Frontier Developments
(nothing to do with blockchain, NFTs etc. - there was an auction for charity years back. I don’t know if they’re still playing, but there was a Cobra Mk3 flying about in a unique R.A.F. paint scheme. Very nice looking too)
NFTs and Elite
- Thread starter sandkid
- Start date
(nothing to do with blockchain, NFTs etc. - there was an auction for charity years back. I don’t know if they’re still playing, but there was a Cobra Mk3 flying about in a unique R.A.F. paint scheme. Very nice looking too)
It's all cr@p.
There, you're educated.
Ooh, how it should be implemented?
You know that paintjob you got for your Python for 2200 ARX, well we'll call it NFT and you can buy that for 1,000 £ now.
And why would you buy that?
Because you can sell it for 10,000 £ or even more.
And who would buy that?
Congrats, you just graduated on NFTs.
Last edited:
You say that, but Team17 very recently announced NFT plans for Worms, then quickly backtracked after a massive public backlash.
Worms publisher Team17 announces, promptly cancels NFT project following backlash
‘We will not be working with them on further titles,’ Aggro Crab Games says
www.polygon.com
Sorry OP, I just sold the rights to this thread on the dark web.
Just to iterate a little more on @Ian Doncaster 's awesome post...
... so what would NFT's look like in Elite? Cobra IV's are a good example case; they were an exclusive access bonus to an amount of players in certain circumstances... in short, new instances of access to Cobra IV's cannot be created[1], and so they are finite and countable. FD could go ahead and create NFTs for the accounts with access to "prove they own" access to a Cobra IV, so FD would establish itself as the "trusted authority" as to who owns access to a Cobra IV.
But to what end? I suppose FD could set up the ability for players to "trade" access to Cobra IVs, though they'd also need to prevent someone using Cobra IVs they purchased while they had access, if they no longer have access. But again... why? So that someone with heaps of money just buys-up people's access to Cobra IVs and artifically inflates the market? And the other problem is, how long is ED and FD going to be around for? 5? 10? 20? 50 years? At some point, FD and ED will shutter and your records will be gone. Sure, FD could transfer them to some 3rd party, but to what end? The game would be shut down.
It's just a really bad idea and makes no sense. Don't get me wrong, if my description of NFTs sounded a bit "friendly", it's because non-fungible tokens have a use... but certifying "ownership" of digital assets is not a great use case, particularly in games. It's just creating artificial scarcity on something that doesn't need to be scarce, and it wrecks the planet in the process.
[1] Without FD going back on their exclusive
...an NFT is just an entry in a ledger, controlled by a trusted entity. As an example; I own the property my house sits on. Why can't someone come along and just claim they own it? Because my local government's Land Registry holds a land title (i.e ledger entry) that says I own it, and the local government is a trusted entity (all jokes aside). If the government changes it's mind suddenly, scribbles out my name and says "Actually, nah, now that other guy owns it" despite the fact that I genuinely owned it before, then the government is no longer a trusted entity, but my claim's also invalidated anyway, there's now no record I own it. Alternately, maybe the Land Registry burns down and no record of my ownership exists anymore. This is an important point which I'll come back to.
Now, the Mona Lisa, well, that's pretty much like an NFT in it's own right. If you have the Mona Lisa, then it's kinda hard to argue with. Conversely, if you set fire to the Mona Lisa, it ceases to exist... you don't own it anymore (incidentally, nobody owns it). But, if someone makes a damn good replica and says "That guy set fire to a fake, I have the real Mona Lisa!", the records of sale of the Mona Lisa held by a trusted entity such as (Not sure who, so let's say the auction company who sold it?) will show that person never owned it.
