases that can do more than 40 transactions per second.
They have a marketplace. They have the accounts. They have the payment details. They need to keep track of purchases and make sure they are allowed under their conditions. The need to verify and integrate the items into their game. They need to tie specific ubisoft accounts to crypto wallets.
Are you seriously saying that their motivation was that it's less work?
Are you seriously saying that their motivation was that it's less work?
Blockchain lets them wash their hands of theft, just say "Oops, blockchain! It's theirs now, we don't control that."
Users may consider this a bug, but from Ubisoft's side it's less responsibility.
Users may consider this a bug, but from Ubisoft's side it's less responsibility.
This is how pretty much every NFT works.
They just embed a URL. You are buying a URL, which I think must be publically available due to being on the blockchain, unless it's encrypted with the buyer's pubkey which would make some sense.
They just embed a URL. You are buying a URL, which I think must be publically available due to being on the blockchain, unless it's encrypted with the buyer's pubkey which would make some sense.
This surely can't be true for the typical image-based NFTs? I thought the entire point is that the full JPEG is embedded in the blockchain, thus not being dependent on any image hosting service.
On chain storage is expensive per KB so the vast majority of image-based NFTs are stored on awful image hosting services. A very common complaint among NFT buyers is how many of the "NFT-specific" image hosting services have already gone down and/or (of course) respond to things like DMCA takedowns.
Thanks for the explanation, this makes me profoundly sad and is completely absurd. They call it "minting" which I actually thought was a neat way of putting the image itself on chain which can't be deleted and is permanent, so people spending crazy amounts of money can at least have the piece of mind that what they've bought is immutable. This shouldn't be considered an NFT at all.. imagine if bitcoin was just linking to a bank transaction. In fact- a definition of NFTs: "unique digital asset that is not directly replaceable with another digital asset" - swapping the results of the URL would invalidate this. What is the actual point?
It's not as bad as you think. If the frontend and database is open source, the assets will be mirrored, and therefore end up in a giant archive. This is what happened to Hic Et Nunc last month - founder decided to pull the plug, community resumed within a few hours with other sites. The power is in the technology mix: Blockchains and smart contracts secure the transactions, everything else can be secured with existing methods. It's an incentive structure shift that's still being explored - you always want a 100% archival because it protects the represented value on-chain. It pushes the business model away from platform control as well. They will most likely have to differentiate with curation and discovery services.
Currently, a lot of the frontends are not open. They pose the same degree of rugpull risk as any ordinary web site. That is unlikely to remain the status quo since both collectors and artists will ultimately demand a proof of redundancy. But as it stands, it's a bubble, and the rules aren't set.
Currently, a lot of the frontends are not open. They pose the same degree of rugpull risk as any ordinary web site. That is unlikely to remain the status quo since both collectors and artists will ultimately demand a proof of redundancy. But as it stands, it's a bubble, and the rules aren't set.
Hmm, that's interesting. Does each NTF has a hash of the file linked, to confirm the mirrored asset is the same as the original?
That’s a smart question
The actual point is to scam people. With the support of true-believers that this is a thing to give it hype.
Crypto in general feels like MMM scams but for men.
Crypto in general feels like MMM scams but for men.
You can check out the contract for the Big Ape Yacht Club NFTs, for yourself[1]
If you go to Contract and then Read, there's a function you can execute towards the end which gets you the URI for a token. If you grab a token ID[2] and enter it in, you'll get back an IPFS address. Should be more permanent than a random image hosting site, but it's certainly not the same as storing the image on the blockchain.
[1] https://etherscan.io/address/0xbc4ca0eda7647a8ab7c2061c2e118... [2] https://opensea.io/collection/boredapeyachtclub
If you go to Contract and then Read, there's a function you can execute towards the end which gets you the URI for a token. If you grab a token ID[2] and enter it in, you'll get back an IPFS address. Should be more permanent than a random image hosting site, but it's certainly not the same as storing the image on the blockchain.
[1] https://etherscan.io/address/0xbc4ca0eda7647a8ab7c2061c2e118... [2] https://opensea.io/collection/boredapeyachtclub
Most are stored on traditional hosting services, some are stored on other chains (IPFS) and some are stored on the parent chain. Data storage costs vary a lot depending on the chain.
No, it's just a URL.
The full image isn't embedded. Only a link to the image.
Nope. There are some distributed blockchain file storage systems, but by and large NFTs don't use them.
> You are buying a URL,
No, you don't own the URL either, and if the URL goes away, you still own the NFT.
All you own is the NFT - a hex number that encodes the solution to an obscure equation.
No, you don't own the URL either, and if the URL goes away, you still own the NFT.
All you own is the NFT - a hex number that encodes the solution to an obscure equation.
Even if it wasn't storing metadata, Ubisoft can blacklist your NFT at any point.
Owning the NFT means nothing since you don't own the game in which they're used.
Owning the NFT means nothing since you don't own the game in which they're used.
I think on the whole you’re correct. However, Valve taking a cut of items bought on the market I would argue is actually a feature, because it gives them an incentive to work on the game. Players who invest lots of money and players who don’t both benefit from the arrangement. And if you don’t like it, you can trade in person and do bank transfers and stuff like that
Even if they stored the actual model they could simply change the game and ignore what the ledger says. I still haven't heard a good use for NFT's apart from investment/scams because the simple fact you still rely on some party honoring what the ledger says. Exactly the same thing as CSGO skins, just a better marketing move.
Then surely the question is "why blockchain?"
I think you're essentially agreeing with the article - Ubisoft's plans make no sense beyond simply being trendy. They are worse in any practical sense than a simple server-side solution.
I think you're essentially agreeing with the article - Ubisoft's plans make no sense beyond simply being trendy. They are worse in any practical sense than a simple server-side solution.
Yes, I am. Blockchains theoretical purpose is for a scenario where you need artificial digital scarcity when there are no trusted entities. Essentially any multiplayer game will require a trusted entity to originate the NFTs, host the server, and produce the clients. If you don't need to fund a trusted entity, there's no purpose to artificial scarcity.
A conventional database would obviously be much better for Ubisoft. This is just illogical fad-chasing.
A conventional database would obviously be much better for Ubisoft. This is just illogical fad-chasing.
Yep. The same problem that infects almost all NFTs right now. The NFT is just a link, the item itself can disappear. It is too expensive to shove most NFT artworks into the blockchain itself.
2011: Dammit Valve, who exactly asked for these tradeable hats? Keep games free of this crap!
2021: Praise Valve, the only big name keeping in-game-crap economies free of "blockchain" garbage and generally being the least awful one.
How low can the games industry sink?
2021: Praise Valve, the only big name keeping in-game-crap economies free of "blockchain" garbage and generally being the least awful one.
How low can the games industry sink?
Games mimic life.
Some players like the ability to pursue luxury, express themselves and display status. Now Valve as an established player; market operator and sort of a financial institution of the "tradable hats" world plays conservative.
Some players like the ability to pursue luxury, express themselves and display status. Now Valve as an established player; market operator and sort of a financial institution of the "tradable hats" world plays conservative.
I disagree that this is a case of games mimicking life, but do agree with the underlying thesis that it’s coming from outside of Value.
Personally I think that this is a capitalism thing: any company that finds a way to sell this type of luxury suddenly finds out why other people are doing it ($$$$$) and it’s very hard to turn down a constant stream of money.
Personally I think that this is a capitalism thing: any company that finds a way to sell this type of luxury suddenly finds out why other people are doing it ($$$$$) and it’s very hard to turn down a constant stream of money.
I am often found defending Valve here on HN, so I'd just like to go on record that these skin and card trading markets are bad and Valve is bad for running them.
Why do you think it is bad? Is the negative effect is on games, or Steam users?
> Is the negative effect is on games, or Steam users?
Yes.
Steam users most of all though because it exploits bad habits people have like gambling, collectionism, and completionism with all the ugliness that comes with them for the sake of profit.
Yes.
Steam users most of all though because it exploits bad habits people have like gambling, collectionism, and completionism with all the ugliness that comes with them for the sake of profit.
Can you articulate why?
That reads just like an xkcd comic :D
> no reason for it to be distributed
Many decisions are taken to increase market value. It makes sense a distributed ledger based on blockchain if that increases the shares value, but I guess that you mean that it does not improve the product at all. And I can't agree more that if anything it makes it worse.
Many decisions are taken to increase market value. It makes sense a distributed ledger based on blockchain if that increases the shares value, but I guess that you mean that it does not improve the product at all. And I can't agree more that if anything it makes it worse.
It hinders the product. By controlling the ledger and being able to make changes, user submitted products are possible. Otherwise they wouldn’t be able to respond to DMCA in the case of accidentally accepting copyrighted material
They could always block stuff they don't want from actually doing anything in the games and not host it, which would resolve that problem. (similar to how with IPFS public gateways often have blocklists of content they won't deliver, even if it is available in the IPFS network)
Now you have two ledgers, one of which isn’t distributed
Integration of user-generated content in ubisoft games will always have a centralized component, sure. They wouldn't dare having that unrestricted.
So now you are maintaining an expensive and complex distributed database that duplicates the work that's already being done by a cheap and manageable internal database. For what benefit?
