Saw an article today that said some guy bought a NFT of the very first tweet for 3 million dollars and has been trying to resell it for 48 million.....Some people just have too much money and never enough at the same time.
The NFT in question was the first tweet ever by the creator of twitter and "some guy" is Sina Stavi one of the better known cryptobros.
Here is the free version of the NFT in question for your historical enjoyment. Presumably the NFT version of it brings you even more enjoyment:
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Saw an article today that said some guy bought a NFT of the very first tweet for 3 million dollars and has been trying to resell it for 48 million.....Some people just have too much money and never enough at the same time.
The NFT in question was the first tweet ever by the creator of twitter and "some guy" is Sina Stavi one of the better known cryptobros.
Here is the free version of the NFT in question for your historical enjoyment. Presumably the NFT version of it brings you even more enjoyment:
I miss the good old days when people collected real art, like this:
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Saw it somewhere else, might as well try to start a trend.
MMONFT seems appropriate for these new P2E games where making money is almost entirely their focus with any sort of design or gameplay being almost an afterthought.
I'm sure there's some creative people here who can place words to the NFT portion of the acronym, but if not doesn't matter, pretty accurate all by itself I think.
If that's going to be the standard every MMO needs a new acronym of similar specificity.
MMOSUB, MMOB2P, MMOF2P, MMOMIX and so on as the bottom line for the existence of all of them is the profit hoped to be derived from them by someone, somehow.
Saw it somewhere else, might as well try to start a trend.
MMONFT seems appropriate for these new P2E games where making money is almost entirely their focus with any sort of design or gameplay being almost an afterthought.
I'm sure there's some creative people here who can place words to the NFT portion of the acronym, but if not doesn't matter, pretty accurate all by itself I think.
If that's going to be the standard every MMO needs a new acronym of similar specificity.
MMOSUB, MMOB2P, MMOF2P, MMOMIX and so on as the bottom line for the existence of all of them is the profit hoped to be derived from them by someone, somehow.
I can't agree, while online games certainly have always been designed with the thought of how to maximize their revenues over longer periods of time (GaaS is not a new concept) this time is different.
NFT / Crypto games definitely promote their potential to earn gamers money, touting the many benefits of in game assets via NFTs including selling on company created market places or via cryptocurrency, with far less thought to actual game play, unlike MMOs with other forms of monetization.
Even the worst game previously might have opened with "Free to Play Forever!" but quickly moved on to multiple paragraphs on it's gameplay.
Read story on RGs new MMONFT and tell me which do you know more about right now, how the land sales will work, including why they arose or what classes the new game will have and what design thinking will be employed?
Gamers actually have to be given an education in Crypto and NFTs first in order to succeed, yet most people can have a decent experience in even a crap mobile title with needing to know very little outside of don't buy anything extra as its always a trap.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Saw it somewhere else, might as well try to start a trend.
MMONFT seems appropriate for these new P2E games where making money is almost entirely their focus with any sort of design or gameplay being almost an afterthought.
I'm sure there's some creative people here who can place words to the NFT portion of the acronym, but if not doesn't matter, pretty accurate all by itself I think.
If that's going to be the standard every MMO needs a new acronym of similar specificity.
MMOSUB, MMOB2P, MMOF2P, MMOMIX and so on as the bottom line for the existence of all of them is the profit hoped to be derived from them by someone, somehow.
I can't agree, while online games certainly have always been designed with the thought of how to maximize their revenues over longer periods of time (GaaS is not a new concept) this time is different.
NFT / Crypto games definitely promote their potential to earn gamers money, touting the many benefits of in game assets via NFTs including selling on company created market places or via cryptocurrency, with far less thought to actual game play, unlike MMOs with other forms of monetization.
Even the worst game previously might have opened with "Free to Play Forever!" but quickly moved on to multiple paragraphs on it's gameplay.
Read story on RGs new MMONFT and tell me which do you know more about right now, how the land sales will work, including why they arose or what classes the new game will have and what design thinking will be employed?
Gamers actually have to be given an education in Crypto and NFTs first in order to succeed, yet most people can have a decent experience in even a crap mobile title with needing to know very little outside of don't buy anything extra as its always a trap.
Get rich opportunities or schemes depending are nothing new either, making the novelty pretty much limited to now being also connected to gaming when they previously were not.
The standard caveats apply.
