Lost money on NFT

tr7phil

lozzy1965 said:

No different to buying the big toe bone of a saint.  It has no value but makes the owner feel good about owning it.

I didn't know you could do that, I thought they were only available in full sets of ten...

lozzy1965

tr7phil said:

lozzy1965 said:

No different to buying the big toe bone of a saint.  It has no value but makes the owner feel good about owning it.

I didn't know you could do that, I thought they were only available in full sets of ten...

Don't be foolish!  No one has 10 big toes!!!!

Gary1984

I bet Andre the Giant did. 

kuratowski

According to John Calvin, who tallied up the saints' bones stored in various reliquaries across Europe, several saints were blessed with more than the usual number of limbs, torsos, and no doubt toes.

Malthusian

Competition time: if anyone can tell me why the potential implications of NFTs for video gaming are discussed on boards like "MoneySavingExpert Savings & Investments" and not on forums about video games, they will win a link that currently points to a picture of a cookie.

Hint: the answer includes the words "rich" "quick" and "getting".

Alexland

tr7phil said:

I didn't know you could do that, I thought they were only available in full sets of ten...

Blackadder was well ahead on NFTs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyF7YmHYhYc

dunstonh

kuratowski said:

According to John Calvin, who tallied up the saints' bones stored in various reliquaries across Europe, several saints were blessed with more than the usual number of limbs, torsos, and no doubt toes.

Most saints most have come from Norfolk.

Scottex99

lozzy1965 said:

Scottex99 said:

I also have bought some stupid cartoon mushrooms where the dev team had a cool website, had all this cool utility planned and then they just disappeared, the value went to 0 of all them. Few hundred quid down the drain, no biggy. I'd rather have fun looking at all this stuff and crypto in general than sit on the sidelines saying its all useless and a scam.

Of course some people have fun by calling out things that don't logically make any sense   And that costs nothing.

Don’t logically make sense… to them.

But yeah valid point 

Scottex99

As previously discussed, if you buy an NFT that represents a spell that deals 100,000 damage the game developers will still be able to nerf it, rendering it worthless.

If the developers are unable to rebalance it because "we can't upset the NFT hodlers", nobody is going to play the game because it will be unfair, unbalanced and unfun. Apart from the existing crypto / NFT mob who don't care about playability. Developers don't constantly tweak the rules instead of hitting the beach and counting their money just because they want to annoy future billionaires. They do it because they want people to keep playing.

Creating a balanced and enjoyable video game is incompatible with creating a money game that people will pump money into. You can do one or the other but not both.

Gamers, like most people, aren't interested in getting rich quick. They just want to play.

4. Lol. NFTs and Crypto isn’t all about getting rich.

If you say so. FCA research and these threads confirm that most crypto punters are interested in one thing, getting rich quick. Any time someone in a money game tells you it's not about money, it's about money.

Last game I played was RDR2. Had gold guns and jackets made out of raccoons, the lot. Now wouldn’t it be cool if those items could be transferred into RDR3?

Like when I transferred my Eye of the Beholder party into Eye of the Beholder 2 in the early 90s? Apparently it wasn't cool enough for it to be worth the developers making the effort in this particular game, namely the task of ensuring that the game was still balanced for those who could import saves. (I.e. not ludicrously easy as you mowed down early-game mobs with your imported late-game gun.) But it's been an option available to developers for every sequel since the age of floppy disks.

I don't mind if game developers throw crap at the wall in the hope that some of it sticks, but if they start claiming that said crap is going to be worth millions and make everyone rich, they should expect to be laughed at. Likewise if they start claiming that games will be more fun if you can spend millions to buy an instant-win spell that the developers can't nerf.

But again you’re completely assuming that the NFT part of it is all get rich quick and the gaming company somehow hasn’t considered that having super powerful items that only the rich can obtain would spoil their game.

Your last FCA research paper was a complete joke sample of 31 people but fair play this one actually looks worth reading. So I will. 

Still though what is any investor looking to do? No investor puts money into things to get less back otherwise they’d just be called spenders

lozzy1965

Deleted_User said:

Purchases (with real money) for in-game items already exist. What does linking them to NFTs add? Nothing.

Why are some games companies thinking of doing it anyway? The only things I can think of are:

1) they hope to cash in on the NFT hype, and sell them for more money than in-game items usually sell for because they are NFTs, to people who foolishly think that games-related NFTs will be good "investments" (probably to people who aren't real gamers, i.e. who are only getting into the game because of the NFT angle).

2) they are themselves long crypto or NFTs, and want to keep the whole hype/ponzi going longer.

Feel free to suggest any other plausible explanations.

1)  ie.  The games company are looking for more ways to broaden the appeal of their game and also make more money from their game.  
No more explanations needed.  When one has a product, one wants to max sales and max an income stream from it.  Absolutely nothing wrong with that.  Players can always chose not to play the game or not to make additional purchases.  It's just another string to the in game purchase argument.  Some people like to have a big expensive car and some people just want something to get from A to B.  People choose hoe they spend their money for their enjoyment.

2)  Hype is correct, which might prove to be correct or incorrect in time.  Ponzi?  There has been plenty of debate about this, in my view it isn't.