So you can say you have an NFT to offer. (I wish I was kidding here.)
And so they don't actually have to administer the marketplace. From their perspective it's just create a new skin and some NFTs for it, and release them into the wild.
Administering the marketplace is that part that actually makes money, though, because the house always gets a cut of the transactions (in service fees and transaction fees). That's been a lot of Valve's success in all the easy profit from the Steam Marketplace. If this is to increase shareholder value in Ubi long term, NFTs are ass backwards because they aren't long term revenue generating, but a marketplace they owned actually would be.
Yeah I guess my main point is all of this is fine and dandy and definitely works. But from a technical standpoint it’s just kinda stupid
[deleted]
This is mostly because I have some friends very much into CSGO who also constantly make fun of NFTs, but my favorite thing about CSGO skins is that they are basically modern NFTs in every way except not being stored on a blockchain. Every skin has: The skin name, a random 0 - 1.0 damage value, and a skin offset (, optionally stattrak, attached stickers, etc). I'm not sure if the randomness guarantees uniqueness, but it's damn near close enough.
Not that distributed is even in the initialism of NFT, so I guess csgo skins are NFTs.
Not that distributed is even in the initialism of NFT, so I guess csgo skins are NFTs.
There is an insult in schools for kids who have default skins in games.
This is basically laughing at kid's being poor, can't stop it. But game producers are actively creating those environments where even if its just cosmetics you are still in a lower caste if not buying into cosmetics.
There are also pattens by Ubi or activation where you are places on server with higher rated player so when they dominate you their characters with weapons and skins are presented in a kill cam. That is to create subconscious idea of getting those to play better.
Thirdly on Valve and buying/selling items. Arcanas are skins in Dota. They are very expensive as its alternative character skin with new voice lines and visuals for skill. Nowdays arcanas are expensive, none tradable/marketable, and more importantly one time exclusive. Its massive FOMO pressure. Back in the day you could buy an arcana and while it costed you a bit you could sell it back at small % loss, not anymore.
Those companies are doing all of it cuz it makes them piles of cash, as those tactics while predatory - do work - and work very well.
This is basically laughing at kid's being poor, can't stop it. But game producers are actively creating those environments where even if its just cosmetics you are still in a lower caste if not buying into cosmetics.
There are also pattens by Ubi or activation where you are places on server with higher rated player so when they dominate you their characters with weapons and skins are presented in a kill cam. That is to create subconscious idea of getting those to play better.
Thirdly on Valve and buying/selling items. Arcanas are skins in Dota. They are very expensive as its alternative character skin with new voice lines and visuals for skill. Nowdays arcanas are expensive, none tradable/marketable, and more importantly one time exclusive. Its massive FOMO pressure. Back in the day you could buy an arcana and while it costed you a bit you could sell it back at small % loss, not anymore.
Those companies are doing all of it cuz it makes them piles of cash, as those tactics while predatory - do work - and work very well.
Kids making fun of poorer kids for not having nicer cosmetics is absolutely nothing new… are we really going to pin the blame on this on the designer clothes brands, or the educational environment we are raising children?
I think people with nicer skins are more highly invested in the game both literally and figuratively, and thus are more likely to be better. I don’t think kill cams are the way valve is trying to convince you to buy skins.
And for your last point, yes that sucks but is that any worse than the default experience for literally every multiplayer video game on the market?
I think people with nicer skins are more highly invested in the game both literally and figuratively, and thus are more likely to be better. I don’t think kill cams are the way valve is trying to convince you to buy skins.
And for your last point, yes that sucks but is that any worse than the default experience for literally every multiplayer video game on the market?
Why can't we blame both? Why must we encourage a society that values wasting money as a sign of status? The only people benefiting from this are the people selling the bullshit.
It’s not necessarily a sign of status, people think the cosmetics look nice. Why must I suffer a worse experience just because you think it’s a waste of money? It’s an M rated game, kids shouldn’t be playing it in the first place
>Kids making fun of poorer kids for not having nicer cosmetics is absolutely nothing new
I said it, but it seems like you are ok with it, be it physical or virtual goods?
> I think people with nicer skins are more highly invested in the game both literally and figuratively, and thus are more likely to be better. I don’t think kill cams are the way valve is trying to convince you to buy skins.
Please read what people write, instead of creating misconstrued replies. Its not valve, its patented method of placing you with HIGHER skill opponent who has skins/weapons that you dont have in order to heard you into conclusion that you should get skills.
> I don’t think kill cams are the way X company is trying to convince you to buy skins.
You don't have to think. They filled patent for this, how daft one need to get to clam they mean the opposite of what the patent they filled for. Like how do you arrive at that conclusion?! Honestly how?
This is not 100% effective method, but example of subtle emotional manipulation of vulnerable player-base, like kids/teens into spending money.
> And for your last point, yes that sucks but is that any worse than the default experience for literally every multiplayer video game on the market?
What? What is your point really? Shitty practices are ok as long everyone is using them? 'Mercury in your cereal?' - but every brand has them so that makes it ok.
I said it, but it seems like you are ok with it, be it physical or virtual goods?
> I think people with nicer skins are more highly invested in the game both literally and figuratively, and thus are more likely to be better. I don’t think kill cams are the way valve is trying to convince you to buy skins.
Please read what people write, instead of creating misconstrued replies. Its not valve, its patented method of placing you with HIGHER skill opponent who has skins/weapons that you dont have in order to heard you into conclusion that you should get skills.
> I don’t think kill cams are the way X company is trying to convince you to buy skins.
You don't have to think. They filled patent for this, how daft one need to get to clam they mean the opposite of what the patent they filled for. Like how do you arrive at that conclusion?! Honestly how?
This is not 100% effective method, but example of subtle emotional manipulation of vulnerable player-base, like kids/teens into spending money.
> And for your last point, yes that sucks but is that any worse than the default experience for literally every multiplayer video game on the market?
What? What is your point really? Shitty practices are ok as long everyone is using them? 'Mercury in your cereal?' - but every brand has them so that makes it ok.
> > Kids making fun of poorer kids for not having nicer cosmetics is absolutely nothing new
> I said it, but it seems like you are ok with it, be it physical or virtual goods?
This is absolutely not what I said and incredibly insulting of an implication. If you’re going to talk about misreading peoples comments, please practice what you preach. I will not be responding to the rest of this comment because you have convinced me you’re not approaching this dialogue in good faith.
> I said it, but it seems like you are ok with it, be it physical or virtual goods?
This is absolutely not what I said and incredibly insulting of an implication. If you’re going to talk about misreading peoples comments, please practice what you preach. I will not be responding to the rest of this comment because you have convinced me you’re not approaching this dialogue in good faith.
I don't know much about CSGO, but it is similar to the marketplace for Dota 2 cosmetics. Based on that marketplace, I can see some flaws that the NFT landscape can improve.
> Skins are tradeable on the steam market which itself is a ledger, no reason for it to be distributed.
This is false in the Dota2 world. Some skins and cosmetics cannot be put on the market again or resold. Some people would see this constraint from a centralized force as a flaw.
> Skins are purely cosmetic and tied to a competitive game that many people tie their life to. Cosmetics of differing expense make sense, the better players show off their personality in the expense and style of their cosmetics
In decentralized gaming, anyone is free to take those assets and build a game off them. For example, if you had a certain rare skin, and someone made a dota fan game (or custom game if you are from the old WCIII days or custom lobby in current dota days), then you could enable certain functionality if they had the skin or NFT. There is a lot you can do from here that isn't purely cosmetic but also not P2W.
> additionally, because the ledger isn’t distributed, valve can actively change skins and fix mistakes to them. This allows for user submitted skins to even work, as they can respond to DMCA take downs
Excellent point on DMCA. On submitted skins, some people could see that as a limit. Who approves submissions (this was a big complaint in previous TIs)?
I am someone that has a lot of stuff on the Dota2 marketplace, and some of the centralized decisions have definitely left me with some bitterness. For example, I mentioned before that some cosmetics are not re-tradeable or ever seen again after some period of exclusivity. Except this rule was broken once where they allowed an Invoker cosmetic to come up again (the kid Persona), but for some reason didn't bring back [Dark Artistry] in an event where they put these skins together. I had the kid persona invoker item but never had the [Dark Artistry]. They essentially devalued my cosmetic, again somewhat arbitrarily.
> Skins are tradeable on the steam market which itself is a ledger, no reason for it to be distributed.
This is false in the Dota2 world. Some skins and cosmetics cannot be put on the market again or resold. Some people would see this constraint from a centralized force as a flaw.
> Skins are purely cosmetic and tied to a competitive game that many people tie their life to. Cosmetics of differing expense make sense, the better players show off their personality in the expense and style of their cosmetics
In decentralized gaming, anyone is free to take those assets and build a game off them. For example, if you had a certain rare skin, and someone made a dota fan game (or custom game if you are from the old WCIII days or custom lobby in current dota days), then you could enable certain functionality if they had the skin or NFT. There is a lot you can do from here that isn't purely cosmetic but also not P2W.