Now... thing is, the Mona Lisa is a painting on a canvas that physically exists. It was done like that because that's the medium of art of that time. Nowadays, while that still exists, we also have "digital artists" who can create some amazing work which requires just as much effort as traditional paintings. Of course, being digital, it's not like you can prop it up on an easle at an auction and sell it for hundreds of millions; sure you could print it and sell it, but the original work is the digital copy... who's to say you won't just print another and devalue the one you just sold? That's where NFT's come in... by placing a copy of the digital work and assigning it an NFT, controlled by a trusted entity such (such as a digital marketplace like OpenSea)... which now goes "Well sure, people might run around with screenshots or right-click-save-as entities of this digital work (just like how plenty of copies of the Mona Lisa exist out there), but we hold the record that says this is the original, owned by this person". Hooray, now a digital artist can do a piece of art and be remunerated just like a proper artist. That sounds great right? What's the problem?
Oh lawd he comin'!
So there's a strong argument out there that most high-art sales are just financial scams. While I'd happily say #notAllArt, and there's some out there whose owners would genuinely believe it's worth a large sum of money, value is subjective with art; it has no intrinsic value. At the moment, the Mona Lisa was estimated to be worth ~ $100m USD in 1962, which translates to about $850m today. So if I buy the Mona Lisa for $2b, what's it worth? Ostensibly, $2b, if people out there want to pay that much to get ownership from me. And let's face it, there's a lot of people who would want to own it, whether for status, business (to display in a pay-to-access museum) or whatever.
But this is where the grift comes in.
Notwithstanding the destructive effects creating NFTs on the blockchain has, the "art" associated with it currently are low-effort pieces of, well, trash. But cryptocurrency offers a level of anonymity... so people will just make a bunch of trash art, "buy" it from themselves using a second account for a large sum, say, $10k, then people see "Oh wow, that sold for $10k, it must be worth it!" and then someone with too many dollars and not enough sense goes and buys it (naughty words in link) thinking it's genuinely worth that. But then it gets much worse.
Like with the Mona Lisa auction house and it's provenance records, a peer to peer digital marketplace will hold those records as well. But there's several reports out there now of these places being hacked and NFTs "stolen", transferred into other marketplaces with a new owner, because hooray decentralisation right? Now, in the case of the Mona Lisa, if the records of that are destroyed, well, the advantage is I still physically have it... and if there's any doubt, forensic inspection will prove that. If another trusted authority now says someone else owns a digital asset, and the authority saying I owned it is no longer trusted, and I can't physically show ownership.... welll.... gg?
That's kinda just the tip of the iceberg that is this stupidity, but man, that's way longer than I expected. Just go with what Ian said.
FD shouldn't go near these things.
Now, the Mona Lisa, well, that's pretty much like an NFT in it's own right. If you have the Mona Lisa, then it's kinda hard to argue with. Conversely, if you set fire to the Mona Lisa, it ceases to exist... you don't own it anymore (incidentally, nobody owns it). But, if someone makes a damn good replica and says "That guy set fire to a fake, I have the real Mona Lisa!", the records of sale of the Mona Lisa held by a trusted entity such as (Not sure who, so let's say the auction company who sold it?) will show that person never owned it.
Now... thing is, the Mona Lisa is a painting on a canvas that physically exists. It was done like that because that's the medium of art of that time. Nowadays, while that still exists, we also have "digital artists" who can create some amazing work which requires just as much effort as traditional paintings. Of course, being digital, it's not like you can prop it up on an easle at an auction and sell it for hundreds of millions; sure you could print it and sell it, but the original work is the digital copy... who's to say you won't just print another and devalue the one you just sold? That's where NFT's come in... by placing a copy of the digital work and assigning it an NFT, controlled by a trusted entity such (such as a digital marketplace like OpenSea)... which now goes "Well sure, people might run around with screenshots or right-click-save-as entities of this digital work (just like how plenty of copies of the Mona Lisa exist out there), but we hold the record that says this is the original, owned by this person". Hooray, now a digital artist can do a piece of art and be remunerated just like a proper artist. That sounds great right? What's the problem?
Oh lawd he comin'!
