What frustrates me is that the crypto scene didn't have to develop in this direction. While I'm not sure how to get around the electricity requirements necessary for any "coin" to exist on a large scale, the concept of a blockchain doesn't seem to me like an inherently predatory idea. The idea that coins or NFTs were investment vehicles really provided the opportunity for those with the knowledge and resources to manipulate a poorly regulated market and literal con artists to move in and be the main influence as to how everything played out. Although it's somewhat of a relief that it's widely recognized by most people as being a racket, the missed opportunity of the concept of permanent and intangible "objects" to be used for some purpose other than scamming does bum me out a bit.
Gaming
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
when you pair finances (a realm filled with scams and con artists) to gamers (people who are notoriously more gullible than the average person) then it's not a great mix.
"You can make real money by playing this game" is genuinely one of the oldest scams on the internet, like at all. And gamers keep falling for it.
To be fair, you could make real money by playing games… if you were a gold farmer or an account seller
or by actually being good and play it professionally.
Tbh I keep forgetting we live in a reality where that’s a thing
Also, if you’re popular enough on Twitch or YouTube you can make money playing games and hot tub streams
The thing is, what use case can benefit from a blockchain?
Scamming, gambling, crime and speculation benefited from the lack of regulation, but barely cared about the underlying concept of a bitcoin.
But for anything real, much better solutions have existed for decades or centuries.
Blockchain is a solution without a problem and has been that for 25 years now.
If you have a solution that hasn't found a problem in 25 years, chances are that there will never be an actual problem that solution would solve.
So the killer apps of blockchain remain scamming, gambling, speculation and crime. Until there are more stringent regulations, then they'll go back to Western Union and Paysafe cards.
For technological innovation to take place, two things need to happen. First, the idea needs to occur in the first place and second the idea has to be adopted in a widespread way. Many examples of technology we use were invented many times in the past and applied to processes where it didn't take. Because of this I think it's very possible that innovative people throughout the world have indeed come up with use cases for this technology which could fundamentally improve something which we are not aware of because for whatever reason the idea hasn't spread.
Tech specialists are not often also expert marketers for their own ideas. At the same time, expert marketers involved with blockchain technology are typically involved on the scamming side so even if an idea is offered to the public which would otherwise sell itself it wouldn't have a chance in this environment. Blockchain experts, being primed to view this technology in its current context, may not even recognize how powerful a non-traditional use might be.
This is all speculation of course, but this is why I'm not ready to rule the technology out entirely.
I won't argue there aren't some use cases for it, but it was massively oversold for what it actually is. It's essentially just shared spreadsheets, but almost always described in a way that make it seem inscrutable to most people (further sinking any propect of mass-adoption) and cool to people who want to feel like they're intelligent and in-the-know about tech. And it was pushed primarily for things it was unsuited for, like replacing regulated banks with FDIC insurance.
I think it has potential niche uses, though. Not every technology has to be widespread or applied to a wide variety of different things.
Tbh I think the same overselling/over-applying is happening to large language models/LLM "AI" now, though at least LLMs legitimately do have a lot of potential use cases. Just not as many as the everything people are trying to apply it to, and not as overpoweringly as many assume.
If you filter out the noise and ignore the omnipresent hate, there's still cool stuff there. The technology still works. The prevailing narrative doesn't change that. But the problems were inevitable, for the simple reason that the world is full of pent up financial desperation, and crypto is an incredibly powerful tool for letting people do what they choose with money in a way that isn't locked down by some payment provider or banking middleman. Borderless, permissionless. So naturally the main thing people went to do with it is competing to take each other's money somewhere on the spectrum between gambling and theft. It's non-crypto problems finding an outlet, and no amount of pushback from whatever non money crazed "scene" was out there could have done anything to stop that.
Proof of stake gets around the electricity usage. Of the chains that are still big it's really only bitcoin and it's derivatives that still use a lot of energy.
That would mean something if Ethereum wasn't effectively dead in a ditch and being pissed on by a vagrant.
Haven’t checked it in a while, but is it still impossible to withdraw staked coins?
is it still impossible to withdraw staked coins?