> additionally, because the ledger isn’t distributed, valve can actively change skins and fix mistakes to them. This allows for user submitted skins to even work, as they can respond to DMCA take downs
Excellent point on DMCA. On submitted skins, some people could see that as a limit. Who approves submissions (this was a big complaint in previous TIs)?
I am someone that has a lot of stuff on the Dota2 marketplace, and some of the centralized decisions have definitely left me with some bitterness. For example, I mentioned before that some cosmetics are not re-tradeable or ever seen again after some period of exclusivity. Except this rule was broken once where they allowed an Invoker cosmetic to come up again (the kid Persona), but for some reason didn't bring back [Dark Artistry] in an event where they put these skins together. I had the kid persona invoker item but never had the [Dark Artistry]. They essentially devalued my cosmetic, again somewhat arbitrarily.
> "In decentralized gaming, anyone is free to take those assets and build a game off them."
Certainly not. The assets are owned by the game developer. The NFT is just a receipt that you paid for them.
I suppose another developer can read that receipt and offer you some content in their game, but if that content looks anything like the original asset, they're liable to get sued for copyright infringement.
Certainly not. The assets are owned by the game developer. The NFT is just a receipt that you paid for them.
I suppose another developer can read that receipt and offer you some content in their game, but if that content looks anything like the original asset, they're liable to get sued for copyright infringement.
You are right; I was being loose with my language on assets and receipts. Thank you for the correction.
> but if that content looks anything like the original asset, they're liable to get sued for copyright infringement.
I am thinking something more along the lines of a game that supports in-game mods for it. There is nothing limiting you to use the original asset; you just need proof of ownership to give access to a different functionality. I have no idea how this would work across developers and with copyright, but there are real scenarios right now that would love to use proof of ownership or for mods.
> but if that content looks anything like the original asset, they're liable to get sued for copyright infringement.
I am thinking something more along the lines of a game that supports in-game mods for it. There is nothing limiting you to use the original asset; you just need proof of ownership to give access to a different functionality. I have no idea how this would work across developers and with copyright, but there are real scenarios right now that would love to use proof of ownership or for mods.
You are seeing a potential future, and an exciting one at that. Unfortunately, there is nothing in what Ubisoft has announced that will help usher in that future.
[deleted]
> "Certainly not. The assets are owned by the game developer."
It may be the case for Ubisoft. However, some NTFs include the IP rights. For example, if you bought a Bored Ape NFT, you'd have the rights to use that Ape any way that you want. You can license it out for a Cartoon. Movie or Comic Book. Sell T-shirts, etc.
It may be the case for Ubisoft. However, some NTFs include the IP rights. For example, if you bought a Bored Ape NFT, you'd have the rights to use that Ape any way that you want. You can license it out for a Cartoon. Movie or Comic Book. Sell T-shirts, etc.
> However, some NTFs include the IP rights.
Which surely exists separately from the blockchain in conventional contract law?
An NFT can't "include" IP rights. A notice on a website where you buy it might have a grant of contract rights.
Once again - the blockchain adds nothing or very little in return for a ton of technical complexity.
Which surely exists separately from the blockchain in conventional contract law?
An NFT can't "include" IP rights. A notice on a website where you buy it might have a grant of contract rights.
Once again - the blockchain adds nothing or very little in return for a ton of technical complexity.
A license of mostly theoretical usefulness, considering what those apes look like.
You could purchase a custom illustration for $5 from Fiverr that would look better than a generated ape, be more suitable for your use case, and also comes with full rights.
You could purchase a custom illustration for $5 from Fiverr that would look better than a generated ape, be more suitable for your use case, and also comes with full rights.
> Some skins and cosmetics cannot be put on the market again or resold. Some people would see this constraint from a centralized force as a flaw.
But the skin owner can code pauses/restraints in the NFT smart contract, right? A decentralized market wouldn't change that.
> In decentralized gaming, anyone is free to take those assets and build a game off them. For example, if you had a certain rare skin, and someone made a dota fan game (or custom game if you are from the old WCIII days or custom lobby in current dota days), then you could enable certain functionality if they had the skin or NFT. There is a lot you can do from here that isn't purely cosmetic but also not P2W.
But for that you need to have free assets, to the point where someone else can build a game. And I bet in that case you don't need to own the skin, just load the asset in the game and that's it.
But the skin owner can code pauses/restraints in the NFT smart contract, right? A decentralized market wouldn't change that.
> In decentralized gaming, anyone is free to take those assets and build a game off them. For example, if you had a certain rare skin, and someone made a dota fan game (or custom game if you are from the old WCIII days or custom lobby in current dota days), then you could enable certain functionality if they had the skin or NFT. There is a lot you can do from here that isn't purely cosmetic but also not P2W.
But for that you need to have free assets, to the point where someone else can build a game. And I bet in that case you don't need to own the skin, just load the asset in the game and that's it.
> But the skin owner can code pauses/restraints in the NFT smart contract, right? A decentralized market wouldn't change that.
I think it is fine if skin providers in a free marketplace can impose constraints on their NFTs. I think the problem is if someone can impose arbitrary constraints on all the assets at any time.
> But for that you need to have free assets, to the point where someone else can build a game. And I bet in that case you don't need to own the skin, just load the asset in the game and that's it.
Yes, you need certain amount of assets. I am not sure why you wouldn't need to own the skin. We already have verification for assets in centralized ledgers to exclusive access. I am saying a situation where I might give asset owners access to specific game functions if they own an asset from another game for example. This is pretty useful for RPG games (think branching paths in games like Mass Effect or other Bioware games)
I think it is fine if skin providers in a free marketplace can impose constraints on their NFTs. I think the problem is if someone can impose arbitrary constraints on all the assets at any time.
> But for that you need to have free assets, to the point where someone else can build a game. And I bet in that case you don't need to own the skin, just load the asset in the game and that's it.
Yes, you need certain amount of assets. I am not sure why you wouldn't need to own the skin. We already have verification for assets in centralized ledgers to exclusive access. I am saying a situation where I might give asset owners access to specific game functions if they own an asset from another game for example. This is pretty useful for RPG games (think branching paths in games like Mass Effect or other Bioware games)
> I am not sure why you wouldn't need to own the skin.
If the game maker doesn't want to restrict who uses the skin? And I guess that's the thing that would happen if someone makes a mod out of free assets.
If the game maker doesn't want to restrict who uses the skin? And I guess that's the thing that would happen if someone makes a mod out of free assets.
Valve relentlessly rent-seeks the secondary market, making it impossible to trade the skins for anything useful. They have gone out of their way to end any way to exchange them with any real world currency, because it then ends up being akin to gambling. Valve is almost a despot, exchanging skins as NFT would take these powers out of the game dev's hands, that's the whole point.
The only difference from what Valve is doing is that these are numbered and in limited quantity.
CSGO skins are limited in quantity as well. Some items are so rare they’re one of one, costing millions of dollars
Source: https://youtu.be/4nCt99ezhiA
Source: https://youtu.be/4nCt99ezhiA
Then it's the same. And the only bad thing is that it's Ubisoft and not the PC game market monopolist doing it.
The numbered part is easy, but nobody guaranty that they will not issue more in the future after they reconsider something or something.
Are there NFT plans that make sense? I'm sorry if I'm being too cynical for the general quality of this forum, but all I see regarding NFTs look like get rich quick schemes, so I'm not putting a cent in that. Am I losing the opportunity of a lifetime?
> Am I losing the opportunity of a lifetime?
If you feel like participating in a large scam, perhaps. Personally I would feel bad and I rather not touch this.
If you feel like participating in a large scam, perhaps. Personally I would feel bad and I rather not touch this.
If you don't want to participate in the scam aspect, just don't resell. Or make sure someone you're selling to is comfortable with the value going to 0 (and wants artist to make any smart contract royalties).
You can still use it as a way to invest in artists.
You can still use it as a way to invest in artists.
When you say "invest in artists", do you mean you want to support artists or you want to exploit artists in the hope of making profits ?
Why is absolute braindead comments like this still tolerated on here. I mean you'd hope that at some point the people who missed out on one of the biggest investment and technological opportunities of our time would just suck it up and either admit they were wrong or quietly move on with their lives but this place is just filled with angry cope comments like this that seek to vilify participants in a new space without even having a moderate understanding of what they're talking about. Maybe just maybe past all the evil scams and get rich quick schemes out there (which is present in any nascent industry), there are some things and people who are interested in this space and aspects of it that don't amount to eXpLoItaTioN.
And just to actually touch on this specific aspect of artists and being exploited, it's a laughable suggestion to mention this in this context when NFTs are one of the first times in recent history when artists can actually take back control from being exploited and unable to provide for themselves without succumbing to essentially giving up their soul - to unlocking their creative freedom and earning potential like we've never seen before.
And just to actually touch on this specific aspect of artists and being exploited, it's a laughable suggestion to mention this in this context when NFTs are one of the first times in recent history when artists can actually take back control from being exploited and unable to provide for themselves without succumbing to essentially giving up their soul - to unlocking their creative freedom and earning potential like we've never seen before.
I don't know, insulting others with rhetorical questions shouldn't be tolerated. I didn't read the rest of your comment.
You seem proud of not reading it... That's the attitude I don't like seeing on HN.
