Team17's Development Partners Aren't Happy About The Publisher's NFT Plans

The whole NFT thing is just really, really gross. Tons of environmental damage and the whole thing is basically just a pyramid scheme.

Ooft, it's one thing calling people who support this NFT business names on the internet, but this is a surprisingly aggressive stance from one of their own development partners.

I get it, and f*** NFTs and all the rest of it. But this is quite a statement they've made.

If enough developers take the same stance, maybe these types of publishers would stop trying to make NFTs a thing.

NFT is our new enemy in gaming.
Glad somebody realized the negative effect from NFT and make a stance to against NFT.

I'm glad they balanced their albeit colourful statement with a plea against harassment. As much as I hate NFTs and every other crypto/blockchain scam and want them out of our hobby, I don't want the NFT backlash to be the next Gamergate.

I least we know who's the smart one around here! Not just a "Whatever screw you" to everyone else, when people tell them there issues with NFT's.

Edit: so what happens now?

"We have to get at the block chain!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_dbFNWD910

NFTs, crypto-coins and all that nonsense are all pyramid-schemes, things with no inherent value and nothing propping up the price except faith, the early people get rich, and at some point people start wondering "Why exactly is this so supposedly valuable again?", and the whole thing comes tumbling down, hosing everybody who hasn't cashed in yet...

@PessitheMystic if I was a dev I would have at least used a less curse words.

But I get Aggro Crab Games, problem with game publishers and NFTs is that the only sole reason they do this, no matter their "promises" or other reasons is because they have dollar signs in their eyes.

It's all about the money.

Now that's the kind of NFT news I can dig. Awesome.

@MysticX I mean, I'm also all against NFT's and agree that they are a pyramid scheme, but at least the "value" arguement doesn't quite work in my understanding. After all, if we see actual money for just what it is - paper, or little coins made of cheap metal - then they aren't worth particulary much either. (especially if it is, in some cases, just the number on our digital bank account, with no physical money neccessarily attached to it).

I personally don't think cryptocurrency would be so bad, if there was no environmental impact. And some ppl claim there are already technologies that reduce that impact to a non-bearable degree. Idk if that's true.

NFT's however are just dumb. As a "currency"(/ investment), they're not required when the regular cryptocurrency is already a thing. As a certificate of ownership, they currently don't make any sense as you don't actually own anything other than a recipe. It doesn't give you any rights to your ""property"" that anyone cares about.
All it is is a pyramid scheme, and/or people wanting to make you pay for what you really have no reason paying for. (some of 'em legit wanna make NFT's for colours, promising that you would "get a share of money whenever someone commercially uses that color", which, obviously, doesn't work like that)

Now if only some developers would do the same but with companies that do gambling microtransactions...

Hope Team 17 reconsidered their decision after this.

Im glad to keep NFTs and cryptos out of gaming… but wow… so many misinformed people here about what crypto and NFTs do and are for. Just don’t repeat what you see on forums and make the minimum effort to understand their uses and why they exist. Ignorance and fear comes from what you don’t understand, and that applies to everything in life.

Do some research, that’s what the internet is for.

Good for them! I'm sick of all these places jumping on the band wagon telling us it's for us, it's empowering us, it's to enhance games etc when even just a surface scratch reveals it's unequivocally not about us or the game.

I've posted it before but I'll post it again, y'all should watch this for a comprehensive and educated guide on what all of this is, how it works, why it doesn't, why it's all already possible and not done, who is behind it and the psychology of people involved in it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g

It's long but even if you just watch the first 15 mins you should have enough to see why crypto and NFTs should be avoided.

I say good on them for standing up to the scam artists

@fafonio People doing their own research on the internet!? Are you mad!? 😁

'Nintendo fans will buy cardboard boxes if they have Nintendo written on them.'

Other companies: 'hold my imaginary beverage... And pay me for the privilege of holding it.'

The state: 'fools, you've been paying real taxes on a fictional income we put on your land as if it was ours.'

Banks: '... with imaginary money, we're in absolute power.'

Other companies: 'while we control your food and housing, up to the point of it being imaginary and you still pay us.'

Am I alone on this, or is the only redeeming quality of 'our sacred economy' that it abides by the natural laws of destroying itself when it fails to be fair, humble, and in service of truth and life?

@MysticX Nothing has inherent value outside stuff that cover basic human needs. Everything is simply a convention and a result of the free market. Why is gold expensive? Because humans decided it's pretty and they want it. Why does a digital game cost $60? Because so did the physical ones, you pay for the R&D, not the bits and bytes.

Props for not joining the fandom witch hunt against the disliked concept and actually discouraging related staff attacks among audiences. As for the withdrawal, it's their biz and I have no doubt they can find a different publisher to work with if need be... Unless the latter eventually wants to jump on this fad's bandwagon as well.😅

@fafonio
NFT and crypto are founded on using ignorance and fear to line the pockets of grifters.

