Shuji Utsumi, Sega’s co-CEO, comments in a new statement that there is no point in implementing blockchain technology if it doesn’t make games ‘fun’. Sega...

Shuji Utsumi, Sega’s co-CEO, comments in a new statement that there is no point in implementing blockchain technology if it doesn’t make games ‘fun’.

  • Dark Arc@lemmy.worldEnglish
    151·
    1 year ago

    Can you actually argue this or are you just parotting what other people parrot on social media?

    🙄

    Databases require trust between parties, for example, so that’s one of many, many reasons they don’t replace one of the use cases.

    Can you elaborate on how that’s useful for a video game (or a “majority of use cases”/“in general”) or “are you just parotting what other people parrot on social media?”

    …

    The block chain is only useful if you want a cooperative system that “trusts nobody”… And that’s exceedingly rare (not to mention it’s susceptible to attacks like the 51% attack … which you can – hilariously – fix if the major stake holders in the chain decide to override the network and do what they want anyways).

    There’s no reason a video game needs a block chain, at all. The video game has a manufacturer, the video game’s rewards are only going to be meaningful inside of that game and ecosystem. Valve’s been running a store for CSGO for over a decade.

    If you want federation… Lemmy is federated, Matrix is federated, email is federated, and they all allow dodging a central authority in favor of smaller authorities without using a block chain. But even that isn’t useful for a video game or publisher.

    • TORFdot0@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      1 year ago

      I think you hit the nail on the head that blockchain doesn’t really provide value to an in-game video game marketplace other than trying to inflate IAP prices off NFT hype.

      I think that blockchain could have a purpose in a marketplace for lending/trading/reselling digital licenses to games but developers/publishers don’t want that. They want everyone to purchase new licenses.

      There are other use cases outside of video games where blockchain makes more sense but a lot of them are people trying to make money off bag holders

      • Dark Arc@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        1 year ago

        I think that blockchain could have a purpose in a marketplace for lending/trading/reselling digital licenses to games but developers/publishers don’t want that. They want everyone to purchase new licenses.

        Even here, I think you’d really find that under technical scrutiny, this would be a much harder sell vs just having a federated license transfer system between Sony, Microsoft, and Valve. Making it a block chain doesn’t really “add value”.

        • olimario@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          Exactly.

          The issue here, which you and I probably agree on, is you just need a license standard with an enforcement (regulation through legislation) mechanism.

          Then it just comes down to “which service stack best delivers on this requirement” which likely wouldn’t be in a Blockchain implementation’s favor.

          • New_account@lemmy.worldEnglish
            7·
            1 year ago

            The play to earn model is literally a ponzi scheme with a fancier name. The money you earn has to come from somewhere. It doesn’t appear out of thin air. In 100% of P2E games, the earliest players get paid by the revenue from later players. Eventually, the game stops growing, so the later players are left holding the bag.

            Obviously, some people make a lot of money in ponzi schemes (most notably, the people that start the ponzi scheme in the first place), but it’s a terrible design for people that aren’t the ponzi creators or the first adopters lucky enough to get in on the ground floor.