Smug and lacking intellectual curiosity
Smug and lacking intellectual curiosity
Not listening to insulting people is not lack of intellectual curiosity.
The only non-speculation and non-dumb use case for NFTs I know of is identities for distributed or federated apps.
An NFT registry is just a list of people who own numbers, and they get made fun of because a) owning a number isn't very useful, and b) anyone who wants to own the same number can just make a new list. But identities are exceptions: a) a username for a specific app is one of the few cases where it is useful to own a number, and b) because a specific app will only look at a specific list, i.e. it's reasonable and expected that I might own the 'ineptech' username on HN and someone else might own it on some other platform.
So, if you were going to make some sort of distributed social app, e.g. a twitter clone, it would make sense to use an NFT-like registry to track ownership of the handles. I believe this is basically how urbit identity ownership works, although it was implemented before the NFT craze.
An NFT registry is just a list of people who own numbers, and they get made fun of because a) owning a number isn't very useful, and b) anyone who wants to own the same number can just make a new list. But identities are exceptions: a) a username for a specific app is one of the few cases where it is useful to own a number, and b) because a specific app will only look at a specific list, i.e. it's reasonable and expected that I might own the 'ineptech' username on HN and someone else might own it on some other platform.
So, if you were going to make some sort of distributed social app, e.g. a twitter clone, it would make sense to use an NFT-like registry to track ownership of the handles. I believe this is basically how urbit identity ownership works, although it was implemented before the NFT craze.
I guess that is close to making sense, but as usual there are simpler alternatives. For example, the DNS. It already is a distributed global registry of reserved names that can be traded. The difference is more in political outlook than technical capability.
There could be simpler solutions even without a big bad central authority. Nodes participating in the federated network could build consensus among themselves (after all, each node has to voluntarily honor the database, whether that database is on the blockchain or not). The identity ownership can be controlled via knowledge of the private key. Just like you can currently sell your Twitter or Insta username by selling the password.
There could be simpler solutions even without a big bad central authority. Nodes participating in the federated network could build consensus among themselves (after all, each node has to voluntarily honor the database, whether that database is on the blockchain or not). The identity ownership can be controlled via knowledge of the private key. Just like you can currently sell your Twitter or Insta username by selling the password.
Namecoin was released in 2011 — way before the NFT craze.
This is indeed the most attractive reason for a globally distributed database of "valuable things", but proof-of-whatever powered "trustless" systems (cryptocurrencies) are still terrible. There was a really good experimental system with articulated trust: https://github.com/andres-erbsen/dename
This is indeed the most attractive reason for a globally distributed database of "valuable things", but proof-of-whatever powered "trustless" systems (cryptocurrencies) are still terrible. There was a really good experimental system with articulated trust: https://github.com/andres-erbsen/dename
> Are there NFT plans that make sense?
I mean, it seems like an way for artists to collect donations, and to distribute the donations so that less popular artists get a larger share, because even the most popular artists only have 1 "you own the NFT representing the 'original' version of this piece" to sell per piece of artwork.
Unsurprisingly, all the scammers and get-rich-quick people are making a lot more noise.
I mean, it seems like an way for artists to collect donations, and to distribute the donations so that less popular artists get a larger share, because even the most popular artists only have 1 "you own the NFT representing the 'original' version of this piece" to sell per piece of artwork.
Unsurprisingly, all the scammers and get-rich-quick people are making a lot more noise.
Are there NFT plans that make sense?
The tax fraud schemes make sense for now. Party A makes 10 NFTs and sells 1 to Party B for $10,000. Party B makes 10 NFTs and sells 1 to Party A for $10,000.
They both then donate their remaining NFTs to a charity and take a $90,000 tax write-off each.
Will work until the IRS is able to hire the additional 80,000 enforcement agents they’ve asked for.
The tax fraud schemes make sense for now. Party A makes 10 NFTs and sells 1 to Party B for $10,000. Party B makes 10 NFTs and sells 1 to Party A for $10,000.
They both then donate their remaining NFTs to a charity and take a $90,000 tax write-off each.
Will work until the IRS is able to hire the additional 80,000 enforcement agents they’ve asked for.
It has been pointed out that NFTs have actually been around for a few years, but their rise in popularity coincides with the IRS tightening some rules about using artwork for tax write-offs.
Tightening rules does nothing if they aren’t enforced.
Otherwise why did the IRS pay out $30MM in refunds for “Slavery Credits” that had no basis in law?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/irs-pays-30m-in-slavery-credits...
There are literally thousands of examples of things like this.
Otherwise why did the IRS pay out $30MM in refunds for “Slavery Credits” that had no basis in law?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/irs-pays-30m-in-slavery-credits...
There are literally thousands of examples of things like this.
[deleted]
Are charities really going to provide receipts that their donated NF-what?s are worth $180,000? Is the market liquid enough for them to resell them? If it is, then it's no different than if A & B resold them and donated the money. If not, why would charities go along with it?
It's easy to find a small museum to donate small amounts of artwork to at an inflated value. But what charity wants NFTs?
It's easy to find a small museum to donate small amounts of artwork to at an inflated value. But what charity wants NFTs?
With the money at stake, it would be pretty easy for both parties to tangentially set up a 501c3 whose purpose is to display gifted NFTs to the public
I think that would be hard to get IRS approval for. Regardless, the right to display a work is its copyright, which is unrelated to NFTs anyway.
And donating intellectual property to charities with high claimed values isn't anything new. That's why in 2004 the American Jobs Creation Act required that any donated intellectual property be valued at the lesser of its cost basis and its fair market value. (See: 26 USC § 170(e))
So in your example, each would accrue a $10,000 income tax liability by their sale and be able to write off a $10,000 gain by their donation's basis, accomplishing nothing.
And donating intellectual property to charities with high claimed values isn't anything new. That's why in 2004 the American Jobs Creation Act required that any donated intellectual property be valued at the lesser of its cost basis and its fair market value. (See: 26 USC § 170(e))
So in your example, each would accrue a $10,000 income tax liability by their sale and be able to write off a $10,000 gain by their donation's basis, accomplishing nothing.
> But what charity wants NFTs?
I attended an event last night in a museum where over $150k was raised for local Charities by auctioning off NFT Art. It will probably become more common than one might imagine.
I attended an event last night in a museum where over $150k was raised for local Charities by auctioning off NFT Art. It will probably become more common than one might imagine.
If NFT is the 21st century equivalent for the money laundering and tax evasion schemes with art pieces in the past centuries, then, being long ETH seems like a good strategy, disregarding the morality of it.
This is the closest I've seen to a product that is intellectually honest in the space:
https://islands.xyz/ & https://blockblock.io/
https://islands.xyz/ & https://blockblock.io/
I own some NFTs. They represent a partial interest in an LLC that owns real property (single family homes) in the United States. The properties earn rental income, which flows to a management company, which takes their cut and sends the rest to the LLC, which then puts the rent into crypto which flows to me via smart contract daily. I can take my rent money out any time I want or I can sell my NFT any time I want based on the current value of the house (which I think is just pulled from Zillow or Redfin?).
It's an experiment for sure, but the nice thing is that the tokens are only $50 each initially (they base the total number of tokens on the purchase price of the house so that they come out to $50 each) so it's low risk.
You can get the tokens too at https://lofty.ai (I have no relation to them other than being a customer, but they are a YC company).
It's an experiment for sure, but the nice thing is that the tokens are only $50 each initially (they base the total number of tokens on the purchase price of the house so that they come out to $50 each) so it's low risk.
You can get the tokens too at https://lofty.ai (I have no relation to them other than being a customer, but they are a YC company).
Sounds like a convoluted way of gambling on property values? I don't know why you would need NFT or crypto currency for that (other than making the whole scheme sound more complex and important to investors).
It's the easiest way for 3,000 people to own a single building. Managing an LLC with that many owners is an accounting nightmare. It wouldn't make sense to only charge $50 to invest and to pay rent each day if you had to manage it "the old way". The old way being REITs, which I used to invest in, but you lose a lot of money on management fees that way.
can't the justification for the management fee (employee doing the accounting etc) be just replaced by centralized software though? What does a blockchain bring?
> What does a blockchain bring?
Investors.
Jokes aside, it could be that for some people the public and decentralized history of token ownership is more robust and transparent.
Jokes aside, it could be that for some people the public and decentralized history of token ownership is more robust and transparent.
What happens if an owner loses his private key, or it gets stolen? Does he legally lose his property?
Any Gas fees whatsoever that would eat up profits?
The company that manages the NFTs reimburses them for right now.
Thus negating
> but you lose a lot of money on management fees that way.
(It's just not you paying the fees at this point in time.)
> but you lose a lot of money on management fees that way.
(It's just not you paying the fees at this point in time.)
I'm not sure how that follows? Lofty.ai is using their investor money to pay the fees. I think they are counting on the fees being negligible at scale.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but don't the fees scale (basically linearly) with the number of transactions? It seems like you are suggesting that this NFT based approach is superior at least in part because money can be invested/withdrawn more frequently/flexibly.
The axie infinity model looks alright. There is verifiable work in breeding the axies.
