Sega Cools On Blockchain Games As Executive Calls Them 'Boring'

I find it funny when companies try to jump on the new big trend and then immediately jump off once it crashes

"The game is fun. If it's not fun, why bother?"
— Reggie Fils-Aime

Sounds like a reasonably intelligent fellow who needs to have a discussion with SE on that same issue.

Even before NFT games existed, players were already able to earn money selling videogame items, NFT games were not the invention of games you can play to earn money.

Do you know why NFT games crashed and burned while popular games like Team Fortress 2 and Counter-Strike still allow players to earn a fortune with items? Because these games are fun and have people playing them for love, and there are players willing to buy these items for a big price and not sell them, keep them.

If the only reason people buy something is in hopes of selling it for an even bigger price, it's a bigger fool scheme, a bubble waiting to burst.

When NFT games first appeared:

"What do you mean these games are stupid?!!! I got a bunch of money from them!!! Since when getting money is being stupid?!!! LOL! Have fun staying poor!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"

To be fair, like any pyramid scheme, if you managed to play these games early and sell these items early, you could earn a lot of money from them, ways to earn easy money actually exist, but when everyone learns about a way to earn easy money, it stops being easy money.

@silverdamascus That and also they don't need to run calculations every single time that you play to check how many times a single item has been traded.

Seems sensible. All that blockchain, nft stuff is a grift.

@silverdamascus Yeah a unique identifier is a basic feature of any database. Any game could already handle unique objects and an economy within itself. Hell even Pokemon Red/Blue was essentially that with trading between versions and the link table.

NFTs were just a ridiculous pipe dream of the idea that your JPG would be used across multiple games. It'd never work because one game or source would need to be the "bank" that prints NFTs and sells NFTs to people and then other unrelated developers would have to support and integrate NFTs that they don't benefit from the sales of.

Obviously every studio would want their game to be the bank that's selling NFTs, not the sucker supporting or buying them.

Sega making more and more good decisions recently... as a lifelong Sega fan since the 80s, this is concerning! 😅

The underlying tech behind NFTs (verifiable & traceable unique tokens, not stupid monkey jpgs) and the ideas of decentralised systems and shared computing power over chained networks are all very compelling.

As someone who initially was all in on the utopian promises of decentralised, truly free internet, verifiable and traceable transactions, open sourced code, true global equality etc of the early crypto pioneers, I learned how to program and manipulate blockchains in the early days of Ethereum (and later Tron), even developed my own token systmes and tried to run several businesses using the tech to be fairer, open and transparent... yeah, the tech isn't there yet, and won't be for at least another decade.

I had some pretty neat stuff developed back by early 2017 and it looked like it could be somewhat transformative for the businesses I'm in - but then as soon as these technologies even started to be slightly useful, word spread, more people started using them, and the prices skyrocketted, which made headlines and then even more people rushed to it without fully understanding what they were buying or why, and everything became a bubble. Suddenly, all the cool stuff I programmed where the code would execute in a fraction of a second and cost less than a penny for the transaction, suddenly became waiting up to an hour per calculation, and getting charged $20 for the privilidge.

The current systems aren't robust enough to do anything useful. Even the simplest of super basic games getting a few thousands daily users has the potential to entirely disrupt a network and send prices and wait times skyrocketing for any users of that blockchain - not just the ones playing the game.

At least ETH finally moving to proof of stake reduces the environmental concerns somewhat (that was always a convcern of mine but they planned on making the switch far sooner), but I think it will be at least 10 years before we'll actually have blockchains which begin to fulfil the early promises of the ideas we are being constantly sold. Almost everything you see piched when people are asking for investment in crypto games is quite litearlly not possible right now (or is not actually using the blockchain for anything other than as a glorified NFC/barcode).

The only blockchain based games that I've seen that were even slightly compelling were gambling or investment based. And even then they were only compelling because of the actual real stakes of winning or losing money, not because of the blockchain stuff running them. The advantage is that they are provably fair and the source code and all transactions are open for anyone to check, so companies can't swindle you in the way we all suspect most casinos and lotteries do. But the disadvantage is that when these services become popular, they slow down to a crawl and cost you a fortune in transaction fees every time you play. Its not worth the tradeoff.

Just wait until Square Enix hear.

I have no idea what anything in this article means. I must be getting old.

@Rainbowfire tl;dr Sega is still trying to make a fun game.

I wouldn't trust this at face value. They might be dropping NFTs because NFT games aren't fun but it's far more likely that they're dropping it because it's obvious to everyone now that NFTs are a scam and they won't be making any money off of it.

Please, everyone follow SEGA's example.
But waiting for their next GOOD game....

If only more game companies could follow suit. Both NFTs and blockchains are just a scam.
Sega even mentioned last year how they would ditch NFTs if it’s perceived as a ‘simple money-making’ scheme (which is exactly what it is).
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/sega-says-it-will-ditch-nfts-if-its-perceived-as-a-simple-money-making-scheme/

There is hope for them yet. They just need to adopt a little of Nintendo's integrity and they'll be great again.