Adds Team17 to the list of companies to never buy from again

@fafonio Every time I see your type, you're too afraid to explicitly show your full support for NFTs, and yet for some asinine reason, you can never actually personally inform people yourself on why something ISN'T bad.

It's always the same: "Do some research", because let me tell you; far more people against NFTs have far more knowledge about them than those who continue to defend them.

If you want to refute points, it's YOUR job to refute them with YOUR findings.
Now... it is a FACT that NFTs use up a lot of electricity. "Environmentally friendly" NFTs still use up electricity, even if it's "less". Producing oil barrels that plant 1 tree in the environment still damages the environment.
It is also a fact that nothing NFTs have done so far is actually unique to NFTs. For starters, there is legitimately nothing "unique" about a digital asset. It can be replicated with no drop in quality or inherent value. The "blockchain" has literally been proven by the CREATOR of NFTs themselves, to just be storing an image into nothing better than a URL.

Now, can one of you NFT defense squads please actually for ONCE come up with something better than "Uhhh, you're wrong because I'm not gonna tell you why, do it yourself..." ?

It bums me out the nft’s are pretty much here to stay for a while.

The discontent with NFTs is understandable, obviously they are quite nonsense things as a business model...
However, it is somewhat exaggerated to act against those who join this nonsense, but, well...

Good on them, don't back down!

NFT just join my list of the most hated things in gaming right now alongside mobile, micro transaction, DLC, VR, force motion control, season pass, day one patch, loot boxes, cloud gaming, EA, code in box only games, proprietary memory cards, half finish titles, game as a service, collection with only one game on the cartridge/disc that required download to get the rest, pay-to-win, free-to-play games, etc.

Aggro Crab has like 0 luck.
First Lulu now this.
Also im bloody sick of NFT's already, like can companies realise nobody wants them and move on?

@Specter_of-the_OLED whats wrong with VR, seems pretty cool to me

Respect. I'm buying their game to thank them for calling spades.

I'm curious about the environmental damage argument. Is that something to do with Blockchain and server farms? NFT's are gross in principal, but this part I know nothing about.

@fafonio NFTs are a grift. There, research done.

@Ironcore Well, they are a type of pyramid scheme. NFTs are all ticking time bombs in when they'll become worthless eventually. (since they only work so long as the server the image is hosted on stays up). So the only way to make a profit in the market is to resell everything you buy at a higher value to someone else and let them get screwed over.

That still falls under pyramid scheme, even if it's not the typical method.

@Krysus

It's both the chain and the server farms.

Essentially, the blockchain is validated by a bunch of computers checking other compter's work, while also competing to mine Crypto. They all maintain a "ledger" of all previous crypto transactions, which can get to tens of thousands of GB in size.

"Mining" new cryptocurrency requires solving extremely complex equations, to put it simply. These equations, by design, have diminishing returns, so each equation is harder than the last.

So the result is countless computers racing each other, because mining is winner-takes all.

So then you get people buying mass amounts of rigs to mine better. And then the people competing against them do the same.

So now you have 100 entities, each with 1000 computers, competing to solve the equation to mine the next bit of crypto. 1 wins, 99 lose, and all the electricity and power spent by those 99 is rendered essentially worthless and redundant.

Now realize that 100 and 1000, while sorta-big numbers, are rookie numbers compared to the actual scope of this thing.

That's the economic impact of Cryptocurrency. NFTs aren't new in that regard, they're just the ugly ape face of the operation.

I'm into NFT's. I have no problem with what they do regardless. It's kind of ridiculous the amount of hate NFT's receive. They give digital artists an outlet to actually become viable and sell their art in other ways than a screen print.

Also the same amount of energy used to "mint" an NFT is about the same amount of energy you used to heat up your dinner last night in the air fryer.

People need to stop, talk a deep breathe and start doing research.

The fact that the majority of the industry and consumers are massively against NFTs and still some devs are trying to use them shows whos out of touch.

We can debate the merits of NFTs, but to me, the simplified picture is that they've gotten a middling degree of support from developers and very little support from gamers. Shouldn't the people creating the games make games the way gamers want, rather than saying they know what's best and shoveling this stuff down our throats?

At some point around 10 or 12 years ago, the development paradigm of this business shifted from being successful by making fun, compelling games to figuring out ways to get people to spend beyond the initial purchase. We can't get away with selling these games for $100, so let's sell them for $60 and take the other $40 later. And convince the gamers they want to pay that extra $40.

Another day, another company/individual jumping into the NFT bandwagon.

At least it's not NFT lootboxes, like what Atari (whatever that means these days) is doing for "its" 50th anniversary.