Wait back up.
still
Hahahahaha holy shit.
Seems like they’ve fixed it now, but there was a time when they had proof of stake without withdrawal functionality
ETH is higher than it was a few years ago. I was watching it at 400, 500, 900, 1200, it went to 4500 in the boom and is now 2000. How is that dead?
I was just going to ask how this worked out for Ethereum. Haven’t checked in for a while but apparently it’s not good.
I'm not disagreeing at all but maybe my point is a little to the side of yours.
The main problem with people's perception is that people don't really know what they are talking about and conflate cryptocurrency with blockchain rather than knowing that cryptocurrency is a use-case for blockchain. For people who do know some about it, they may say that blockchain can't do anything that other pre-existing solutions can and do better.
But as I see it blockchain is a unique technology and that does make it a good solution for some sorts of problems. Not every problem and maybe not even many problems but some. The power usage argument is mainly a red herring at this point because most chains that people would use for something functional do not/no longer use proof-of-work (which is what was eating the power) and now use proof-of-stake which is as power efficient as any old server.
NFTs as a form of digital authenticity seem pretty interesting and blockchain in general in a logistics/tracking contact makes sense to me. In the context of web3, which I admittedly know little about, rather than a money grab play-to-earn or whatever it is called, seems like blockchain could be used for transferability of assets and decentralization. How about a creative game where you create things and their ownership is maintained via NFT. Build a contraption or costume in one game and bring it into another. Maybe something that benefits all like a "folding at home" where new solutions/tech is created via crowd-sourced activity and shares of the product are authenticated via blockchain storage.
I assume one day we will be past the new tech -> apply old scams cycle.
Yeah, I think a big part of that is that people see this idea of digital permanence you're describing, and it gets misrepresented to shit.
Facts Section:
The real question is how does that compare to the rest of the games industry and what counts as a "fail".
So according to the article: a "failure" is when a game becomes "inactive." That seems like a poor standard for failing since every game will eventually be marked as a failure no matter how successful it once was. It could bring in millions of dollars but only 56 people played Deus Ex 1 today. Is that enough to count it as "inactive"? They don't define inactive so it's hard to really say if it's absolute zero or near zero and for how long?
This also is only counting the GameFi platform and only.
So 75% of web3 mobile games fail to stay active for over 5 years. Let's see how this checks with the rest of the industry.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/report-83-of-mobile-games-fail-in-the-three-years-after-launch
83% of mobile games fail in 3 years and 43% of them fail to make it to release.
Okay but what about profitability. That's what really matters!
https://www.shacknews.com/article/56053/analyst-only-4-of-games
4% of games are deemed profitable.
Opinion:
I wouldn't play Web3 games, I don't really see a future for web3. I also don't really see a future for VR/AR. I could be wrong about these things but they right now all seem like gimmicks that haven't caught on. I also think that LLM AI isn't as mind blowingly useful as everyone might think. I think it's a neat tool and nothing more. It's not going to revolutionize AI. That will come from other advancements, potentially on top of LLM but more likely in parallel.
That all said, these stats don't seem to mark the death of web3. These stats actually seem slightly better than the rest of the industry. It's likely because they are on a rise with VC and other funding.
Good analysis, just a few nitpicks: AR is the future... when it matches human visual abilities, which may take several decades more, be it through glasses, or through a neural link. There is a deep uncanny walley in either case to overcome.
I would like to believe in a web3, but right now it's mostly web1/2 interfaces to something that could be achieved in any other way.
LLM AI has already revolutionized AI, it's the holy grail "glue" to keep different AIs working together, including itself.
Good analysis, just a few nitpicks: AR is the future… when it matches human visual abilities, which may take several decades more, be it through glasses, or through a neural link. There is a deep uncanny walley in either case to overcome.
I mean we'll see. It's why I put it in the opinion section but I don't see AR taking off. Pokemon Go was fun for some but overall I don't see another AR game doing that level of success for a long time. Especially since Console, PC, and traditional mobile games do far better sales/profits than it.
LLM AI has already revolutionized AI, it’s the holy grail “glue” to keep different AIs working together, including itself.
