Square Enix president Yosuke Matsuda has published a new year letter in which he expresses the company’s enthusiasm for emerging industry trends such as NFTs and blockchain technology.
Quote:
“I realize that some people who ‘play to have fun’ and who currently form the majority of players have voiced their reservations toward these new trends, and understandably so,” he wrote. “However, I believe that there will be a certain number of people whose motivation is to ‘play to contribute,’ by which I mean to help make the game more exciting.
They're artists are top notch and all their artworks, wallpapers, videos/intros and so forth are AAA production quality.
Makes sense to sell some exclusive NFTs to ppl with money to spare.
why would that make sense?
according to rhat logic it makes sense that they sell their games more expensive but that doesnt mean they wont bomb and fail hard.
they already sell collectors editions, artbooks and shittons of figures and statues and various merchandise
But I guess that's not enough because making that stuff physically costs money.
much better to just sell digital shit that's made out of thin air
this sucks but it's inevitably coming now that big players are singing it's praises.
kids growing up with this shit will normalize it in time just like microtransactions
Likot Mosuskekim, Woodcutter cancels Sleep: Interrupted by Elephant.
they already sell collectors editions, artbooks and shittons of figures and statues and various merchandise
But I guess that's not enough because making that stuff physically costs money.
much better to just sell digital shit that's made out of thin air
this sucks but it's inevitably coming now that big players are singing it's praises.
kids growing up with this shit will normalize it in time just like microtransactions
not if players push back or loose interest in the games they release.
Makes one wonder if the release date of Final Fantasy 16 got pushed back half a year because they want to center the game mechanics around nfts now.
tbh square enix golden age of FF games is long gone at least for me.
loved 7, liked 7,8,9 and again loved 10 and 12 but disliked 13,13-2 and 15 was meh as well.
I know that they have more franchises but those arent the big hitters either. Deus ex is in limbo, tomb raider isnt as big as it was etc.
Getting kicked off of steam wont help +maybe centering their game mechanics on nfts wont either.
why would that make sense?
according to rhat logic it makes sense that they sell their games more expensive but that doesnt mean they wont bomb and fail hard.
I dont see how that logic follows from what I said.
The reason why it makes sense is because I have a problem with those 128x512 pixel llamas with a cappy on a scateboard being called "collecting worthy art".
It's more like degenerate art.
SE artwork is actually good, with a lot of effort put in.
Like, they have a ot of material there.
I recently started playing FF XII Zodiac Age on PS4.
The artwork, intros, cut scenes etc. are 10/10. The gameplay is like 3D graphics with Pacman levels (invisible walls).
ff 12 is one of my fav ff games. you seem to forget that its an ps2 game. the art is nice but the gameplay is too. other games have nice art too that doesnt mean it has to be milked dry until the franchise dies. keeping fandom happy should be a priority too.
ASUS X570 TUF GAMING PLUS, 32GB DDR4@2666 ,RYZEN 5800X3D (NO OC),GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Super GAMING OC, Western Digital Blue 4TB 5400RPM + SAMSUNG 860 EVO 500+1TB GB SSDs , OEM SATA DVD 22xNoctua NH-D15 Chromax Black, BenQ XL2420T Case: Be Quiet! DARK BASE PRO 901. PSU CORSAIR RM1200 SHIFT
I still don't quite grasp what these things are, but i know it's not good. And i know that people in that comment field's brains have turned into liquid a long time ago. This system is preying on the less mentally fortunate.
We're at a point gamers buy incomplete and never to be completed games, and also defend these products because in future it may get patched and be good
Ya NFT gaming is coming, simple. I'm only trying to think how publishers profit, because if they want full control they have to launch a centralised currency and block-chain (defeating the point of the technology).
In terms of a NFT game, think Magic the Gathering, where only 1000 superduper cards are minted and can be obtained digitally. Its more than that though, it would be possible to use an NFT across titles because you can prove ownership, but i havn't figured out that could work well. Like you can sell a unique skinned colour scheme, and have that available across 3-4 games? Really i only see a customer advantage in proving game ownership across all available platforms but that's definitely not going to happen.
To me having players own this and that might just spell trouble for creative freedom, but i might not be understanding this weird ass system
It's no problem because people don't even really own the art itself just the link to it from the blockchain which may or may not be there tomorrow, NFTs are designed to sell bridges to idiots.
The biggest argument of the crypto-bro crowd is that "you have ownership of content across plattforms/games". Thats the dumbest fallacy ever, they clearly dont know how games work.
That part is true, if Steam, Ubi, EA, EGS etc. all utilised the same blockchain to verify game purchases it could work and could provide customers much more value. They make more money right now forcing you into their own walled garden or having customers buy the game twice so i can't see them doing it. The Ethereum network would be more resilient than just Steam, EGS, Ubi etc. where they can go bankrupt and just close the app down. The Ethereum network is a massive decentralized system way bigger than what you use for games and not owned by a corporate entity with vested interests that can go bust and disappear (i.e 1 of the main benefits of decentralization) in fact your comment is both wrong and you are favoring a worse approach by thinking Valve, Ubisoft, EA etc will always run servers facilitating you game library.
There would definitely be better value to customers in NFT for game purchases, but only downside for publishers. The only way they can profit is by running their own block-chain/currency which makes the whole thing pointless outside using the word NFT. Why even use NFT at all if you going to have EnixTokens and EnixCoins its 100% useless implementation of the technology.
tet666 wrote:
Stormwolf wrote:
To me having players own this and that might just spell trouble for creative freedom, but i might not be understanding this weird ass system
It's no problem because people don't even really own the art itself just the link to it from the blockchain which may or may not be there tomorrow, NFTs are designed to sell bridges to idiots.
Right but this is almost the same thing again, the ethereum and bitcoin networks are massive.. more than what a corporate entity would ever offer up to service your needs. These networks are not owned by a company.. you can't shut them down! its like trying to kill torrents on piratebay, good luck with that. If your game purchases where backed by one of these reliable networks, you could use any app or service you like to verify ownership and download the game (Now publishers lose out again, why am i providing data hosting and bandwidth if you purchased elsewhere).
Where your argument does holds up, using shit-chain and shit-coins to buy ShitNFT's that wind up abandoned, like EnixCoins and EnixToken when Square bankrupts or merges with some disinterested group.
Last edited by AmpegV4 on Mon, 3rd Jan 2022 07:51; edited 2 times in total
I should clarify, it is indeed true and could be an actual value if used that way (Used game sales, maybe?). What i meant is that alot of people assume that game assets are interchangeable just because of the blockchain. The entire technical sides of how game assets work eludes them, or they omit it to make their point.
Yep fair enough, it would merely link to a game asset to prove ownership via private keys. It could be utilised across games published by the same publisher but i can't think of any good use for it outside themed skins because a publishers game catalogue would vary greatly (as you would expect) and not be suitable for shared assets.
we ll see how they gonna implement it. curious if some nftjunkie will buy art assets and then claim its his and start suing the publisher for copying and distributing his legally owned assets.
we ll see how they gonna implement it. curious if some nftjunkie will buy art assets and then claim its his and start suing the publisher for copying and distributing his legally owned assets.
I could assume that the EULAs would be so airtight that the use of the actual blockchain could be questioned entirely.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