So there's a strong argument out there that most high-art sales are just financial scams. While I'd happily say #notAllArt, and there's some out there whose owners would genuinely believe it's worth a large sum of money, value is subjective with art; it has no intrinsic value. At the moment, the Mona Lisa was estimated to be worth ~ $100m USD in 1962, which translates to about $850m today. So if I buy the Mona Lisa for $2b, what's it worth? Ostensibly, $2b, if people out there want to pay that much to get ownership from me. And let's face it, there's a lot of people who would want to own it, whether for status, business (to display in a pay-to-access museum) or whatever.
But this is where the grift comes in.
Notwithstanding the destructive effects creating NFTs on the blockchain has, the "art" associated with it currently are low-effort pieces of, well, trash. But cryptocurrency offers a level of anonymity... so people will just make a bunch of trash art, "buy" it from themselves using a second account for a large sum, say, $10k, then people see "Oh wow, that sold for $10k, it must be worth it!" and then someone with too many dollars and not enough sense goes and buys it (naughty words in link) thinking it's genuinely worth that. But then it gets much worse.
Like with the Mona Lisa auction house and it's provenance records, a peer to peer digital marketplace will hold those records as well. But there's several reports out there now of these places being hacked and NFTs "stolen", transferred into other marketplaces with a new owner, because hooray decentralisation right? Now, in the case of the Mona Lisa, if the records of that are destroyed, well, the advantage is I still physically have it... and if there's any doubt, forensic inspection will prove that. If another trusted authority now says someone else owns a digital asset, and the authority saying I owned it is no longer trusted, and I can't physically show ownership.... welll.... gg?
That's kinda just the tip of the iceberg that is this stupidity, but man, that's way longer than I expected. Just go with what Ian said.
FD shouldn't go near these things.... so what would NFT's look like in Elite? Cobra IV's are a good example case; they were an exclusive access bonus to an amount of players in certain circumstances... in short, new instances of access to Cobra IV's cannot be created[1], and so they are finite and countable. FD could go ahead and create NFTs for the accounts with access to "prove they own" access to a Cobra IV, so FD would establish itself as the "trusted authority" as to who owns access to a Cobra IV.
But to what end? I suppose FD could set up the ability for players to "trade" access to Cobra IVs, though they'd also need to prevent someone using Cobra IVs they purchased while they had access, if they no longer have access. But again... why? So that someone with heaps of money just buys-up people's access to Cobra IVs and artifically inflates the market? And the other problem is, how long is ED and FD going to be around for? 5? 10? 20? 50 years? At some point, FD and ED will shutter and your records will be gone. Sure, FD could transfer them to some 3rd party, but to what end? The game would be shut down.
It's just a really bad idea and makes no sense. Don't get me wrong, if my description of NFTs sounded a bit "friendly", it's because non-fungible tokens have a use... but certifying "ownership" of digital assets is not a great use case, particularly in games. It's just creating artificial scarcity on something that doesn't need to be scarce, and it wrecks the planet in the process.
[1] Without FD going back on their exclusive
This will sum up my opinion :
NFTs and crypto are basically a pyramidal scheme. For some reason, there are no shortage of people who seems to think you can generate money out of thin air. I thought being a grown up involved knowing that was not possible. Especially after you stop believing in Santa Claus. Somewhere, at some point, someone will have spent that money, and lost it. Might even be you.
They both are cancer on the planet. They can be both used for shady money laundering and stuff like that. NFT have been also used to steal small creator work to be sold by [expletive meaning really bad] people.
NFT in particular is essentially pure speculation. I decide a picture is worth a certain amount of money, you buy it and resell it for more, until some sucker buy it and can't re-sell it anymore. See "pyramidal scheme".
As for Crypto, it's mostly responsible for the absurd prices in component, with GPU selling at 3times their normal prices, and more, hurting regular people.
Finally, since there is little oversight, they are both open to massive abuse and scam. There is not a week without yet another "fake" crypto or NFT being sold/stolen by unscrupulous people.
As a side note, when a major company say "it's good for the customer", it's a lie. They are not in the business of making customers happy, but to make money. I know it's obvious for about everyone, but some people seems to forget that.