Too bad the game is boring; the future roadmap is stale compared to upcoming competitors; and the dev team has become deluded from their success derived from first to market.
I can see the next Pokemon-like NFT game do well.
Too bad the game is boring; the future roadmap is stale compared to upcoming competitors; and the dev team has become deluded from their success derived from first to market.
I can see the next Pokemon-like NFT game do well.
> The axie infinity model looks alright
The Axie Infinity model is verifiably unsustainable and doesn't even generate income unless the game is actively growing. Demand for SLP depends on demand for breeding which in turn is dependent on demand for new users, it's not a pretty picture.
https://twitter.com/larsiusprime/status/1459191090100244483
The Axie Infinity model is verifiably unsustainable and doesn't even generate income unless the game is actively growing. Demand for SLP depends on demand for breeding which in turn is dependent on demand for new users, it's not a pretty picture.
https://twitter.com/larsiusprime/status/1459191090100244483
i am not referring the game's tokenomics. Just saying why NFTs would be useful here. Proof of breeding and lineage is important for Pokemon-lite games.
[deleted]
> The axie infinity model looks alright. There is verifiable work in breeding the axies.
Still doesn't seem to require a blockchain. Axie Infinity decides whether assets (on-chain or not) are compatible with their game. That means the control over (and value of) the assets are centralized with the game devs anyway.
Still doesn't seem to require a blockchain. Axie Infinity decides whether assets (on-chain or not) are compatible with their game. That means the control over (and value of) the assets are centralized with the game devs anyway.
Does it really make any sense though? Why is a decentralized ledger of any value to them?
The value to Ubisoft? It is to extract more money from the customer. From the technical perspective I suppose they know pretty well that they could have done the whole "unique" items including a marketplace using "traditional" tech instead of... this.
The secondary market and they don’t have to touch any of the regulations around handling real money if they were to run this themselves. F2P games with their own virtual currencies don’t usually let players cash out for the latter reason.
What value is the secondary market to them? Or allowing their players to "cash out"?
They can take a cut of every secondary market transaction and players need to be able to cash out for a secondary market to make sense. The main reason for not doing that centrally is it becomes an attractive means of money laundering which Valve found out with their skins. Second Life also had this problem and IIRC a third party company handles all their game related banking business as a result.
Note I’m not saying this is a good thing and I think all the entities involved should have the same regulatory responsibility but you can see the greasy cogs whirring in some executives brain.
Note I’m not saying this is a good thing and I think all the entities involved should have the same regulatory responsibility but you can see the greasy cogs whirring in some executives brain.
How does it being decentralized make it unattractive for money laundering?
It doesn’t. Crypto is famously massively popular for money laundering. It just makes it not Ubisoft’s problem in the same way Valve farmed out the risk and responsibility to third party skin sites. Similarly Second Life dealt with this more ethically by engaging a partner to deal with the regulatory side of things
It’s also not a claim I made so I’m not sure why you addressed that question to me.
It’s also not a claim I made so I’m not sure why you addressed that question to me.
I addressed the question to you because I thought that was what you were saying: that somehow the involvement of a decentralized ledger made money laundering less attractive. Your description of the actual reasoning, that it shifts the burden of responsibility, makes a lot more sense.
In which case I apologise for not being clearer the first time.
They want the game to be governed, patched, etc. by the community eventually via a DAO. I think you needed a decentralized ledger for that, but as of right now, I think you are correct in that a decentralized ledger is not so useful.
Why does it need to be an NFT thought rather than some centralized ledger. It's the distributed, no trust nature of this that I don't get in video games. Games have a developer and publisher and (sadly) generally centralized servers. Why add in distributed cosmetics?
I just bought an ENS domain name. As a result I got an NFT sent to my account that represents the ownership of my domain. I can now keep it, trade it, exchange it, give it away, etc. That's what NFTs are for.
How does ENS plan on getting anybody but crypto enthusiasts to install the browser plugins that legitimize their alternative DNS?
Well Cloudflare has a proxy service called eth.link.
Basically take any ens domain and add ".link" to the end of it and it'll proxy to the ens domain.
But other than that, you don't have to use it if you don't want to.
Basically take any ens domain and add ".link" to the end of it and it'll proxy to the ens domain.
But other than that, you don't have to use it if you don't want to.
Ubisoft's NFT plans make perfect sense to Ubisoft. All of these NFT schemes companies keep announcing are just blatant cash grabs.
There are people who have a small amount of money and desire to part with it in exchange for nothing more than proof they parted with it and a dream of getting rich. And whenever that happens, lots of immoral parties will spring up to take advantage of it, no matter the externalized costs.
In most cases, these things are being run by small-time scammers offering big companies free money in exchange for using their IP. I can't really blame non-technical companies for falling for a slick pitch offering revenue at almost no risk.
But Ubisoft's approach is special. They're running the whole thing themselves. They already have pre-mined however many currency tokens they want, and they can mint as many new NFTs (strange name, as they actually seem pretty fungible aside from their ownership history) as they want. They own the whole ecosystem in order to extract as much money from it as the suckers will bear.
It's slimy, but it fits right in with Ubisoft's history of being slimy, and much worse. They know exactly what they're doing here. It's up to us at large to determine whether we find that acceptable or not. Sadly, I think far too many people will accept it as long as they get their next Assassin's Creed or Far Cry.
There are people who have a small amount of money and desire to part with it in exchange for nothing more than proof they parted with it and a dream of getting rich. And whenever that happens, lots of immoral parties will spring up to take advantage of it, no matter the externalized costs.
In most cases, these things are being run by small-time scammers offering big companies free money in exchange for using their IP. I can't really blame non-technical companies for falling for a slick pitch offering revenue at almost no risk.
But Ubisoft's approach is special. They're running the whole thing themselves. They already have pre-mined however many currency tokens they want, and they can mint as many new NFTs (strange name, as they actually seem pretty fungible aside from their ownership history) as they want. They own the whole ecosystem in order to extract as much money from it as the suckers will bear.
It's slimy, but it fits right in with Ubisoft's history of being slimy, and much worse. They know exactly what they're doing here. It's up to us at large to determine whether we find that acceptable or not. Sadly, I think far too many people will accept it as long as they get their next Assassin's Creed or Far Cry.
It makes more sense than most NFT products. Ownership of the NFT does something. There's an piece of artwork that isn't a total joke. It gives you some connection with other players, like owning a skin someone known was wearing when they won something.
Of course they don't need a blockchain.
A big fraction of the NFT sector is Axie Infinity, which is a Ponzi on the downslope. Their Smooth Love Potion Token is down 75%-80% from peak, and their Axie token is down about 25%. Thousands of poor people in the Phillipines have bought into this Ponzi. Since all the money comes from new users buying in, it has to collapse at some point.
OpenSea is most of the rest of the NFT sector, and most of their offerings are low-effort junk. Someone is selling "colors" - solid color squares for each of the 6 hex digit combinations you can use on the web. Really.
I'm worried that the NFT clown car is going to take down the entire virtual world sector. I'm all in favor of interesting metaverses, but what the NFT crowd is producing is total crap at insane prices. About two new vaporware NFT worlds are announced each day on Reddit.
If you are selling an NFT to US persons for something that doesn't exist yet, it's a security offering and you have to register with the SEC. The SEC brought the hammer down on the ICO crowd in 2018, which is why you seldom see ICOs any more. NFTs are mostly an effort to get around securities regulation.
The window of opportunity for crypto is closing. China has pretty much banned it. India is cracking down. The major countries that allow crypto are starting to regulate them as financial institutions. Scam operators are retreating to the Cayman Islands and Bulgaria.
Of course they don't need a blockchain.
A big fraction of the NFT sector is Axie Infinity, which is a Ponzi on the downslope. Their Smooth Love Potion Token is down 75%-80% from peak, and their Axie token is down about 25%. Thousands of poor people in the Phillipines have bought into this Ponzi. Since all the money comes from new users buying in, it has to collapse at some point.
OpenSea is most of the rest of the NFT sector, and most of their offerings are low-effort junk. Someone is selling "colors" - solid color squares for each of the 6 hex digit combinations you can use on the web. Really.
I'm worried that the NFT clown car is going to take down the entire virtual world sector. I'm all in favor of interesting metaverses, but what the NFT crowd is producing is total crap at insane prices. About two new vaporware NFT worlds are announced each day on Reddit.
If you are selling an NFT to US persons for something that doesn't exist yet, it's a security offering and you have to register with the SEC. The SEC brought the hammer down on the ICO crowd in 2018, which is why you seldom see ICOs any more. NFTs are mostly an effort to get around securities regulation.
The window of opportunity for crypto is closing. China has pretty much banned it. India is cracking down. The major countries that allow crypto are starting to regulate them as financial institutions. Scam operators are retreating to the Cayman Islands and Bulgaria.
I think crypto will only have long-term success or maturity if the unwilling people such as myself combined with the general population will be compelled or feel obligated to use any of it, to the same level of utility such as electricity or the internet itself.
Otherwise, at some point this rather self-contained 'crypto-sphere' will fallback on itself and the non-core participants (i.e. not the enthusiasts) will lose interest.