@chatsworth

And here we have a good case study, I think. Someone who is into NFTs and actively promotes them, citing tired arguments about how NFTs "help artists". They don't. There's nothing to stop anyone from taking another's art and selling an NFT of it. Behind the fancy blockchain, the actual payload of an NFT image is just a URL to the image, or whatever the content in question may be.

But then, it makes sense you'd shill for a scam you own stock in. Crypto is, of course, a pyramid scheme based on buying your tokens and then selling them to a bigger fool later. You've gotta do damage control if you're looking to sell them! An artist can only make money on NFTs the same way they could make money joining an MLM.

@BLD You’ve hit on the key point here, crypto bros basically have to shill for NFTs because they need to make them more appealing than they were when they bought them. It makes it very hard to trust a single word that comes out their mouths.

I am a graphic designer. I make my living as a branding specialist. I have sold my artwork on Opensea. How does that not help me?

Are you high?

It's human nature to hate things you don't understand. I get it. Keep throwing stones while living in that glass house.

@chatsworth

You're literally proving my point. You have a vested stake in NFTs, by your own admission. You're openly promoting a gambling scam you yourself are a part of, because if more people came to recognize the grift, you'd be out a revenue source.

Oh, and for anyone playing the NFT drinking game, take another shot for "Cryptobro claims you just 'Don't understand' while not explaining anything.

You people THRIVE off of pretending NFTs and crypto are complex and mysterious and so hard to understand. They aren't. But you NEED that illusion of complexity to obfuscate the scam.

How is someone purchasing a piece digital artwork a gambling scam? Do you ever listen to yourself?

You sound so angry with a little pinch of salt.

Enjoy your soy latte friend.

“Just do your research” from NFT defenders is becoming the next “bro trust me.”

But you all like Digital Downloads, right?

@chatsworth

Well, you've once again made my argument for me, via your utter lack of one.

I've made my cases. Anyone who's on the fence, I'll leave you to decide whose arguments you choose to believe:

Me, who's explained every point they set forth.

Or the guy offering tech "advice" who doesn't even know how to use the reply button, and who falls back on soy-based insults instead of offering a single substantive argument.

@Kyranosaurus For once I won’t explain all the technology and process of an NFT in a gaming forum with a wall of text… there are better places for that. Neither will I waste my time explaining a complex topic to a random person. You could easily make a Google research. If I explain it to you “I’m trying to convince you and I’m a crypto bro pulling you into a pyramid scheme” … if I don’t explain it to you “I’m afraid”.

No… Im neither your teacher, nor your financial assistant. And I will not condense an expansive topic into an 8 paragraph argument…. That’s why you always hear “do the research yourself” as everyone did who saw the benefits of it and decided to invest in the stuff.

Art collecting and art auctions have been a thing in this world for AGES. If you’re not the target, you’re not the target. You don’t understand what people see in art collecting. “How can someone pay millions of dollars for a wall painting that’s just paint splatters on a canvas? I could just take a picture of it with my phone and print it.”

… yeah, the thing is, you’re not the target for it then.
Also, as a graphic designer and content creator I can see and understand the benefits of the technology. Maybe you’re blind by your own perspective and hatred of a concept you’ve barely grasped.

I can see how your ignorance shows when you think the blockchain is “just storing an image in an URL”. Yes yes yes… people are paying thousands of dollars just for storing their “jpgs” in an URL. Sure mate…. Sure.

@fafonio

This is the most long-winded "Just do your research bro" I've ever seen. You typed as much as I have typed in explaining why NFTs are bad, just to explain why you won't explain anything.

It seems like Playtonic has also delivered a statement in a similar manner, though they aren't cutting ties with Team17.

@BLD “gambling” and “pyramid schemes” are not real arguments…. Just to let you know btw.

Insurance is a gambling in that case…. Is that a scam too?

I get it… you hate NFTs in gaming… I do too. I don’t mix my hobbies with investment and economics. But that doesn’t mean you should just get locked into that tiny-squared mind of yours for a complex topic and over simplify it into over used trendy and edgy buzzwords like “gambling” and “pyramid schemes”. That only tells me you’ve only read about it in petty internet forums and got on the bandwagon.

Have a nice day.

@nessisonett I painted something in photoshop, and sold it as an NFT? How is that complicated lol. a 1 of 1 painting. now they can do whatever they want with it and they don't need to contact me.

You guys need to get off your high horse. Maybe you're upset you're stuck in a cubicle.

@fafonio

Ignoring the other guy who's disingenuously pretending they don't understand the reference to the bored ape yacht club, here's a question for you.

What IS contained in the payload of the blockchain node, when you sell an NFT as art? When you sell your art as an NFT, how does someone view that art?

@BLD When you sell your art as an NFT, how does someone view that art?

I don’t understand the purpose of that question … or the question per se.

@fafonio

You're a graphic designer, right? Do you sell your own NFTs or just go to bat for them online?

