I could also see a database being used to coordinate game ownership with a fraction of the power usage. But neither will happen because consumers always get the raw end of the deal and nothing will ever be done to their benefit without being forced.

[+] stoy@lemmy.zip -6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Sure, I agree but I doubt publisher's would since a database can be modified.

[–] Starbuck@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

But blockchains get “bad” records added all the times. Database entries and blockchain blocks are both equally as susceptible to bad business logic making incorrect entries. No business is going to adopt a sales recording system that doesn’t allow them to control the entries and to reverse the entries they don’t agree with.

[–] Norgur@kbin.social 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Publishers will like a database because it can be modified. If they were forced to implement such a system (thus abandoning all 'sell the same game to the same person twice' for different platforms), they'd oppose a blockchain system hard, since it would make it pricier to:

a) publish seven bazillion versions of any given game
b) revoke ownership of games just because it's cheaper to do that than honor the deal they made with customers
c) correct any data-fuckups they will inevitably make because they went for the cheapest route possible to implement this, and it went pear-shaped from day 3 onwards

I'm very much on the database-side here as well. I work for a Telco company here in Germany, and we use several such databases that are regulated by external bodies and government agencies to communicate between carriers (for number porting and such). Works great overall.