Otherwise, at some point this rather self-contained 'crypto-sphere' will fallback on itself and the non-core participants (i.e. not the enthusiasts) will lose interest.
Article summary:
> And despite all the bold talk of "decentralization," the Quartz system is still so deeply controlled by Ubisoft that we wonder whether a simple internal database managed directly by the company would be a better fit.
It's also NFTs for just a single game.
> And despite all the bold talk of "decentralization," the Quartz system is still so deeply controlled by Ubisoft that we wonder whether a simple internal database managed directly by the company would be a better fit.
It's also NFTs for just a single game.
I know NFTs are popularized on decentralized blockchains, but is there anything inherent to NFTs that they need to be on a decentralized blockchain?
Only the risk of a centralised service going away, which also exists for decentralised technology but is considered less likely.
> is there anything inherent to NFTs that they need to be on a decentralized blockchain?
Technically you absolutely can run a centralized blockchain and mint NFTs on it (EVE Online did this recently in their latest Alliance Tournament, where IIRC the corpses of player characters who were killed during the event became immortalized as NFTs on an isolated branch of Tezos that was created for the event). But at that point congratulations, you've just made a worse database. The only point of blockchain tech is decentralization (if you care about features and not just branding your product with the latest hype).
Technically you absolutely can run a centralized blockchain and mint NFTs on it (EVE Online did this recently in their latest Alliance Tournament, where IIRC the corpses of player characters who were killed during the event became immortalized as NFTs on an isolated branch of Tezos that was created for the event). But at that point congratulations, you've just made a worse database. The only point of blockchain tech is decentralization (if you care about features and not just branding your product with the latest hype).
No, it is just a set of standardized functions. A class. Can be in any language, any platform.
If you consider "NFT" to be a unique asset represented digitally, no they don't. A lot of games and software deals with the equivalent of NFTs, in the end it's just tracking ownership of something with an unique ID.
However, for all the NFT features (mainly being able to reliably transfer ownership without relying on any specific company) you do need a blockchain.
However, for all the NFT features (mainly being able to reliably transfer ownership without relying on any specific company) you do need a blockchain.
> However, for all the NFT features (mainly being able to reliably transfer ownership without relying on any specific company) you do need a blockchain.
But you're going to be relying on a specific company anyway to host your asset. The NFT itself is nothing but a certificate. People who buy fancy guns in Ubisoft's new game might represent them as NFTs but that means nothing unless Ubisoft puts them in the game, keeps them in the game, and keeps the game state updated with the blockchain state, which they can stop doing at any time.
In fact, this has literally happened before. Crypto stooge Calvin Becerra had a bunch of his NFTs stolen, and Bored Ape Yacht Club declared that they will start ignoring the blockchain and unilaterally declared that the images belong to Becerra, even though the blockchain says otherwise.
But you're going to be relying on a specific company anyway to host your asset. The NFT itself is nothing but a certificate. People who buy fancy guns in Ubisoft's new game might represent them as NFTs but that means nothing unless Ubisoft puts them in the game, keeps them in the game, and keeps the game state updated with the blockchain state, which they can stop doing at any time.
In fact, this has literally happened before. Crypto stooge Calvin Becerra had a bunch of his NFTs stolen, and Bored Ape Yacht Club declared that they will start ignoring the blockchain and unilaterally declared that the images belong to Becerra, even though the blockchain says otherwise.
Trust. People are more eager to purchase something if it's not tied to a specific company or platform. This is why art NFTs are so popular -- nobody trusts a single company (OpenSea, Foundation, Bitski, et al) to stick around forever, but the NFTs purchased are platform-agnostic. This played out explicitly recently, when "hic et nunc", a Tezos NFT website, shutdown suddenly. No NFTs were lost; everything people had purchased lives on the blockchain, and any other Tezos NFT website can display and sell them.
Weren't a lot of NFTs sold simply JSON blobs of metadata pointing at a web resource from some company? I remember seeing Cloudinary in some of the Beeple NFTs. I think some are pinned to IPFS now, but still that doesn't protect the NFT from link rot.
You are correct. IPFS attempts to address this issue by giving the asset a hash, so if no computer/server connected to the IPFS network has the asset, and you the owner have it, you could re-upload it to an IPFS server or join the network using your computer and the link will work again.
All you need is for the ledger to contain a hash of the file, and one of the people interesting in ownership of the NFT to keep a copy of the file around.
If the NFT is for a resource that is not in some way restricted, say because it is used for access to some asset in a game, then what purpose does it serve? You could claim that "oh, that NFT allows you to use that asset for that game that went under in a hypothetical future game that would recognize it", but I could just as easily say some hypothetical future game could just use that asset without the NFT at all.
Lot of people in this thread criticising NFTs and honestly I’d like to pile in. I don’t understand what Ubisoft is doing here.
The best case I can make for NFTs is securing ownership of digital assets. Let’s say I spend a few thousand on the Steam store. Then for some reason I charge back a transaction on my credit card. Valve will instantly ban me and I lose access to everything. Now if there was instead a system where my ownership was recorded on a token outside of valve’s control and that ownership entitled the holder of the token to access the game in perpetuity, that would be useful. Maybe.
But even I’m not convinced by this. Steam and other digital stores like Kindle are already hugely successful. It’s possible that people would spend more on digital goods if their ownership was irrevocable and transferable but I doubt it.
The best case I can make for NFTs is securing ownership of digital assets. Let’s say I spend a few thousand on the Steam store. Then for some reason I charge back a transaction on my credit card. Valve will instantly ban me and I lose access to everything. Now if there was instead a system where my ownership was recorded on a token outside of valve’s control and that ownership entitled the holder of the token to access the game in perpetuity, that would be useful. Maybe.
But even I’m not convinced by this. Steam and other digital stores like Kindle are already hugely successful. It’s possible that people would spend more on digital goods if their ownership was irrevocable and transferable but I doubt it.
Except the game still has to be tied to the token somehow. So when you get banned on Steam in that situation, you just have a worthless token that Steam will no longer respect.
Some other store is going to respect that token you paid them no money for and give you access to the game anyway? Why? Are they going to do that for all the games bought with stolen credit cards?
This story keeps getting told and it just makes no sense to me.
Some other store is going to respect that token you paid them no money for and give you access to the game anyway? Why? Are they going to do that for all the games bought with stolen credit cards?
This story keeps getting told and it just makes no sense to me.
The only new thing that Ubisoft have here is making the database of all transactions public.
These hardly count as real NFTs. You can only transact them on Ubisoft approved market places, only centrally registered Ubisoft accounts can hold them. And since they control the game, they have all the rights to ban items from the game, even if they insist they can't reverse transactions.
These hardly count as real NFTs. You can only transact them on Ubisoft approved market places, only centrally registered Ubisoft accounts can hold them. And since they control the game, they have all the rights to ban items from the game, even if they insist they can't reverse transactions.
Ownership of what the NFT represents isn't irrevocable though, only the NFT itself. Amazon could decide one day to ban you from reading the Kindle books you purchased because you violated their terms of service. An NFT is going to do nothing for you there other than prove that at some point Amazon did recognize that you bought licenses to read some books. But that really not what's under question when looking to appeal the ban with Amazon or bring them to court over it.
NFTs stop making sense as soon as anything they are used for doesn't involve the blockchain. Ownership of an NFT that points to some fancy Team Fortress 2 hat means absolutely nothing if Valve decides that it doesn't.
The only case where NFTs genuinely make sense is where multiple services want to cooperate and all voluntarily recognize a user's ownership of some token, but the user does not want any of those services to be in charge of controlling the database that records and validates those tokens.
So, the NBA, NFL and MLB might all hand out "I'm a VIP sports fan" tokens, and Nike, Adidas, Red Bull etc.. might treat you special because of it. You can't dupe it. But, you can transfer it to anyone you want and Nike can't take it back.
So, the NBA, NFL and MLB might all hand out "I'm a VIP sports fan" tokens, and Nike, Adidas, Red Bull etc.. might treat you special because of it. You can't dupe it. But, you can transfer it to anyone you want and Nike can't take it back.
That makes no sense, if they "treat you special" then they can absolutely control who they treat specially, there's no way to decentralise that.
There's no way to force any action outside of the blockchain. If you want the blockchain to influence the outside world, that action must be financially motivated.
> But, you can transfer it to anyone you want and Nike can't take it back.
That might actually be the two exact reason any of these organisations/companies wouldn’t want to use NFTs for something like VIP tokens.
That might actually be the two exact reason any of these organisations/companies wouldn’t want to use NFTs for something like VIP tokens.
Agreed. Getting companies to voluntarily put themselves into this position would require some creativity. But, that's what everyone is talking about with "Keep your stuff as you move between metaverses!" How would that work? Each service would have to recognize your ownership of the stuff and have some implementation of how they want to handle it. But, you can't force a World of Warcraft magic axe into Call of Duty if CoD doesn't want you to.
What I don't quite understand about Ubisoft's NFT offering is that, assuming it actually works and people get onboard with it and NFT items do actually start becoming valuable, wouldn't that mean you'd want to move your valuable NFT assets to a cold wallet? If they're in a cold wallet, you then wouldn't be able to prove you own them to use them in a game. If you keep them in a hot wallet then the game could verify they're still yours, but then you risk someone stealing them if someone finds an exploit in the Quartz code.