@RubyDevilNine takes the entire energy that a large city takes in a single year just to produce a single nft receipt🙁

@BLD I don’t create them, I don’t auction for them, I don’t “bat” for them. I directly UNDERSTAND what they are and what they are for. I don’t hate them because I understand them from what my friends and colleagues have legitly done with them. I understand the concept and the benefits as well as the cons. Them having cons do not make them inherently bad… neither perfect.
I’m a digital animator… does that mean someone can steal an HD rendition of my animation ? Not by any legit means… hacking the server, sure.

As I already said, if you’re not interested in art collecting and art auctions in the real world like they have been for centuries now… you’re not the target. There are people who do.

I hate those ugly apes too…. But so do people hate Picassos when they don’t understand art.
(Btw, they became popular because those were the first one to set the trend… I think they are ugly as f**k too.) but for every ugly ape, there are amazing artists like… I don’t know, from the top of my mind… Mad Dog Jones … you can check his Instagram to understand how there are real artists on the bandwagon… not just ugly apes.

@fafonio

Ok, so you understand a lot about NFTs. That's great man. So you can answer the question, right?

When someone purchases a piece of digital art as an NFT, how do they view that art? What digital object does the NFT actually grant them?

@BLD I know where you’re going with the questions. Yes, they are obviously stored in an URL… they must be stored somewhere. But the concept is not where they are stored… but who has the real ownership of it in the blockchain. They grant property of a digital asset.

Yes, you don’t see value in that because you’re not the target. You could take a picture of a Picasso from the internet and print it for your room right? But… does that make you the owner of the real Picasso?

There are people who care for THAT little detail. If you’re not one of those people… it’s ok.
I mean, if people didn’t care, museums wouldn’t make such a fuzz to try to obtain original artwork and instead just buy counterfeits.

@fafonio

You right now:

"know where you’re going with the questions. Yes, they are obviously stored in an URL…"

You 30 minutes ago:

"I can see how your ignorance shows when you think the blockchain is “just storing an image in an URL”. Yes yes yes… people are paying thousands of dollars just for storing their “jpgs” in an URL. Sure mate…. Sure."

You can tell me that's not what it's about all you want, but then, you pretended not to understand the question at first. Deep down we both know that's exactly what it's about.

@BLD because they DO get stored in an URL. Keyword in those quotes… “JUST”. Does that mean the only thing NFTs do is being “stored” in URLs? WRONG. As I already explained above. The blockchain technology is not for “storing NFTs in URLs” …

I didn’t understand your question at first because of your wording. It was an abstract and too-open question.

Also you guys only focus on jpgs that you “can just right-click” but you always forget other digital assets like animations and 3D modeling which there wasn’t a way to include them into the art-economics world. Because they definitely should be considered as pieces of art too, because they can only exist in the digital world.

@fafonio

Ok. So I own a URL now. Ignoring the fact that this URL is hosted by someone else and can go offline, what am I to do with this URL of mine? What is the function of owning this NFT?

@RupeeClock thank you.

Also, just as a final note. One thing that people always seem to miss is that they are not exclusively for jpgs, you can’t just right-click animations or 3D models.

People commonly forget that artists of those areas benefit greatly where they couldn’t before as they were in limbo as digital-only art.

But thanks for explaining it more clearly in an objective way… as our feud was getting derailed.

Those development partners should all pack their things and go to other publishers. That may send the strongest message.

@fafonio If this is strictly speaking about digital art/goods, there doesn't seem to be any benefit in blockchain storage for the sale of these goods. Also, propping up artists via a pump and dump or money laundering scheme isn't a celebratory state of affairs. It's an ugly scheme that benefits people at the expense/swindling of others.

@fafonio And so you do nothing better than essentially admitting defeat in your "refute".
As mentioned, many people here who dislike NFTs HAVE done their research. Google, Youtube, what-have-you, etc...
The fact that you think that people are uninformed simply because they heavily dislike them is absurd.

>Art collecting and art auctions have been a thing in this world for AGES. If you’re not the target, you’re not the target. You don’t understand what people see in art collecting. “How can someone pay millions of dollars for a wall painting that’s just paint splatters on a canvas? I could just take a picture of it with my phone and print it.”<

I think what amuses me is that you've taken this stance that being a "graphics designer and content creator" has given you this awakening right to have a bigger understanding on it than anyone else. I didn't need to preface my argument with it but unfortunately, as coincidence would have it; So am I.

I create art, I create content, and yes; most of it digital. I love technology and adore the future where it can further enhance the lives of everyone who uses it.
NFTs certainly are not "it".
There's nothing in their introduction that has revolutionised art. You can be an "art collector" and not have to resort to NFTs for that to ever be a hobby.