If it sounds too good to be true it probably is. Don't invest more in high risk propositions than you are willing to and can comfortably lose. Research before you get involved with anything of if unable consult with someone that can.
This is old ground with a new tent on it.
If it all sounds like too much bother or too much in general there is a surefire strategy for breaking even. Keep your investing out of gaming and your gaming out of investing. It's a guaranteed no win/loss outcome that requires learning nothing. That's going to be my approach.
Saw an article today that said some guy bought a NFT of the very first tweet for 3 million dollars and has been trying to resell it for 48 million.....Some people just have too much money and never enough at the same time.
The NFT in question was the first tweet ever by the creator of twitter and "some guy" is Sina Stavi one of the better known cryptobros.
Here is the free version of the NFT in question for your historical enjoyment. Presumably the NFT version of it brings you even more enjoyment:
In my opinion the new subgenre would be MMOP2E because the games in question are usually play to earn games and blockchain games without NFT's could still have tokens.
Even though the premise of 'Play 2 Earn' is fundamentally flawed.
I think we shouldn't use term 'Play 2 Earn' at all because the players as a group will never earn anything. They just transfer money from losing players to winning ones, with the devs taking cut for operating the system. Maybe we could call it 'Play 4 Money' games to indicate that playing for money is essential part of the game.
It's misleading because when you think of "earn" you expect to earn money. But you really only have the ability to earn "assets". Tokens and nfts, and then sell those assets for "money" (more crypto, usually a proprietary token) then bridge that to another currency you can actually cash out.
The thing is, you may never sell what you "earn" because the earn able stuff can be earned by most people anyways. I have a few nfts in a few games and I haven't sold anything. Granted I haven't really been aggressive about selling but still, my history would show I didn't earn any actual money.
"lost" some. As in I bought an nft cosmetic that I like. Haven't tried selling it, but if I do, I would suspect I'd probably take a small loss because cashing out often requires gas or transfer fees on top of transaction fees.
Blankos takes somewhere around 20% of transaction as a fee? And that's just to get the item sold. You see why some people price nfts so high? Sometimes they may not even be trying to massively profit, they just don't want to take a loss.
You take a 100% loss on anything that you don't sell.
This is actually a common way to botch your accounting and make people think that they're earning money even as they're losing it. Suppose that you buy three NFTs for $100 each. After some time, one is worth $150 and the other two are worth $50 each.
If you sell the one that went up and not the two that went down, you might think that you gained $50, even as you're actually down $50. And if you won't sell the other two until you can at least break even, then you're probably going to end up down $150. And that's even before you consider transaction fees taking a bite.
They guarantee zip. There is no guarantee that the seller actually owns the item they're based on.
They arent even "non-fungible". Its no problem to create multiple NFTs for the same item. Its literally just filename based.
And yes there are people who waste millions on them. Just like there are people who waste millions to buy real estate in the Metaverse by Meta the company formerly known as Facebook.
This just proves that people fall for scams. And that some rich people are idiots. Just like some regular people are.
They guarantee zip. There is no guarantee that the seller actually owns the item they're based on.
They arent even "non-fungible". Its no problem to create multiple NFTs for the same item. Its literally just filename based.
And yes there are people who waste millions on them. Just like there are people who waste millions to buy real estate in the Metaverse by Meta the company formerly known as Facebook.
This just proves that people fall for scams. And that some rich people are idiots. Just like some regular people are.
The token itself is non fungible, meaning the hash associated with the token cannot be changed. The item it is associated with technically can.
But you won't win many arguments saying an NFT isn't an NFT. Creating a knock off of a valid asset and selling it separately is fraud, and that's essentially why the token itself matters. There's a history to it, and smart buyers can trace the origins back to the original creators.
Kind of pointless in gaming nfts most of the time since the majority of what you're buying has utility and is traded and created in a game.
NFT gaming is in its infancy and, already, rich players are "employing" folks from poorer countries to help them "earn" in-game. This certainly seems a pointless evolution that really does nothing to improve games for gamers.
I guess in the future we will finally find out that the universe as we see it is really just a simulation in a P2E game by our superiors. My work online to earn money is really just another P2E "game" in the hologram that is our universe. (BTW, physicists take seriously the idea that the universe we see is a hologram.)
NFT gaming is in its infancy and, already, rich players are "employing" folks from poorer countries to help them "earn" in-game. This certainly seems a pointless evolution that really does nothing to improve games for gamers.