Everything about the 'useful' side of NFTs where people actually use them for something promotes bad cryptocurrency opsec. One day someone will steal all the in-game skins and guns and hats or whatever, and there's nothing Ubisoft will be able to do about it. They won't be able to refund people, or replace items, of offer any sort of fix. That will be the end of the whole idea, and if Ubisoft have built it into the heart and soul of all their titles, the end of Ubisoft itself.
It seems like a very high risk strategy. The only logical reason I can think of for them doing it is that someone at Ubisoft has sold the board on the idea, and is essentially running a Tezos pump and dump scheme, and they've made a chunk of change from the 30% increase in the price that this announcement brought.
Everything about the 'useful' side of NFTs where people actually use them for something promotes bad cryptocurrency opsec. One day someone will steal all the in-game skins and guns and hats or whatever, and there's nothing Ubisoft will be able to do about it. They won't be able to refund people, or replace items, of offer any sort of fix. That will be the end of the whole idea, and if Ubisoft have built it into the heart and soul of all their titles, the end of Ubisoft itself.
It seems like a very high risk strategy. The only logical reason I can think of for them doing it is that someone at Ubisoft has sold the board on the idea, and is essentially running a Tezos pump and dump scheme, and they've made a chunk of change from the 30% increase in the price that this announcement brought.
Ubisoft won't be building transactional support.
NFTs are pogs.
You can't use your Cornflakes Rooster Pog to unlock Minecraft content.
There's no point in moving around your Ubisoft pogs. You can't use them in Fortnite.
And because anyone in the world can print cardboard, they're infinitely inflatable and worthless.
They're rows in the database. That's it.
NFTs are pogs.
You can't use your Cornflakes Rooster Pog to unlock Minecraft content.
There's no point in moving around your Ubisoft pogs. You can't use them in Fortnite.
And because anyone in the world can print cardboard, they're infinitely inflatable and worthless.
They're rows in the database. That's it.
People put value on weird random crap all the time, they arbitrarily decide it's worth tens of thousands of dollars for no good reason, and they buy it and sell it on trading sites. It happens. That's not the interesting part. The fact that the tech is quite boring and could be replaced by a MySQL database isn't very interesting either.
The NFT angle is essentially marketing. Ubisoft are cashing in on the NFT hype. As far as that goes I'm quite impressed, and maybe even happy for them. People making money by spotting an up and coming trend and executing an idea for it is very much the startup ethos I admire most.
What I don't understand is why you'd bet a company that has a $5bn market cap on it.
The NFT angle is essentially marketing. Ubisoft are cashing in on the NFT hype. As far as that goes I'm quite impressed, and maybe even happy for them. People making money by spotting an up and coming trend and executing an idea for it is very much the startup ethos I admire most.
What I don't understand is why you'd bet a company that has a $5bn market cap on it.
Opportunity cost.
Instead of investing in something long term, such as a rendering system to hedge against Epic Games and make inroads into film and immersive storytelling, they're chasing bullshit for a quick buck.
Instead of investing in something long term, such as a rendering system to hedge against Epic Games and make inroads into film and immersive storytelling, they're chasing bullshit for a quick buck.
They’re not betting the company on it. This is basically an experiment in one of their products.
> … wouldn't that mean you'd want to move your valuable NFT assets to a cold wallet? If they're in a cold wallet, you then wouldn't be able to prove you own them to use them in a game.
Just provide a way for the NFT owner to associate their assets with a particular in-game account, e.g. by storing the username on the blockchain with the NFT, or by signing a file with the username and details of the last trade. Once that's done they no longer need to keep the keys online. When the NFT is sold the new owner can update the username to refer to their own account.
Presumably all the usual security measures such as hardware wallets for key storage would continue to work for these NFTs, at least as long as you're not forced to use game-specific wallet software.
Just provide a way for the NFT owner to associate their assets with a particular in-game account, e.g. by storing the username on the blockchain with the NFT, or by signing a file with the username and details of the last trade. Once that's done they no longer need to keep the keys online. When the NFT is sold the new owner can update the username to refer to their own account.
Presumably all the usual security measures such as hardware wallets for key storage would continue to work for these NFTs, at least as long as you're not forced to use game-specific wallet software.
I'm not sure it's really clear how their platform will work yet; but there is no way to distinguish a "hot" from "cold" wallet, and most of these applications understand that an individual can (and often does) hold tokens across multiple wallets.
I'm not sure how a single actor could steal all of the tokens unless their smart contract development team is inept and accidentally included some kind of "transfer_all_tokens" function.
I'm not sure how a single actor could steal all of the tokens unless their smart contract development team is inept and accidentally included some kind of "transfer_all_tokens" function.
> NFT plans
> make no sense
That's a lot of redundancy for such a short title.
> make no sense
That's a lot of redundancy for such a short title.
Brought to you but the redundancy department of redundant redundancy for redundant titling.
For some reason, I think the uber rich of the world have waay too much money and are willing to throw it around in spectacularly-risky trends without caring about value investing.
For some reason, I think the uber rich of the world have waay too much money and are willing to throw it around in spectacularly-risky trends without caring about value investing.
an NFT plan can make sense for the issuer and the consumer
this one only makes sense for the issuer
consumers want one that makes sense for consumers
obviously there is an audience that doesn’t want any NFT plan to exist at all, that audience matters the least
this one only makes sense for the issuer
consumers want one that makes sense for consumers
obviously there is an audience that doesn’t want any NFT plan to exist at all, that audience matters the least
The crux of the article is that the NFTs are on a blockchain, but that Ubisoft has published some legalese:
> For a supposedly decentralized and "open" technology, Ubisoft places a lot of restrictions on who can own and use Digits. Quartz users have to be 18 years old, reside in one of a handful of countries ("USA, Canada, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Australia, or Brazil" for now), and use two-factor authentication on their Ubisoft Connect accounts.
> Quartz owners also have to reach "XP Level 5" in Ghost Recon Breakpoint before they can collect or use the NFTs, a system seemingly designed to discourage pure speculators and to ensure "the Ubisoft Quartz platform is made for players, and for players only," the company says. That XP level status is confirmed by linking Quartz to your Ubisoft account, which is, of course, centrally controlled and subject to its own terms of use above and beyond the detailed Quartz terms of use.
To me, that's kind of a minor point. Just because some lawyers made them put a bunch of tiny font writing in their EULA doesn't really mean much at all. If it's possible for a player to control their private keys (which it is if there's any ability to transfer NFTs to a wallet outside of the game), then these restrictions are meaningless. If this is the case, players will be able to transfer their owned items to other games (which support them), even games not produced by Ubisoft.
That's what would be really interesting to look into, not just some 15 minute dunk piece from some writer skimming a EULA.
> For a supposedly decentralized and "open" technology, Ubisoft places a lot of restrictions on who can own and use Digits. Quartz users have to be 18 years old, reside in one of a handful of countries ("USA, Canada, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Australia, or Brazil" for now), and use two-factor authentication on their Ubisoft Connect accounts.
> Quartz owners also have to reach "XP Level 5" in Ghost Recon Breakpoint before they can collect or use the NFTs, a system seemingly designed to discourage pure speculators and to ensure "the Ubisoft Quartz platform is made for players, and for players only," the company says. That XP level status is confirmed by linking Quartz to your Ubisoft account, which is, of course, centrally controlled and subject to its own terms of use above and beyond the detailed Quartz terms of use.
To me, that's kind of a minor point. Just because some lawyers made them put a bunch of tiny font writing in their EULA doesn't really mean much at all. If it's possible for a player to control their private keys (which it is if there's any ability to transfer NFTs to a wallet outside of the game), then these restrictions are meaningless. If this is the case, players will be able to transfer their owned items to other games (which support them), even games not produced by Ubisoft.
That's what would be really interesting to look into, not just some 15 minute dunk piece from some writer skimming a EULA.
> If it's possible for a player to control their private keys (which it is if there's any ability to transfer NFTs to a wallet outside of the game)
I don't think it is possible. Apparently they can only trade on two third-party marketplaces, approved by Ubisoft. I guess that the private keys and blockchain nodes must be tied to Ubisoft accounts. Also,
> Players who don't meet any of Ubisoft's requirements "will not be able to acquire Digits whether on the Ubisoft Quartz platform or an authorized third-party marketplace, nor have another player transfer their Digits to you... If you are not eligible, the transaction will fail."
It doesn't seem to be just an EULA.
I don't think it is possible. Apparently they can only trade on two third-party marketplaces, approved by Ubisoft. I guess that the private keys and blockchain nodes must be tied to Ubisoft accounts. Also,
> Players who don't meet any of Ubisoft's requirements "will not be able to acquire Digits whether on the Ubisoft Quartz platform or an authorized third-party marketplace, nor have another player transfer their Digits to you... If you are not eligible, the transaction will fail."
It doesn't seem to be just an EULA.
> players will be able to transfer their owned items to other games (which support them), even games not produced by Ubisoft.
No such game exists, and it's unlikely that it ever will, as the article explains.