The physical paintings comparison barely even COMPARES to how you're trying to spin this.
When you buy a physical painting, you know for a fact that the original in your hands is the true original. You can try to recreate the painting yourself, you can try to snap a photo of it (even though that objectively gives you a lower quality version of that very painting, literally not comparable), but the truth is that a physical object has personal history and precision. Everything from the brush that was used to create it from the canvas and paints combined to equal the piece you own, is something with both imperfections and sentimental value etched to create only one of those things that experienced that process to be made.

Now, as a digital artist, I'm not gonna let you refute that by then accusing me of devaluing the hard work put into digital art. I'm aware of that far more than you'd like to think, however it's irrefutable that while digital and physical are both capable of producing beautiful artwork, the two are just simply not the same in terms of sentiment.
You can make money through digital art via commissions or sold prints.
A PSD file of digital artwork objectively holds higher value than a jpeg or png on the "blockchain". It's a file that is capable of holding the layers an artist worked with as well as the original quality it was created in too.

Now tell me, what EXACTLY about NFTs are more valuable than that, other than the artificial scarcity that they are advertised with supposedly having, which has already been refuted - might I remind you - by the actual creator of NFTs themselves.

Try to understand this:
The literal creator of NFTs, in regret of even making them, have came out disproving pretty much anything NFTs are supposed to be good for.
If you like your research so much, go research that. Thank you.

It's great seeing devs taking a stand against publishers pushing NFTs. Aggrocrab and the others are doing what all devs need to do if they truly care about the future of gaming and not just money.

@RupeeClock

"The associated image is what makes it easier to sell, because sentimental value gets prescribed based on the image itself or who produced it."

Idk why @Fafonio is thanking you, since you basically proved my point in your explanation. So allow me to thank you.

It's not about ownership of the digital art. It's about selling that ownership to someone else. It's exactly as I described with cryptocurrency earlier.

You don't "own" the art just because you bought the NFT. I can create an NFT of Fafonio's art and sell it myself. There's no recourse - not that there's much anyway, on the internet, but with crypto the lack of recourse is literally baked into the system, since a transaction cannot be undone without forking the whole currency. And since the IDs of subsequent transactions are based on previous ones, good luck literally changing the entire global ledger.

Point is, the NFT grants someone no right to the artwork inherently. Like RupeeClock says, people can and have created NFTs of art they don't own. The ownership of the artwork, in the end, comes down to the artist saying someone owns the "real" copy of that art.

@RupeeClock I totally agree. That’s why my opening argument was that I don’t agree with NFTs in gaming. I would never buy an NFT made by a company. If anything, from an artist that I support and find value in their artwork. Just like some of us would hang original canvas in our homes instead of just prints.
But what I did like about your reply is that you can see objectively what is good and what is bad from the topic, and THAT compels me to have a real conversation about the topic, as well as then I know you’re informed about it all.

@bld Im thanking him for explaining it in an objective post… as I already said, I’m not here to convince you to invest in NFTs. I’m not your financial assistant. He explained to you how the blockchain works and the concept per se objectively.

Now, if you fail to grasp the concept, that’s on you. You are not the target.

@BLD yes… just like counterfeit artwork in the real world. You can have a Picasso with the signature and everything…. but if it’s a counterfeit… it’s a counterfeit with zero value even with the fake signature. Again, this concept in the art world has been here for AGES.

@fafonio

Except in this case the counterfeit is identical, pixel for pixel, bit for bit, wifh the original.

The value comes from an agreement between the seller (artist) and the buyer, that the purchase grants the buyer certain rights to the image.

Notice how NFTs aren't required for any of that? If NFTs are so cool, why do you need to keep falling back on "But physical art has similar problems!" Yes, it does.

So then, we both agree that NFTs fail to solve those problems?

@Kyranosaurus nice post and all that… but started a bit weak. I’m not here to gain “victories” or “defeats”. If that’s your objective of arguing with people on the internet, congrats… you are just wasting your time. Nobody will ever tell you you “won” or hand you a trophy.

Getting back to the topic…. It’s easy… everything you just said… apply it to an animation or a 3D model….. See? Now the really thin thread changes.

@BLD wait what? NFTs were never meant to solve problems. They gave an opportunity for artists to benefit from the exclusivity of their digital-only work.

@kyranosaurus You guys conveniently ignore the examples of animation and 3D modeling that I’m putting on the table.

Anyway, this has gone long enough and I’m just wasting my time… the thing I didn’t wanted to do in the first place. This isn’t a site to discuss this.

Here, have a trophy 🏆. You “won” a discussion on the internet… you must feel very accomplished in life.

Aside from what you guys think… have a nice day, we are still in the same community either way.

If I had a job in a toxic industry I'll most probably defend it to the end. Because it's my job.
And from a technician point of view I'll most probably argue different then from a customer point of view.
Not everything that's interesting and exciting is for good. Technology is a tool and has to be there for the people - not vice versa.