I wouldn't take anything they write over there related to blockchain as anything more than pandering to their base, primarily focused on "taking down" blockchain gaming. It's often misdirected and ill-informed.
This is like saying, "how can goldsellers work" because they employ people to farm gold / exploit players / play in game markets.
It just so happens that in this case, players are employing players, in a game that is pretty terrible to begin with.
But it's their prerogative to do that. Is it supposed to "help gamers" that they put this kind of system in? Define "help gamers".
If axies are a commodity and these axie farmers are flooding the market with farmed axies, it should in turn reduce the price of axies, which *should* make it more accessible to new players.
But the problem is Axie didn't follow the route to a proper economy so the system was basically doomed to fail from the get go, with or without the hack, and part of why axie is redeveloping their systems to cater to new players, and redoubling its focus on the gameplay.
And the recent investment round to combat the hack totaled somewhere around 150 million. Sales of axies jumped around 350% post hack.
Even though the game is losing popularity, and has been for months prior to the hack these metrics show that the developer isn't folding.
But in all honesty it needs to. The only way games like this will hit the mainstream is if they ditch the investment plan and instead make it about the game, with not just utility based assets but utility based pricing, not speculative pricing.
Then they need a solid burn protocol where players actively want to burn their axies to increase the power/rarity/value.
Few studios understand this. But more importantly there are several other valid economies related to blockchain that are based on skill and not on wild incomprehensible investments. The problem is, we may wait years before the bottom falls out of speculative investing and we get valid projects that are more suited to "being for gamers".
NFT gaming is in its infancy and, already, rich players are "employing" folks from poorer countries to help them "earn" in-game. This certainly seems a pointless evolution that really does nothing to improve games for gamers.
It in fact harms games for Gamers (PtW, costs, harnessed game rewards). Unless, by "gamer", you mean "fools."
I wouldn't take anything they write over there related to blockchain as anything more than pandering to their base, primarily focused on "taking down" blockchain gaming. It's often misdirected and ill-informed.
This is like saying, "how can goldsellers work" because they employ people to farm gold / exploit players / play in game markets.
It just so happens that in this case, players are employing players, in a game that is pretty terrible to begin with.
But it's their prerogative to do that. Is it supposed to "help gamers" that they put this kind of system in? Define "help gamers".
If axies are a commodity and these axie farmers are flooding the market with farmed axies, it should in turn reduce the price of axies, which *should* make it more accessible to new players.
But the problem is Axie didn't follow the route to a proper economy so the system was basically doomed to fail from the get go, with or without the hack, and part of why axie is redeveloping their systems to cater to new players, and redoubling its focus on the gameplay.
And the recent investment round to combat the hack totaled somewhere around 150 million. Sales of axies jumped around 350% post hack.
Even though the game is losing popularity, and has been for months prior to the hack these metrics show that the developer isn't folding.
But in all honesty it needs to. The only way games like this will hit the mainstream is if they ditch the investment plan and instead make it about the game, with not just utility based assets but utility based pricing, not speculative pricing.
Then they need a solid burn protocol where players actively want to burn their axies to increase the power/rarity/value.
Few studios understand this. But more importantly there are several other valid economies related to blockchain that are based on skill and not on wild incomprehensible investments. The problem is, we may wait years before the bottom falls out of speculative investing and we get valid projects that are more suited to "being for gamers".
For any long-term viability, even players burning their axies to increase the power/rarity/value won't help. That only leads to either a) Long-term players gaining so much power that newbies quit instead of trying to catch up, causing the game to wither and die, or b) All game assets losing their value because the devs must keep giving newbies ways to catch up at reasonable price and effort
What real-money economy games need to be viable in long term is have the gameplay consume more resources than it gives, like Entropia Universe does.
Or alternatively they need to move away from the concept of power, and just get their players chase for cosmetics or other things that won't give in-game advantage.
Mmonft is not a classification, otherwise you might as well have a mmof2p classification too.
Obviously both changes the fundamental game design of the game by changing the developers focus on how to make money from the game. But I wouldn't go as far as to call either a genre; they are just monetization models with far reaching consequences.
Btw if you want to see an example of how a nft game will be like, look at Entropia; even though it doesn't use nft (afaik? Yet?) the fundamentals are similar.. Earn to play, earn to speculate in virtual stuff - the dev then continously making up new virtual stuff that they can sell as long as players and dev keep the value increasing machine going..