Don't be mistaken though - it's good that Sega went back on this for now but that Executive is not some savior per se. This is still marketing. "A higher up at Sega saying no to Blockchain, wow what a good company after all!" - they know that this is good for their image. It doesn't make any amount of sense to think that the company as a whole decided on NFTs and Blockchain and noone ever asked this guy but now they did and Sega is like "oh nevermind then".
I'm happy about this and maybe there's some genuineness to it but it's still a point I find important.

Tell this to Square.

Of all the ways to backpedal on this for PR reasons, this is a reasonable way to frame it in order to save some face. I'll take it.

@Rainbowfire if you don't understand any of this, then I'd day you understand it perfectly.

Well, the executives are not wrong. 90% of games they make are just Sonic games.

Just as movies that focus on a message first and the actual story second end up being crap, so it is with games that strap gameplay to the backseat in favor of... other endeavors.

The sooner NFTs and blockchain die a death the better.

Nft already dead, just ask ubisoft how's their nft marketplace doing lol.

im not gonna give sega too much credit for doing this since it's the obvious choice. But this IS sega so good job guys ya did good this time let's keep up the good work

I just want a new virtua fighter.

...okay, I'll bite. What is "blockchain"?

@RareFan Sonic releases are like playing sonic itself most of the time, one moment you have fun zooming trough well crafted levels with great music and design and the next moment you try not to drown, jumping slow moving platforms while spikes pop out the wall to knock you off.

@HenryKibble It's a block on a chain shackled yo ones ankle to be a burden.

Honestly idk( I looked it up and I still don't know, like, I know what it is but I have no way of using this knowledge other then to be slightly less oblivious about the subject)

@HenryKibble Whatever you want it to be.

@khululy @Cordyceps Google says:

Web3 games are based on the decentralized, peer-to-peer architecture of blockchains, and include cryptocurrencies and nonfungible tokens (NFTs). Blockchain enables players to own and trade in-game items — like NFTs and other digital assets — and transfer them without third-party intervention.

@HenryKibble that really sounds like Limewire, Napster, ftp, etc.

It's a lot easier to speak the truth now that NFTs have crashed and investors aren't convinced this is easy money anymore. I don't know that anyone made a credible claim that blockchain applications added anything that would be called "fun."

@HenryKibble @Cordyceps Yes, a blockchain essentially is a P2P network, everyone shares the same ever growing file, usually a simple ledger - a list of transactions or computational requests. Cryptocurrencies (like Bitcoin) and tokens (like NFTs and ERC-20 coins) are just numbers stored on their blockchain's database.

Any time you want to read from the database, you check that exact same result on all the other computers to make sure they are all the same values. The same process applies when adding something new - a new addition is not verified until its present and locked in to every copy. If they were different, this means there has been a mistake, or fraud. Nothing can ever be deleted from the database, it just continues to grow larger, meaning that every addition is recorded forever and easily traceable.

The potential advantages are huge. Data (EG in the future: website code, images, audio, video, online games) that is stored can never be deleted, lost, or altered. No content going dark because the server crashed/was hacked or the company no longer exists... and when thousands of people in different countries are running the same blockchain, everything is decentralised and no political problems, wars, government interferance etc can stop it being accessed.

Certain blockchains, like Ethereum, let you program tokens so that when they are traded, sold etc, things happen.
Examples of how this can be used:
An artist will get a commision every time someone resells their artwork - if a gallery buys it from a collector in 50 years time, the original artist will get 20% of the sale (similarly games companies could get a cut of second hand sales).
An employer can pay their worker their entire year's salary at once, however, the worker will only be able to spend 1/52 of that money every week, so the worker knows their pay is guaranteed, but they can't splurge it all at once.
Stocks/Shares that pay out dividends based on the profit of the parent company - the advantage to the consumer is that you don't have to rely on anyone to do the accounting, or trust that they are being honest, litearally as that company makes money, a percentage is removed and paid to you entirely automatically.
A government give you benefits/wellfare, but can specify that it can only be spent on certain things, EG: "child support" that can only be spent on things for the children.

However, again, the reality is that none of this is particularly practical right now. The tech and infrastructure isn't there yet. All of that is possible, but only if theres a handful of people using the tech, When the networks get busy, it all falls apart and transaction fees bloat to the point of ludicrousness (at one point I was getting charged $200 every time I automatically sent someone a commision of a few cents... I had to shut down that business and go back to paying people manually)

@HenryKibble @Cordyceps Its important to note that an NFT is not a jpg. Not even remotely. It is just a numeric value that was added to the blockchain as a permanent "receipt" to be able to verify forever who created/paid for something, when, and how much for. You can use an NFT to verify the authenticty of anything: a luxury handbag/watch, which factory your clothes were made, or if the medicine that you bought for grandma online is real. Imagine these products/packaging containing a small NFC chip (like in Amiibo) but the code on the chip was unique to that exact copy of that item.