@fafonio

"NFTs were never meant to solve problems. They gave an opportunity for artists to benefit from the exclusivity of their digital-only work."

But that's just it - that's a function they don't help at all with, since at the end of the day their art still isn't exclusive, counterfeits can still be easily sold as NFTs. If I sell your art as an NFT, the only thing making your art more valuable than my counterfeit is that your art has some intangible goodwill of rights from yourself, the artist. NFTs do nothing new, then, aside from existing on blockchain servers with high environmental tolls, high transaction fees, and long transaction times.

And by the way, your models and animations are still digital numbers in the end, bits of 1s and 0s. Idk why you keep harping on about them as if they're immune to the exact same problems being discussed.

@fafonio No, not looking for a trophy but thanks I guess.

Sorry to break it to you but no, you didn't suddenly crumble my entire case by telling me that 3D and animation exists.
Those are still things that exist entirely in harmony without NFTs.

>defends NFTs without a reason
>tells people to do the research themselves
>refuses to refute the points made

You might think I'm trying to be smart, but I'm honestly just trying to get a comprehensive answer out of you.
It's you who has entered this discussion with the intent to waste time if you only wish to plug your ears and "move on", then fine, go ahead.
Just don't expect to think you're making yourself look good doing it. It always plays out the same from you people.

Amazing coincidence that you just happen to not want to give better reasons that apparently exist.
Sorry for the sin of trying to squeeze lemon juice out of a rock, I should've known better.

@Kyranosaurus dude, you’re coming back to the discussion 4 hours late. I won’t engage with you another 4 hours just because you “want to look good on the internet”… shows your maturity.

In fact you’re getting on my nerves now and I won’t give you the satisfaction of a snap. You can hit the ignore button now.

@fafonio I came to the discussion late because I had things to do...? Is that a problem now? Do I need to make sure my personal schedule matches up with you? Sorry sir, I'll be sure to ask when you're free next time. Perhaps I'll bring the formal-wear.

Thanks for your complete disregard for my points. It wasn't nice.

@Kyranosaurus

And so it ends as it began, with a cryptobro making excuses for not explaining things and then hurriedly leaving.

@BLD 🤣🤣🤣🤣 yeah sure man. Here have some trophies 🏆

Im just not a ***** to keep anymore of your nonsense going because everything was explained either by me or @rupeeclock.

Come back when you can have a real conversation.
In the meantime I’d rather discuss this with Rupeeclock and not with immature 15 year olds.

@BLD I'm also terribly concerned that they waited 4 hours for me to respond. I almost feel bad that they assumed I was at my PC for that long. For someone with a lot of research time on their hands but no care to share it with the class, patience is apparently not on the menu.

That aside, although I doubt I'll ever actually change my stance on all this, I usually do have very educating debates with people I disagree with where I learn something that wasn't before brought to my attention. The exchange we just had earlier was sadly not one of those and funny enough is one that's only happened with regards to NFTs.
Baffling, that.

@link3710 Buying and selling of any asset. Btw, I'm not defending NFTs per se, the NFT space is an absolute mess atm. I work in crypto and see too much misinformation on topics such as this. Greater fools fallacy and url decay yes but that includes most tradable assets so is not unique to NFTs.

@Ironcore While all assets have some form of decay, NFT's lack of regulations means the chances of decay are significantly higher than most other forms of assets. I've had several friends have to DMCA down their artwork that had been stolen and NFTed, and with so many competing registries we'll likely see most of them collapse in the next few years. That doesn't even get into the question of 'Why bother using crypto if you're going to depend on a centralized registry anyways'.

I don't think it's misinformation to point out that the fact that many, if not most NFTs will be worthless in the next ten years means that people need to get other people to take them off their hands before it collapsed on them.

@fafonio

A bit of neighborly advice, friend:

When you refuse to answer questions from @kyranosaurus because you "won't engage" in the conversation any longer, it's probably a good idea to not respond multiple times after that point.

Otherwise it'll look like you don't have any answers and so resort to pelting people with points you can't refute with silly age-related insults.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence it looks that way, of course.

@link3710 That I agree with. Close to 100% of all current NFTs today will be worth $0 soon or very soon.

@BLD if I replicated the Mona Lisa brush stroke for brush stroke would you pay the same price for that piece as you would the original?

How can there be environmental concerns with a NFT?
Anyway good for them NFT’s are a scam.

@chatsworth

Are you going to try and make the same counterfeit argument that was already denunked like 30 comments ago?

@BLD "at the end of the day their art still isn't exclusive, counterfeits can still be easily sold as NFTs."

The question is... are you going to buy that counterfeit at full price?

No you're not. Why? Because you're aware that it's a fake.... How? Through blockchain verification. Weird how that works.