Mmonft is not a classification, otherwise you might as well have a mmof2p classification too.
Obviously both changes the fundamental game design of the game by changing the developers focus on how to make money from the game. But I wouldn't go as far as to call either a genre; they are just monetization models with far reaching consequences.
Btw if you want to see an example of how a nft game will be like, look at Entropia; even though it doesn't use nft (afaik? Yet?) the fundamentals are similar.. Earn to play, earn to speculate in virtual stuff - the dev then continously making up new virtual stuff that they can sell as long as players and dev keep the value increasing machine going..
Entropia is a gives a good idea of where we are headed, in some ways NFT's and Cryptocurrency are using the mask of collectables and Playing to Earn to make this seem like something different.
Mmonft is not a classification, otherwise you might as well have a mmof2p classification too.
Obviously both changes the fundamental game design of the game by changing the developers focus on how to make money from the game. But I wouldn't go as far as to call either a genre; they are just monetization models with far reaching consequences.
Btw if you want to see an example of how a nft game will be like, look at Entropia; even though it doesn't use nft (afaik? Yet?) the fundamentals are similar.. Earn to play, earn to speculate in virtual stuff - the dev then continously making up new virtual stuff that they can sell as long as players and dev keep the value increasing machine going..
Have played Entropia?
It's a game where hunting and gathering use more resources than the drops are worth. Basically, if you want to get 100 PED worth of loot (PED is their unit of money), then you should expect to pay 105 PED for the ammunition, equipment and repair costs.
Sometimes you may get lucky and get profit. Other times you may get unlucky and lose money. But when you average out all those attempts, players are constantly losing PED to the company operating the game.
So the game is not a value increasing machine. It's a loop where the game consistently sucks player money, forcing someone to buy more from cash shop to keep the economy going.
Mmonft is not a classification, otherwise you might as well have a mmof2p classification too.
Obviously both changes the fundamental game design of the game by changing the developers focus on how to make money from the game. But I wouldn't go as far as to call either a genre; they are just monetization models with far reaching consequences.
Btw if you want to see an example of how a nft game will be like, look at Entropia; even though it doesn't use nft (afaik? Yet?) the fundamentals are similar.. Earn to play, earn to speculate in virtual stuff - the dev then continously making up new virtual stuff that they can sell as long as players and dev keep the value increasing machine going..
Have played Entropia?
It's a game where hunting and gathering use more resources than the drops are worth. Basically, if you want to get 100 PED worth of loot (PED is their unit of money), then you should expect to pay 105 PED for the ammunition, equipment and repair costs.
Sometimes you may get lucky and get profit. Other times you may get unlucky and lose money. But when you average out all those attempts, players are constantly losing PED to the company operating the game.
So the game is not a value increasing machine. It's a loop where the game consistently sucks player money, forcing someone to buy more from cash shop to keep the economy going.
No haven't played. I was under the impression that the dev sell "stuff" (land, recipes, guns, ?) in finite batches, and create a demand for it so the prices increase. Then regularly releases new content with a batch of new types of finite resources. I could have gotten this wrong, I have it from a streamer, not from own research.
Mmonft is not a classification, otherwise you might as well have a mmof2p classification too.
Obviously both changes the fundamental game design of the game by changing the developers focus on how to make money from the game. But I wouldn't go as far as to call either a genre; they are just monetization models with far reaching consequences.
Btw if you want to see an example of how a nft game will be like, look at Entropia; even though it doesn't use nft (afaik? Yet?) the fundamentals are similar.. Earn to play, earn to speculate in virtual stuff - the dev then continously making up new virtual stuff that they can sell as long as players and dev keep the value increasing machine going..
Entropa was never really referred to as earn to play, rather it's long been described as a casino where players spend money hoping to hit it big gambling on a big drop or score.
They do have land sales, heck they sold entire planets and yes, nary a NFT in sight.
Yet Entropa has long been ridiculed and scorned by a majority of "gamers," for the model, yet at it's core they definitely have a solid game, unlike most of these newer MMONFTs.
As for the reason for a new classification, go back and read my two or three other posts made previously in this thread as it's clear you skipped past them all.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I wouldn't take anything they write over there related to blockchain as anything more than pandering to their base, primarily focused on "taking down" blockchain gaming. It's often misdirected and ill-informed.