> which it is if there's any ability to transfer NFTs to a wallet outside of the game
In your own skimming of the article, you seem to have missed the point that the blockchain they're using is very tightly controlled by them. It's even mentioned in one of your own quotes.
No such game exists, and it's unlikely that it ever will, as the article explains.
> which it is if there's any ability to transfer NFTs to a wallet outside of the game
In your own skimming of the article, you seem to have missed the point that the blockchain they're using is very tightly controlled by them. It's even mentioned in one of your own quotes.
The reason Ubisoft is deploying this as an NFT instead of using the centralized market model that Valve uses is so they won’t be subject to the same regulation that Valve has to deal with (reporting proceeds from sales to tax authorities). If the secondary market is on the blockchain and the money doesn’t pass through Ubisoft’s hands they can avoid dealing with this while still having “you can sell your items to other people” as a feature.
You could probably remove the frist 2 words and the article would be just as good. It feels to me like NFTs are one of those things that sounds really good in concept and seems so sensical and appealing from people in the "business" but looking at it form the outside it seems like just complete nonsenese.
The closest thing to compare it to is MS BizTalk, XSLT, or half a dozen of those other "enterprise" services and technologies that always promised to change the world but seem to never really pan out, and everyone who hears about the project responds with a "WTF why are you doing it that way?" it seems like it is trying to solve a metaproblem that not many people have.
But I'll admit maybe I don't understand the whole thing and am just not enlightened enough to see the brilliance. I know plenty of architects who are fluent in powerpoint that would tell me the same thing about Enterprise Integrations.
The closest thing to compare it to is MS BizTalk, XSLT, or half a dozen of those other "enterprise" services and technologies that always promised to change the world but seem to never really pan out, and everyone who hears about the project responds with a "WTF why are you doing it that way?" it seems like it is trying to solve a metaproblem that not many people have.
But I'll admit maybe I don't understand the whole thing and am just not enlightened enough to see the brilliance. I know plenty of architects who are fluent in powerpoint that would tell me the same thing about Enterprise Integrations.
>It feels to me like NFTs are one of those things that sounds really good in concept and seems so sensical and appealing from people in the "business" but looking at it form the outside it seems like just complete nonsenese.
I would have almost said the opposite (for certain use cases).
From a totally rationalist point of view (which many tech people like to think they have), artificial scarcity of digital artifacts--especially those related to fashion--seems like nonsense. However, if you concede that there is a such a thing as fashion, collectibles, etc., why wouldn't it extend to an online environment?
IMO, it breaks down once you aren't owning a digital thing and it just becomes effectively an online receipt for something you don't actually own. But in a game/online world environment it makes as much sense as a lot of unique collectibles. What is also true though is to the degree those collectibles exist within one company's playground, there's no need for decentralized ledgers.
I would have almost said the opposite (for certain use cases).
From a totally rationalist point of view (which many tech people like to think they have), artificial scarcity of digital artifacts--especially those related to fashion--seems like nonsense. However, if you concede that there is a such a thing as fashion, collectibles, etc., why wouldn't it extend to an online environment?
IMO, it breaks down once you aren't owning a digital thing and it just becomes effectively an online receipt for something you don't actually own. But in a game/online world environment it makes as much sense as a lot of unique collectibles. What is also true though is to the degree those collectibles exist within one company's playground, there's no need for decentralized ledgers.
> it seems like it is trying to solve a metaproblem that not many people have
A particular disease of people deeply engrossed in a field is the tendency to come up with interesting solutions and reverse engineer the problems they solve after the fact. Right now that's about 80% of 'interesting' things happening in computing.
A particular disease of people deeply engrossed in a field is the tendency to come up with interesting solutions and reverse engineer the problems they solve after the fact. Right now that's about 80% of 'interesting' things happening in computing.
You’re right… BizTalk was this box you could just draw in the middle of a spaghetti mess of systems and it would just magically make everything work. Blockchain is just this thing people bloop into your systems diagram and it will then magically make your idea work.
The legacy of NFTs is going to be the license they granted corporations like Ubisoft to finally launch this kind of store. They don't need the technology, but they very much do need the marketing wank to make it go down smoothly.
Is there any information on what blockhain the thing will be running on? Is it going to be one of existing chains or their own Proof of Authority based blokchain? Thus answering to question "how it's better than Ubisoft owned DB" with simple answer "it will be Ubisoft owned DB" and decentralization meaning distributed between 10 servers in different AWS regions. The servers can vote for adding new trusted authorities, but since the initial set is fully controlled by Ubisoft or companies that Ubisoft has contract with, they will never vote for adding anyone else.
tezos.com :)
Internet today did a good job of covering this this-morning:
https://youtu.be/KZx9OwkBA14?t=1969
My fav barb was when they discussed zooming in on the authenticity barcode to confirm it's "authentic".
https://youtu.be/KZx9OwkBA14?t=1969
My fav barb was when they discussed zooming in on the authenticity barcode to confirm it's "authentic".
We can have url rot on both centralized and decentralized systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot
If a company wants to quickly bootstrap a marketplace for cosmetic items like CS:GO on steam, is minting NFT's a cheaper and faster solution for the offering company? If so, I guess it could kind of work, but the friction of setting up all the necessary things to actually purchase an NFT is way too much right now. Not to mention a successful marketplace would almost certainly incentivize Ubisoft to just create their own centralized market place on Uplay.
I once interviewed with a startup closely associated with Ubisoft (same founders, building across the block from their biggest studio, employees are all ex-ubisoft, Ubisoft as their only client...)
One of their current projects they mentioned at the time was to "use AI to predict Bitcoin hashes". I wonder if their understanding of crypto has improved since then.
One of their current projects they mentioned at the time was to "use AI to predict Bitcoin hashes". I wonder if their understanding of crypto has improved since then.
Most things people try to use blockchains to solve are better served by a single centralized database.
I'm an advocate of blockchain tech in general, but this criticism is a) valid, and b) as old as blockchains.
I'm an advocate of blockchain tech in general, but this criticism is a) valid, and b) as old as blockchains.
These companies should focus more on Bitcoin + Lightning. Keep It Stupid Simple.
* Decrease reliance on Visa.
* Instant, cross-border payment settlement.
* Other features like money streaming.
* Decrease reliance on Visa.
* Instant, cross-border payment settlement.
* Other features like money streaming.
> Decrease reliance on Visa.
Has Visa ever let them down?
> Instant, cross-border payment settlement.
Like Visa?
> Other features like money streaming.
?
Has Visa ever let them down?
> Instant, cross-border payment settlement.
Like Visa?
> Other features like money streaming.
?
I don't get how Blockchain technology is in a publishers/studios interest. Why do they ever want to give up control over revenue streams? And there are simply not enough games with large-enough eco system and longevity (like WoW).
I really want to see pitches that don't contain any hype BS bingo lines to share holders (like me).
I really want to see pitches that don't contain any hype BS bingo lines to share holders (like me).
> I don't get how Blockchain technology is in a publishers/studios interest.
It's not, and they're not going to give up the control needed to deliver the hyperbolic claims being made by blockchain PR people. The question the studio executives are asking is not “how could we make this more useful to our customers?” but rather “How can we get those speculators to give us more money for the same feature?” or “How can I have my own cool project to brag about over cocktails?”.
It's not, and they're not going to give up the control needed to deliver the hyperbolic claims being made by blockchain PR people. The question the studio executives are asking is not “how could we make this more useful to our customers?” but rather “How can we get those speculators to give us more money for the same feature?” or “How can I have my own cool project to brag about over cocktails?”.
They aren’t giving up control, they’re hoping for a fat payday by taking a percentage of all secondary sales in a hype driven NFT market.
In the case of Quartz they’re also trying to do an end run around consumer protection laws by refusing refunds and grant users a very strict licence about use. You can’t even display them on video for example.
In the case of Quartz they’re also trying to do an end run around consumer protection laws by refusing refunds and grant users a very strict licence about use. You can’t even display them on video for example.
As the article explains, they don't give up control in this case. The blockchain they're using is locked down to the point of negating all the supposed benefits of blockchains.
Exactly.
[deleted]
Boy, someone was clearly paid by the word.
As an NFT proponent, the biggest problem I see here is that even on 3rd party sites buyers are limited to "eligible" participants. I assume that's built into the contract and the marketplaces will have special code to verify it. Ugh. Very much against what I'd like to see, but perhaps inevitable.
As an NFT proponent, the biggest problem I see here is that even on 3rd party sites buyers are limited to "eligible" participants. I assume that's built into the contract and the marketplaces will have special code to verify it. Ugh. Very much against what I'd like to see, but perhaps inevitable.
- Skins are purely cosmetic and tied to a competitive game that many people tie their life to. Cosmetics of differing expense make sense, the better players show off their personality in the expense and style of their cosmetics.
- Skins are tradeable on the steam market which itself is a ledger, no reason for it to be distributed.
- The best thing about skins is that after you buy them and you don’t want them anymore, you can resell them and recoup a portion of the money you spent, or in some cases even make profit.
- Additionally, because the ledger isn’t distributed, valve can actively change skins and fix mistakes to them. This allows for user submitted skins to even work, as they can respond to DMCA take downs