And they just posted an apology letter stating they’re no longer doing the NFT thing 😂 this seems to be a theme with these companies…maybe, just maybe, this is a sign that NFTs are unwanted in our medium? But what do I know.

@Zach1122 So are microtransactions and everyone is doing it. It doesn't really matter what gamers want. As long as they buy the latest FIFA and Assassin's Creed like good boys, that's where the discussion ends.

@Troll_Decimator There are studios/games that don't do microtransactions and it certainly has been restrained by consumer and some dev pushback. These are things that matter, even if they aren't listened to wholesale.

@chatsworth ...except how do you validate that the person on the other end of the Blockchain is who they claim to be. Just because you know the code of who updated it doesn't mean there's any way to validate that it's someone with the rights to sell the image.

@another_one There are, but good luck convincing King or any other big company to stop microtransactions. That's their entire business model. I mean, they would only stop if they felt it's affecting their bottom line. If they make all their money from mtx they won't and it would be dumb to.

@link3710 I would assume the real artist would come out and say that it's a fake? Then they would show the proof of verification through the blockchain?

I understand where you're coming from. The NFT World is full of scams. But that does not detract from it being a viable way for artists to make a living. Ones without Mal-intent that is.

@chatsworth Yeah, so you need to approach the real artist (assuming you know who that is and aren't being misled) and have then personally verify. So... What's the point of the Blockchain? You could personally verify ownership of digital art from the original artist now, and that sort of ownership might actually have... Yknow... Legal rights with it. Whereas NFTs don't grant any usage rights whatsoever (and before you say some do, the usage rights aren't tied to the NFT, but assigned separately).

@link3710 Incorrect. A perfect example would be Bored Ape Yacht Club or Doodles. They give you 100% of the IP rights to the NFT you own. You're able to do whatever you want with it. I could go create a coffee brand using the NFT if I so chose.

And the point of the blockchain is digital verification...If you want to meet up with the artist and have him give you a piece of paper to verify you own the digital artwork as well I'm sure you could do that too.... but why?

@chatsworth Incorrect again. The NFT doesn't contain the rights in those cases, as I said. The rights are transferred separately via terms of use. The NFT is just extra baggage alongside the actual sale.

@link3710 at this point we can agree to disagree because we’re not getting anywhere.

NFTs work for some people and not for others. No need for the insane amount of hate.

@chatsworth NFTs aren't the only means for digital artists to monetize their artwork, though. Other options include:

• services that support a "monthly subscription" monetization model such as Patreon, Pixiv Fanbox, and Liberapay;
• services that support a "pay as you go" monetization model such as Gumroad and DeviantArt (specifically the "Premium Content" feature of the latter one);
• and even old-school crowdfunding services such as Kickstarter.

And while some might consider the "secondhand market" to be a benefit of NFTs, others might consider it to be a downside rather than a benefit... e.g. because of the possibilities for market market bubbles (i.e. boom/crash cycles) and/or "greater fool" scams / pump-and-dump schemes to occur. Or, alternately, maybe the aforementioned "monthly subscription" monetization model might end up being financially more beneficial to an artist (because it tends to provide a more stable/predictable flow of income)?

(And also the energy consumption / environmental impact issues with "proof of work"-based blockchain technologies such as Ethereum to be another disadvantage of NFT marketplaces in comparison to the aforementioned other monetization options.)

Team17 has now canceled their MetaWorms NFT project after the backlash according to their Twitter account. That's good news

@Coxula Speaking strictly for me, I actually do prefer digital downloads over physical media as a distribution method... especially DRM-free downloads that can be backed up locally (e.g. using removable media such as BD-RE discs or SD cards). And some businesses actually do offer DRM-free downloads as a distribution method for paid content; e.g. for video games, there's GOG, and also Itch.io; whereas for music, there's Bandcamp, Qobuz, 7digital, Ototoy, HDtracks, ProStudioMasters, Amazon Digital Music, iTunes, and also I've seen a few record labels that offer paid digital downloads from their own websites.

On a related note: I suppose that a video game publisher could potentially sell "secondhand-resellable digital games" by using NFTs that are somehow tied to a copy-protection/DRM mechanism. However, I doubt that any of these major/semi-major game publishers that have been talking about NFTs recently would even seriously consider doing that... because, historically, it seems like they've tended to be hostile to the secondhand market and/or the rental market in physical cartridges/discs, because they see it as a loss of potential sales of new copies. (E.g. see Nintendo's attempts to have video game rentals outlawed in the 1990s in the U.S., as well as the industry's successful attempt to outlaw all software rentals in Japan.)

(One more thing about publishers' hostility to the rental market: if I remember/understand correctly, the Famicom Disk System was in part meant to be a more IP-owner-friendly alternative to the rental market... i.e. whenever the customer would take their diskette to a kiosk & pay to have a game written onto it, Nintendo and/or the game's publisher would presumably get some (or all?) of the money... though admittedly I don't know offhand the exact details of how that business model worked back then...)