This is like saying, "how can goldsellers work" because they employ people to farm gold / exploit players / play in game markets.
It just so happens that in this case, players are employing players, in a game that is pretty terrible to begin with.
But it's their prerogative to do that. Is it supposed to "help gamers" that they put this kind of system in? Define "help gamers".
If axies are a commodity and these axie farmers are flooding the market with farmed axies, it should in turn reduce the price of axies, which *should* make it more accessible to new players.
But the problem is Axie didn't follow the route to a proper economy so the system was basically doomed to fail from the get go, with or without the hack, and part of why axie is redeveloping their systems to cater to new players, and redoubling its focus on the gameplay.
And the recent investment round to combat the hack totaled somewhere around 150 million. Sales of axies jumped around 350% post hack.
Even though the game is losing popularity, and has been for months prior to the hack these metrics show that the developer isn't folding.
But in all honesty it needs to. The only way games like this will hit the mainstream is if they ditch the investment plan and instead make it about the game, with not just utility based assets but utility based pricing, not speculative pricing.
Then they need a solid burn protocol where players actively want to burn their axies to increase the power/rarity/value.
Few studios understand this. But more importantly there are several other valid economies related to blockchain that are based on skill and not on wild incomprehensible investments. The problem is, we may wait years before the bottom falls out of speculative investing and we get valid projects that are more suited to "being for gamers".
For any long-term viability, even players burning their axies to increase the power/rarity/value won't help. That only leads to either a) Long-term players gaining so much power that newbies quit instead of trying to catch up, causing the game to wither and die, or b) All game assets losing their value because the devs must keep giving newbies ways to catch up at reasonable price and effort
What real-money economy games need to be viable in long term is have the gameplay consume more resources than it gives, like Entropia Universe does.
Or alternatively they need to move away from the concept of power, and just get their players chase for cosmetics or other things that won't give in-game advantage.
Agreed, for axie, it's kind of a wash. The game was never really built with a proper economy in mind, at this point there's no real viable way to prop up the economy outside of the premise of power or rarity, because the game itself really isn't worth playing if you take out the earning aspect.
That's really the main problem. They built the entire premise on earning, and the drive to continue playing is earning. You would think that would be the biggest driver and it would be increasingly popular, but it's leads to a clear end point where the "high earners" become the only ones left playing because others can't compete, and the only reason for new players to start the game is so that they can earn. But when you have only the elite creating and providing the assets, including forced pricing of them, eventually the bottom falls out, and that's what we've been seeing over the past few months.
Other games focus primarily on cosmetics for their NFT's, or have arbitrary boosts that are not in game advantage focused. Unfortunately many of them are still more in an early access state, and they aren't really focused on only earning as their main driver. They want to be good games. But we're still far off from that.
In my opinion there are a lot of things that blockchain games need to do to become viable. I guess we'll see what happens, but I've never liked Axie.
"What real-money economy games need to be viable in long term is have the
gameplay consume more resources than it gives, like Entropia Universe
does."
I have no idea how Entropia survives as a game...It has a nice looking world but the gameplay is just awful....I guess it is games like Entropia that give these NFT/Blockchain dreams hope.
Mmonft is not a classification, otherwise you might as well have a mmof2p classification too.
Obviously both changes the fundamental game design of the game by changing the developers focus on how to make money from the game. But I wouldn't go as far as to call either a genre; they are just monetization models with far reaching consequences.
Btw if you want to see an example of how a nft game will be like, look at Entropia; even though it doesn't use nft (afaik? Yet?) the fundamentals are similar.. Earn to play, earn to speculate in virtual stuff - the dev then continously making up new virtual stuff that they can sell as long as players and dev keep the value increasing machine going..
Entropa was never really referred to as earn to play, rather it's long been described as a casino where players spend money hoping to hit it big gambling on a big drop or score.
They do have land sales, heck they sold entire planets and yes, nary a NFT in sight.
Yet Entropa has long been ridiculed and scorned by a majority of "gamers," for the model, yet at it's core they definitely have a solid game, unlike most of these newer MMONFTs.
As for the reason for a new classification, go back and read my two or three other posts made previously in this thread as it's clear you skipped past them all.
And yet we have had players on here telling us they have made money out of it, it was 'play and pay to earn' to them. That said it seemed to me that had quite a bit of money tied up in the game to earn and I think it will be the same here. You will need to take a bigger risk to earn anything beyond peanuts and subsequently you will need to risk more just to make the time spent seem worth while in your own eyes. Thus creating a classic rube psychology.