Ubisoft are not the "good guys". And neither are any company adopting the NFT for the "good of their customers" as they pretend. They just found a way to make money without having to spend much in it to begin with. Slapping a blockchain on a random cash shop item is as cheap as can be.
NFTs and crypto are basically a pyramidal scheme. For some reason, there are no shortage of people who seems to think you can generate money out of thin air. I thought being a grown up involved knowing that was not possible. Especially after you stop believing in Santa Claus. Somewhere, at some point, someone will have spent that money, and lost it. Might even be you.
They both are cancer on the planet. They can be both used for shady money laundering and stuff like that. NFT have been also used to steal small creator work to be sold by [expletive meaning really bad] people.
NFT in particular is essentially pure speculation. I decide a picture is worth a certain amount of money, you buy it and resell it for more, until some sucker buy it and can't re-sell it anymore. See "pyramidal scheme".
As for Crypto, it's mostly responsible for the absurd prices in component, with GPU selling at 3times their normal prices, and more, hurting regular people.
Finally, since there is little oversight, they are both open to massive abuse and scam. There is not a week without yet another "fake" crypto or NFT being sold/stolen by unscrupulous people.
As a side note, when a major company say "it's good for the customer", it's a lie. They are not in the business of making customers happy, but to make money. I know it's obvious for about everyone, but some people seems to forget that.
Ubisoft are not the "good guys". And neither are any company adopting the NFT for the "good of their customers" as they pretend. They just found a way to make money without having to spend much in it to begin with. Slapping a blockchain on a random cash shop item is as cheap as can be.
Last edited:
Imagine you’re married to a beautiful woman, but she’s always sleeping around.
Your marriage certificate is the NFT.
Your marriage certificate is the NFT.
The quick answer is, in the same way that you add microtransactions to any game.
NFTs are functionally identical to microtransactions, in the way they are initially sold.
Obviously, theres the other aspect to them, the resale aspect, but the fact is its all a bit of a scam.
Deleted member 110222
D
Shove off with NFTs.
I don't give a damn about the money.
But the emissions they put out is ridiculous.
Last I checked there is a real need to be cutting emissions, but as soon as people see a chance to make a quick buck? That goes out the window.
Remember: Money is worthless if nobody is alive.
I don't give a damn about the money.
But the emissions they put out is ridiculous.
Last I checked there is a real need to be cutting emissions, but as soon as people see a chance to make a quick buck? That goes out the window.
Remember: Money is worthless if nobody is alive.
Buy Braben-Roberts Tickets and be able to use your Type-10 Defender in Star Citizen, or your Idris in Elite.
I'm sure that would work out splendidly
It could be used as a means for some players to sell their Cobra Mk IV to those who really want one.
Edit: just saw this:
That is actually Bitcoin/Etherium mining, not the NFT/blockchain itself. Again, the issue is in the utilisation of the technology, not the technology itself.
Deleted member 110222
D
Correct, and until they change this problem with emissions, anyone who is into crypto/NFTs is a terrible person not worth the air they breath.
When the emissions are not a problem, I'll shut up.
Seriously, I really do not give a damn about the money side of it.
I 100% support your idea, don't listen to the haters.
So NFTs coming soon to Star Citizen then...
I work in the field of creative digital coding and a lot of my associates are actively engaged in this area (some were directly involved in the inception of the NFT distribution platforms like Foundation, and are genuinely excited by the tech). Personally, I’ve always had serious misgivings about the philosophical underpinnings driving crypto thinking and where it’s all leading, and this is the best presentation of some of those concerns that I’m aware of. It's worth watching in full and I think it’s an important subject to discuss – the implications are quite broad. There's a segment about NFTs in games.
Last edited:
That is not really true. Those mining to gain bitcoin, I agree with you. However, there are NFTs that do not rely on mining and have the same carbon footprint as any other server/service on the internet. Cryto currency mining is the power hog, not the blockchain/NFT technology.
Deleted member 110222
D
Source?
No, seriously.
I think you can understand where I am coming from when I say I do not give trust to cryptobros, which you are starting to come across as.