(reason for edit: added 1 more digital-music-download store to the list)

@fafonio As for "Art collecting and art auctions [having] been a thing in this world for AGES"... that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, though... because that kind of secondhand market in collectable and/or high-price items gives rise to possibilities for certain kinds of bad things to happen, such as: market bubbles/crashes, pump and dump schemes, and even money laundering.

Here are some examples:

• On the topic of Steam's trading card system: sometime around 3 or 4 years ago, I remember seeing some videos on YouTube that presented evidence that certain games on Steam (especially really bad low-effort asset flip ones) had been created not (primarily) as a means of making money by selling them to normal customers, but instead as a means of farming trading cards (which then might be converted into gems)... which might go along with reselling (for real money) credentials to the entire Steam user accounts containing those cards and/or gems. (And... though I've forgotten the exact details by now... I seem to remember discussion at the time mentioning the possibility that it was criminal organizations / money-laundering rings who were running this scheme.)
• And as for market bubbles/crashes: in 1996, financial speculation was to blame for this kind of boom/bust situation in the market for comic books. According to the way I remember hearing it described: around that time, some used copies of very old issues of comic books — especially copies of issue #1 of titles/characters that had gone on to be extremely popular — had gone on to fetch very high prices on the secondhand market... and then, in response to that, financial speculators started buying new comic book issues in large quantities, hoping that those ones would become valuable in the future (and the comic book publishers reacted to this by offering lots of "variant cover" versions, in order to entice the speculators into buying more copies than they otherwise would)... but those anticipated high secondhand prices on 1990s-era comic books never materialized, thus leading to a market crash (which in turn led to some additional consequences such as some distributor companies & local shops going out of business).

@fafonio As for "I don’t mix my hobbies with investment and economics"... I think you just pointed to a major reason why these recent announcements about from video game companies about NFTs have been getting such an overwhelmingly negative reaction from the customer-base of those companies: because, if a company were to deliberately create a Real-Money Trading marketplace for reselling in-game items (especially rare ones) using NFTs, then that basically does mix the customers' hobby with investment. (And it would still be like that even if that marketplace were to be implemented using some means other than NFTs.)

@chatsworth As for "[assuming that] the real artist would come out and say that it's a fake"... it's funny you should say that, because some Nintendo Life's own staff members have done exactly that! See the video on their official YouTube channel titled "We're Now an NFT (Against Our Will)" for details; a short summary of it, though, is that someone unaffiliated with them minted an NFT of the Nintendo Life logo.

And in the later parts of the video, they also discussed some of the same points I covered above w.r.t. why the traditional marketplace in high-priced art objects (such as paintings) isn't necessarily a 100% good thing itself... which in turn casts doubt on the unexamined assumption that attempting to recreate a digital equivalent of that would automatically lead to real-world benefits.

On a related note: the Nintendo Life staff are not the only ones who've had their work used to mint NFTs by some unaffiliated person against their wishes. One other (i.e. not involving video games) source of NFT controversy has been due to digital artist having their art used in this way, then complaining about it, and then being told by NFT evangelists things like this: "if you don't like it, then you should have minted it into an NFTs first!" (Which is a pretty obnoxious attitude to have, I'd say...) Furthermore, I've also heard about some instances where people have done this to artwork whose original creator had been dead for some time prior to when the NFTs in question were minted... and this latter kind of situation tends to make friends/family of the deceased artist in question very angry...

@chatsworth Just out of interest, what do people do with the artwork they buy of yours on OpenSea?

@another_one "Also, propping up artists via a pump and dump or money laundering scheme isn't a celebratory state of affairs." — I agree completely. And, for that reason, we shouldn't let the hype around NFTs obscure the fact that there already exist several crowdfunding service-providers... a.k.a. crowdfunding "platforms" (if you insist on calling them that)... that can be used for people to pay for digital artwork on the Internet, without re-creating the secondhand market for physical artwork (and all of its associated problems, such as money laundering, along with it) in the digital sphere.

@NDragon1412 Paper money and coins have value because a country backs it up, it's commonly accepted, and (Often enough) the value is reliable, same for money on bank accounts.

Crypto-currency has none of those, its value is too volatile to use as payment (Imagine a shop that has to adjust prices every hour because the value of currency changes that much), it's a failure as a currency (Who needs utterly untraceable money, anyway? Except for criminals.), but it's successful for value speculation, until the bubble bursts, anyway.

NFTs... I don't even understand how there's any value in it at all, copying a picture is as easy as a right-click on a mouse (Seems pretty fungible to me), but the original one is for some reason really valuable, i just chalk that up to "People are crazy", TBH.