I wouldn't take anything they write over there related to blockchain as anything more than pandering to their base, primarily focused on "taking down" blockchain gaming. It's often misdirected and ill-informed.
This is like saying, "how can goldsellers work" because they employ people to farm gold / exploit players / play in game markets.
It just so happens that in this case, players are employing players, in a game that is pretty terrible to begin with.
But it's their prerogative to do that. Is it supposed to "help gamers" that they put this kind of system in? Define "help gamers".
If axies are a commodity and these axie farmers are flooding the market with farmed axies, it should in turn reduce the price of axies, which *should* make it more accessible to new players.
But the problem is Axie didn't follow the route to a proper economy so the system was basically doomed to fail from the get go, with or without the hack, and part of why axie is redeveloping their systems to cater to new players, and redoubling its focus on the gameplay.
And the recent investment round to combat the hack totaled somewhere around 150 million. Sales of axies jumped around 350% post hack.
Even though the game is losing popularity, and has been for months prior to the hack these metrics show that the developer isn't folding.
But in all honesty it needs to. The only way games like this will hit the mainstream is if they ditch the investment plan and instead make it about the game, with not just utility based assets but utility based pricing, not speculative pricing.
Then they need a solid burn protocol where players actively want to burn their axies to increase the power/rarity/value.
Few studios understand this. But more importantly there are several other valid economies related to blockchain that are based on skill and not on wild incomprehensible investments. The problem is, we may wait years before the bottom falls out of speculative investing and we get valid projects that are more suited to "being for gamers".
For any long-term viability, even players burning their axies to increase the power/rarity/value won't help. That only leads to either a) Long-term players gaining so much power that newbies quit instead of trying to catch up, causing the game to wither and die, or b) All game assets losing their value because the devs must keep giving newbies ways to catch up at reasonable price and effort
What real-money economy games need to be viable in long term is have the gameplay consume more resources than it gives, like Entropia Universe does.
Or alternatively they need to move away from the concept of power, and just get their players chase for cosmetics or other things that won't give in-game advantage.
the game itself really isn't worth playing if you take out the earning aspect.
That's really the main problem. They built the entire premise on earning, and the drive to continue playing is earning... eventually the bottom falls out
Which is true of almost all crypto / NFT games, which is why they deserve their own label.
From a player's perspective, even if looking for a F2P MMO, they still are looking for a fun game first and foremost, but with these NFT titles, it's almost entirely about the player's earnings and if you take that away ...
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Mmonft is not a classification, otherwise you might as well have a mmof2p classification too.
Obviously both changes the fundamental game design of the game by changing the developers focus on how to make money from the game. But I wouldn't go as far as to call either a genre; they are just monetization models with far reaching consequences.
Btw if you want to see an example of how a nft game will be like, look at Entropia; even though it doesn't use nft (afaik? Yet?) the fundamentals are similar.. Earn to play, earn to speculate in virtual stuff - the dev then continously making up new virtual stuff that they can sell as long as players and dev keep the value increasing machine going..
Entropa was never really referred to as earn to play, rather it's long been described as a casino where players spend money hoping to hit it big gambling on a big drop or score.
They do have land sales, heck they sold entire planets and yes, nary a NFT in sight.
Yet Entropa has long been ridiculed and scorned by a majority of "gamers," for the model, yet at it's core they definitely have a solid game, unlike most of these newer MMONFTs.
As for the reason for a new classification, go back and read my two or three other posts made previously in this thread as it's clear you skipped past them all.
And yet we have had players on here telling us they have made money out of it, it was 'play and pay to earn' to them. That said it seemed to me that had quite a bit of money tied up in the game to earn and I think it will be the same here. You will need to take a bigger risk to earn anything beyond peanuts and subsequently you will need to risk more just to make the time spent seem worth while in your own eyes. Thus creating a classic rube psychology.
Been my experience that gamblers almost always tell you a how much they win, never about their losses.
It's like how does the house ever survive if there are never any losers?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Mmonft is not a classification, otherwise you might as well have a mmof2p classification too.
Obviously both changes the fundamental game design of the game by changing the developers focus on how to make money from the game. But I wouldn't go as far as to call either a genre; they are just monetization models with far reaching consequences.
