Lost money on NFT

in Savings & Investments
123 replies 8.3K views
145791013

Replies

  • edited 12 January at 8:22PM
    Scottex99Scottex99 Forumite
    593 Posts
    Sixth Anniversary 500 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 12 January at 8:22PM

    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
  • FeralHogFeralHog Forumite
    620 Posts
    500 Posts Name Dropper First Anniversary
    Forumite
    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.
  • lozzy1965lozzy1965 Forumite
    551 Posts
    Tenth Anniversary 500 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    FeralHog 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.
  • lozzy1965lozzy1965 Forumite
    551 Posts
    Tenth Anniversary 500 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    I think if you work on that last answer a bit Malthusian you could get a book out of that.  Most amusing :)
  • edited 13 January at 11:07AM
    Zola.Zola. Forumite
    2.2K Posts
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Forumite
    edited 13 January at 11:07AM
    What value does an NFT provide? You don't own the copyright to the image. Seems like the biggest load of nonsense. 

    What mug would want to spend £100,000 on a picture of an ape that some teenager can draw in 10 minutes in Adobe Illustrator?

    The only use I can see in it is money laundering.
    "Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist" 
    "The purpose of the margin of safety is to render the forecast unnecessary" 
    "The borrower is slave to the lender."
    "Energy flows where attention goes"
  • edited 13 January at 10:42PM
    Scottex99Scottex99 Forumite
    593 Posts
    Sixth Anniversary 500 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 13 January at 10:42PM
    I wonder what Gavin actually bought, I hope he comes back one day and tells it.

    I still need to read this FCA thing but in other news someone offered me 5.55 ETH for an NFT I own this morning. Around $18k for an animation of a bunny in front of a blue lambo. The world works in mysterious ways
  • Gary1984Gary1984 Forumite
    214 Posts
    Seventh Anniversary 100 Posts Name Dropper
    Forumite
    Apparently people are more likely to spend money when using an unfamiliar currency. Sure why not spend 5.55 Ethereums on some nonsense, what's the big deal?
  • barnstar2077barnstar2077 Forumite
    1K Posts
    1,000 Posts Fifth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    Gary1984 said:
    Apparently people are more likely to spend money when using an unfamiliar currency. Sure why not spend 5.55 Ethereums on some nonsense, what's the big deal?
    I would have held out for 10 widgets or at least 3 twingos personally.
    Think first of your goal, then make it happen!
  • FeralHogFeralHog Forumite
    620 Posts
    500 Posts Name Dropper First Anniversary
    Forumite
    lozzy1965 said:
    FeralHog 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.
    Yes, I agree that explains it perfectly well.
    The problem is that, by trying to make more money out of games in the short term by adding NFTs to them, the companies may make them worse for gamers (which may damage their business in the longer term). The issue is that the new customers will only be in it in the hope of getting rich quick (from the NFTs), and they may well drive up the price of in-game purchases to a level that most existing customers (who are into playing the games) can't afford. Which could easily make the experience of playing the games much less satisfying. Even if that aspect doesn't turn out too badly, the companies will still be hiking the prices of the in-game items, at a time which is financially difficult for most people. Everything about this is negative for the dedicated gamers.
    And that's without mentioning the elephant in the room, that NFTs (and cryptos) are a really gratuitous contribution to the on-going climate catastrophe, because the blockchain is incredibly wasteful of energy.
    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.
    Well, it's a ponzi scheme if
    a) people are buying in the hope that they can sell later on for a higher price; and
    b) it adds no value other of any kind other than those future sales.
    Specifically for in-game items implemented as NFTs, as compared to "traditional" in-game NFTs, I can see absolutely no value added by the NFT part.
    For NFTs in general, I wouldn't make quite such a sweeping statement.
    For cryptos, clearly there is a use case as a currency for some drug dealing, extortion, money laundering, and other illicit transactions. (Though some of those are bad things - i.e. except the drugs :).) However, the "market capitalization" of cryptos seems extremely high, consdering how niche those uses are, and that cryptos have failed to catch on as general-purpose currencies. So the prices are mainly driven by the speculation/ponzi aspect.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Latest MSE News and Guides