Licensing fees are built into the way that NFTs work. You can already sell a piece of art and say that you’ll take 10% commission on secondary sales. Each time that piece/NFT is traded on secondary, you get the commission from it.
How does that even work? Can you not transfer from one wallet to another without paying a commission?
You can send tokens to other wallets without paying. So, you can have transactions outside of marketplaces that eschew then royalties. However, anything listed for sale on a marketplace obeys the terms in the smart contract that was used to mint it and the royalties are processed accordingly.
This is one of the reasons that artists are so interested in the tech. It sort of allows them to do what recording studios have done for music for years and collect royalties on the sales/usage of their art. It’s also why musicians are extremely interested in NFTs as a publishing platform for new recordings. It allows them to drop the large publishers/studios and receive royalties.
Edit: there are collaborative smart contracts where the royalty splits are set at the time the NFT is minted… so each primary or secondary sale sends x% to a different wallets, etc.
Sure, but that’s not licensing for use. And, as you say, even the system already built in can be evaded. Nintendo, say, is never going to use a system that lets someone put the “real” Princess Peach in their porn game
Well, like I said, it’s all very early times for this tech and there are a ton of unsolved problems. Considering that stuff on the blockchain can be encrypted, one possibility there would be that only people allowed to use the asset would have the decryption key or something. I’m not super knowledgeable about that side of stuff and don’t really know how it would work, TBH. I was just speculating that it’s one potential future use of NFTs in games.
This assumes they would build the item to work in those different games, correct? Being on the blockchain or whatever doesn’t negate the work you need to do to actually have that helmet appear and function in the hypothetical Assassin’s Creed Infinite and Ghost Recon Montana as I understand it.
No, it won’t work like that right now. Again, I was just speculating about potential future uses. Were Ubi or another company or the industry to come up with an agreed-upon standard for the smart contract, asset format, etc. then it would be feasible to write a wrapper than would potentially enable NFT assets to work across games. Will that happen? I don’t know. Not any time soon. It’s kind of an interesting idea, though.
I suspect what we might see first is some open-source effort to implement game items, as NFTs, that belong to a pool of potential items that people can discover, find, use, whatever, in other games that implement the spec. Maybe you’d be playing a game like Dwarf Fortress or something, find a relic, use it, etc… While you have that relic, it accumulates history related to your gameplay. When your game ends, or you die, or you go 6 months without playing the game, the relic is released back to the pool. Subsequently, another player, either of DF or another game that implements the spec, could discover the relic in their game, their history would be written to the object’s metadata, etc… and so on until there’s a pool of items that have potentially interesting histories associated with them. Again, I have no evidence of this happening – it’s just an interesting concept that I wouldn’t be surprised to see emerge in the gaming NFT space.
This is brilliant, it completely undercuts the labor intensive Derpspace NFTs.
I’m now offering for sale the NFT for an Elite Dwarven Diplomat:
I didn’t buy any of this shit.
It’s bad enough a co-worker thought I was a dolt for calling horse-armor micro-transactions at the time.
Ubisoft Quartz is the first building block in our ambitious vision for developing a true metaverse.
Garbage sentence.
The hits keep on funging.
Every day that goes by without Star Citizen announcing NFT sales is weirding me out.
No, that just makes you officially Sane.
ACG has a video up on NFT:
no, this means you perfectly understand NFT’s. There is literally no advantage to using them in this situation except for speculation around the assets and hype for the corporate sector of the company. Every single thing that an NFT can do for gaming can be done better by other methods.
This is a bit of finance pet peeve, but any time a company is not valued by DCF/Discounted cash-flow (valuation by net present value of net profit), part of its value is inflated by speculation. And it happens ALL THE TIME, for a lot of companies. Using the latest buzz tech is one way of hyping up your company’s value beyond what DCF says it is worth. Market value is determined by consensus, not necessarily facts.
Arguably speculative value is merely potential value, but potential unrealised is extremely hard to evaluate, and only a betting person would buy into that. For example, who would have bought Google on its IPO other than its owners and employees and a few VCs? It already had potential during IPO but no one would have imagine Google would become so big. Only a betting person (including VCs) would have bought it on IPO. And only rich people can afford to bet on these things, which makes them even richer.
UBIsoft being UBisoft they will (in time) try to move all microtransactions to NFT’s and charge exorbitant prices on the basis of false scarcity. EA stands in the corner salivating as they think about rarified cards for FIFA & Madden.
This will make games worse as the focus leaves games and moves into prioritizing NFT sales.
fixed