Btw if you want to see an example of how a nft game will be like, look at Entropia; even though it doesn't use nft (afaik? Yet?) the fundamentals are similar.. Earn to play, earn to speculate in virtual stuff - the dev then continously making up new virtual stuff that they can sell as long as players and dev keep the value increasing machine going..
Entropa was never really referred to as earn to play, rather it's long been described as a casino where players spend money hoping to hit it big gambling on a big drop or score.
They do have land sales, heck they sold entire planets and yes, nary a NFT in sight.
Yet Entropa has long been ridiculed and scorned by a majority of "gamers," for the model, yet at it's core they definitely have a solid game, unlike most of these newer MMONFTs.
As for the reason for a new classification, go back and read my two or three other posts made previously in this thread as it's clear you skipped past them all.
And yet we have had players on here telling us they have made money out of it, it was 'play and pay to earn' to them. That said it seemed to me that had quite a bit of money tied up in the game to earn and I think it will be the same here. You will need to take a bigger risk to earn anything beyond peanuts and subsequently you will need to risk more just to make the time spent seem worth while in your own eyes. Thus creating a classic rube psychology.
Been my experience that gamblers almost always tell you a how much they win, never about their losses.
It's like how does the house ever survive if there are never any losers?
Same thing with investing...Oh man if you'd have put $5 on such and such crypto you'd have gazillions right now....All we hear is the "winners" but in this day and age of constant fake news, I don't believe a word of it.
Comments
I think... I came a little... LOL
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
If that's going to be the standard every MMO needs a new acronym of similar specificity.
MMOSUB, MMOB2P, MMOF2P, MMOMIX and so on as the bottom line for the existence of all of them is the profit hoped to be derived from them by someone, somehow.
NFT / Crypto games definitely promote their potential to earn gamers money, touting the many benefits of in game assets via NFTs including selling on company created market places or via cryptocurrency, with far less thought to actual game play, unlike MMOs with other forms of monetization.
Even the worst game previously might have opened with "Free to Play Forever!" but quickly moved on to multiple paragraphs on it's gameplay.
Read story on RGs new MMONFT and tell me which do you know more about right now, how the land sales will work, including why they arose or what classes the new game will have and what design thinking will be employed?
Gamers actually have to be given an education in Crypto and NFTs first in order to succeed, yet most people can have a decent experience in even a crap mobile title with needing to know very little outside of don't buy anything extra as its always a trap.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Get rich opportunities or schemes depending are nothing new either, making the novelty pretty much limited to now being also connected to gaming when they previously were not.
The standard caveats apply.
If it sounds too good to be true it probably is. Don't invest more in high risk propositions than you are willing to and can comfortably lose. Research before you get involved with anything of if unable consult with someone that can.
This is old ground with a new tent on it.
If it all sounds like too much bother or too much in general there is a surefire strategy for breaking even. Keep your investing out of gaming and your gaming out of investing. It's a guaranteed no win/loss outcome that requires learning nothing. That's going to be my approach.
This is actually a common way to botch your accounting and make people think that they're earning money even as they're losing it. Suppose that you buy three NFTs for $100 each. After some time, one is worth $150 and the other two are worth $50 each.
If you sell the one that went up and not the two that went down, you might think that you gained $50, even as you're actually down $50. And if you won't sell the other two until you can at least break even, then you're probably going to end up down $150. And that's even before you consider transaction fees taking a bite.
But you won't win many arguments saying an NFT isn't an NFT. Creating a knock off of a valid asset and selling it separately is fraud, and that's essentially why the token itself matters. There's a history to it, and smart buyers can trace the origins back to the original creators.
Kind of pointless in gaming nfts most of the time since the majority of what you're buying has utility and is traded and created in a game.
From an article over at MassivelyOP: https://massivelyop.com/2022/04/15/lawful-neutral-how-is-an-nft-mmo-even-supposed-to-work/
NFT gaming is in its infancy and, already, rich players are "employing" folks from poorer countries to help them "earn" in-game. This certainly seems a pointless evolution that really does nothing to improve games for gamers.
Once upon a time....
This is like saying, "how can goldsellers work" because they employ people to farm gold / exploit players / play in game markets.
It just so happens that in this case, players are employing players, in a game that is pretty terrible to begin with.
But it's their prerogative to do that. Is it supposed to "help gamers" that they put this kind of system in? Define "help gamers".