When a certain item is bought and sold multiple times (for example Pfizer>Warehouse>Wallgreens>You) its possible to trace back every single transaction. Its impossible to dupicate, fake, or delete an NFT. Its extremely useful for preventing fraud, and keeping everything open and transparent. This is why its amazingly useful in financing, but also why governments don't like the idea as they can no longer keep financial transations sercet or fudge the numbers for "creative accounting".

Once again: NFTs are not jpgs. This is just how various scammers have used buzzwords to sell the idea that jpgs are worth money - when the they are just selling you a reciept. The jpg itself is not stored on the blockchain. Its absolutely possible to do so... but because current chains only accept a tiny amount of data at a time, even a small low quality picture takes many hours and thousands of dollars, so people don't bother. NFT based games with cards or virtual pets etc attached to the NFT similarly are not actually stored to the blockchain, just a note of who bought/won/traded what. The images and game code themselves are invariably stored on normal centralised servers, which can go down, and render the entire thing pointless.

People selling monkey jpgs is a scam (or at best an extremely risky speculative game of "hot potato"). But the NFT and blockchain tech are not a scam. But because many people believe this tech is the future of finance and the internet, and there were hyperbolic news stories of people getting rich from Cryptocurrencies, its a space rife for scammers to use buzzwords to steal money from people not understanding what they're buying, or realistically where the tech and infrastructure currently stands.

@silverdamascus

Nothing to add, NFT and Blockchain is a wasteful unneeded Technology, everything People search to solve with it, can be done with sompler Technique and is still done.
People sold Items in Diablo 2 twenty Years ago!
And NFT/Blockchains still need a classical Database and Server to display what they show you posses.
So when these Servers are gone, you have a fancy Receipt and nothing behind.

@HenryKibble Honestly it’s a massively inefficient technology (by design) used, along with NFTs to push cryptocurrencies which are zero-sum Ponzi schemes most often set up by some of the worlds largest financial criminals, and used by organised crime syndicates and hate groups and a way of moving large untraceable amounts of money. And as with all Ponzi schemes there a weird cult aspect to it as well. It’s basically all the worst parts of capitalism cranked up to the max and incredibly harmful to the planet.

It’s hard to fully explain in a post, especially as you’ll get some of the cult members jumping in telling you it’s actually really great (or soon will be) or throwing buzzwords and false information at you.

Watch ‘Line Goes Up’ on YouTube. It’s a long video but honestly it doesn’t feel it and it breaks it down so well in the first half before going further into the nuance of certain aspects.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g

Like most things these days, especially those to do with money, it’s designed to benefit those who already have it and doesn’t give a hoot about the wider consequences. Honestly it’ll tell you a lot about the general ethos and ethics of which companies did and didn’t decide to embrace it.

Am I interested no. Do I think Cloud/Blockchain can be used right yes but for specific things and more so in the tech side then video games or other areas (maybe other industries but who knows the Kinect works for detection of the body for many benefits outside gaming that other companies probably may or may not have gotten to the scale of for a suitable device to focus on muscle/body tracking medical or fitness or simulations or so) not always dodgey ones.

With games I don't really see as much need for them (sure a Wii Vitality sensor for horror/keeping people safe with fitness games like the Wii Balance Board did as a scales/balancing detection device for games/workouts or for some other purposes like Ironfall Invasion did with the heartbeat system for sprinting/health but lets say it's on a more peripheral scale then software feedback HUD element) regardless of the design of the games being boring or fun it I just don't think makes sense for the efforts of the tech to be used.

Online required games already are a hassle, Ubisoft/Windows Live efforts, Sim City 2013, GT Sport/7, Forza Motorsport 8, Anthem/Babylon's Fall and others of that kind sure they make sense to do that their MMO like live service games, Jedi Survivor having the other half an update/download of the game because EA won't print two disks to save money but Square is happy to do that for FF7 Rebirth and did 7 Remake prior but back tracked on FF16 to one disk but did a lot of compression work.

See what happens when companies 'think' instead of yeah sure cool technologies but if it isn't really benefiting let alone just not working out what's the point in using it if other avenues are more useful. It depends what they can come up with to use the tech though. Probably only so much I think but even then the games ideas could have been weak and not a worthy amount of time. I don't want to see the tech used in awkward ways and it could have done some stuff to some IPs or the Super game but I don't think it would be worth it really it would be too much money, a flop maybe and also probably not very fun/a big mess in likely cases.

Even a platform with minigames isn't the most exciting thing out there sometimes. Or using the IPs or only for this game it may have been a bit awkward. I doubt a fan game platform or something even that would be wild and unlike to ever happen.

I mean if it were a Sega arcade like that Xbox 360 arcade one or PS Home or something then sure........ but I don't know if they would have done that. That or some open world with a particular angle.

Or a game using the tech to make loading faster and a Crackdown 3 using the cloud sort of situation but for a different tech solution? I can only speculate what they were going for but still I don't think it would have been worth it.

Won't stop others from having platforms. like Assassin's Creed. While Halo Master Chief Collection I got why I do question how AC will do it.