If axies are a commodity and these axie farmers are flooding the market with farmed axies, it should in turn reduce the price of axies, which *should* make it more accessible to new players.
But the problem is Axie didn't follow the route to a proper economy so the system was basically doomed to fail from the get go, with or without the hack, and part of why axie is redeveloping their systems to cater to new players, and redoubling its focus on the gameplay.
https://decrypt.co/92758/play-to-earn-ethereum-nft-game-axie-infinity-free-to-play
And the recent investment round to combat the hack totaled somewhere around 150 million. Sales of axies jumped around 350% post hack.
Even though the game is losing popularity, and has been for months prior to the hack these metrics show that the developer isn't folding.
But in all honesty it needs to. The only way games like this will hit the mainstream is if they ditch the investment plan and instead make it about the game, with not just utility based assets but utility based pricing, not speculative pricing.
Then they need a solid burn protocol where players actively want to burn their axies to increase the power/rarity/value.
Few studios understand this. But more importantly there are several other valid economies related to blockchain that are based on skill and not on wild incomprehensible investments. The problem is, we may wait years before the bottom falls out of speculative investing and we get valid projects that are more suited to "being for gamers".
Once upon a time....
a) Long-term players gaining so much power that newbies quit instead of trying to catch up, causing the game to wither and die, or
b) All game assets losing their value because the devs must keep giving newbies ways to catch up at reasonable price and effort
What real-money economy games need to be viable in long term is have the gameplay consume more resources than it gives, like Entropia Universe does.
Or alternatively they need to move away from the concept of power, and just get their players chase for cosmetics or other things that won't give in-game advantage.
Obviously both changes the fundamental game design of the game by changing the developers focus on how to make money from the game. But I wouldn't go as far as to call either a genre; they are just monetization models with far reaching consequences.
Btw if you want to see an example of how a nft game will be like, look at Entropia; even though it doesn't use nft (afaik? Yet?) the fundamentals are similar.. Earn to play, earn to speculate in virtual stuff - the dev then continously making up new virtual stuff that they can sell as long as players and dev keep the value increasing machine going..
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
It's a game where hunting and gathering use more resources than the drops are worth. Basically, if you want to get 100 PED worth of loot (PED is their unit of money), then you should expect to pay 105 PED for the ammunition, equipment and repair costs.
Sometimes you may get lucky and get profit. Other times you may get unlucky and lose money. But when you average out all those attempts, players are constantly losing PED to the company operating the game.
So the game is not a value increasing machine. It's a loop where the game consistently sucks player money, forcing someone to buy more from cash shop to keep the economy going.
I was under the impression that the dev sell "stuff" (land, recipes, guns, ?) in finite batches, and create a demand for it so the prices increase. Then regularly releases new content with a batch of new types of finite resources. I could have gotten this wrong, I have it from a streamer, not from own research.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
They do have land sales, heck they sold entire planets and yes, nary a NFT in sight.
Yet Entropa has long been ridiculed and scorned by a majority of "gamers," for the model, yet at it's core they definitely have a solid game, unlike most of these newer MMONFTs.
As for the reason for a new classification, go back and read my two or three other posts made previously in this thread as it's clear you skipped past them all.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
That's really the main problem. They built the entire premise on earning, and the drive to continue playing is earning. You would think that would be the biggest driver and it would be increasingly popular, but it's leads to a clear end point where the "high earners" become the only ones left playing because others can't compete, and the only reason for new players to start the game is so that they can earn. But when you have only the elite creating and providing the assets, including forced pricing of them, eventually the bottom falls out, and that's what we've been seeing over the past few months.
Other games focus primarily on cosmetics for their NFT's, or have arbitrary boosts that are not in game advantage focused. Unfortunately many of them are still more in an early access state, and they aren't really focused on only earning as their main driver. They want to be good games. But we're still far off from that.
In my opinion there are a lot of things that blockchain games need to do to become viable. I guess we'll see what happens, but I've never liked Axie.
From a player's perspective, even if looking for a F2P MMO, they still are looking for a fun game first and foremost, but with these NFT titles, it's almost entirely about the player's earnings and if you take that away ...
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It's like how does the house ever survive if there are never any losers?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Same thing with investing...Oh man if you'd have put $5 on such and such crypto you'd have gazillions right now....All we hear is the "winners" but in this day and age of constant fake news, I don't believe a word of it.