Sorry, I meant game AI rather than general-use AI. I agree, for general use, it's done some interesting things but people try to use it everywhere and for everything. Like games and text generation in games and they create things like "convince this AI to give you a secret code" LLM AI and toss it in a game and it sucks. The biggest issue is players getting stuck in unintended ways which seems to happen constantly with it. Additionally, for AI response and choices, there are already better systems out there like Utility AI or GOAP.
Overall, I don't see LLM revolutionizing game AI in any area for it. Lastly, it doesn't seem to be that useful for math or pattern extrapolation/interpolation. An example I used with ChatGPT 3.5 was simply: O's value is 0, N is -1, and P is 1. What value is A and What value is Z? After some explaining that numbers can only be assigned once, it got a value for A of -14 (correct) and a value for Z as 25 because "Z is 25 letters after O" It took several prompts to get it to admit Z was 11. Lastly, making J = 0 and telling to pivot all values around J being 0, it messed up again.
"Good analysis, just one nitpick: I blanket disagree with everything you've said in your editorial section because raisins."
I wouldn't play Web3 games, I don't really see a future for web3
There's no future for these because the big players that could pull it off have no reason to do so. Game publishers love FOMO and thus hate trading, and platform owners would probably look at Valve's success with the Steam Marketplace instead of the continued failure of crypto.
I also don't really see a future for VR/AR.
This one doesn't have that same sort of constraint where it fundamentally doesn't make sense.
VR has a future as an entertainment system for sure. Probably not as widespread as simply grabbing a PS5 and playing Madden, but there's a ton of potential especially as older hardware drops in price and game libraries continue to expand. Porn is gonna keep this concept alive forever either way.
As for AR, its future is utility. Seeing map directions on the road itself, interactive models during meetings, having real life Shadowplay built into your glasses since they're camera peripherals, etc. Or porn but in your room with your own parts idk.
Still have no idea wtf a web3 game is.
edit: just read some descriptions and I swear a group of people said “but what if everything in a game was a micro transaction?”
Change "micro" to "macro" and you've got it. You get a game then additionally buy all of the assets. "Fee2Pay" is a term that got coined a few years ago and it fits here too.
I mean I know the saying that all crypto trading is gambling but this seems to just run with it.
Gambling and a lot of pyramid schemes come out of these "games"
Depending on who you ask, it’s either God’s gift to all the cryptobros and GameStop ~~bagholders~~ apes or it’s games that have a more convoluted version of Steam trading but on the blockchain.
Tbh, anything NFT or crypto-related I feel like is scammy as hell at this point in time.
That’s basically it, except everything is darn expensive.
A bunch of cryptobros who don't really have an interest in playing video games started to think "what if everything in a game was a cryptocurrency, and what if instead of playing for fun, you invested in the game to earn more money?"
Seriously, "play-to-earn" is the thing they want to make happen. They took all those boring trends that make shitty microtransaction-fests feel like a job, and they saw a future where stuff like this would actually be your job.
Someone should have told them Texas Hold’em already exists.
I guess in a world where you can get paid to do surveys all day, why not? It sounds intriguing, and there’s enough regular financial management sims that I could see it working somehow, but apparently not yet really. Be interesting to see the ones that didn’t fold and why they’re still around. Though that could just be because of people willing to part with their money.
Difference I can see with traditional gambling (e.g. Texas Hold'em) is that it's not in the instant, they actually want you to speculate on virtual "ownership" and spend now while it's "cheap" to earn later in a totally happening glorious metaverse future. Yes, it's very pyramid-y in nature.
Some of these "games" are empty shells of of a virtual world where you buy plots of land and then expect it to become more valuable, maybe build a virtual store or boring asset-flipped "resort" on it, rent part of it to someone to do the same, etc. They're landlord fantasy. Except some may really believe in it.
If you've got the time, Dan Olson made a pretty good video about that stuff :
To be clear, the Texas Hold’em was definitely a joke as it can be a huge money hole for people waiting for profit, but yeah, I get your meaning.
I read the link skullgiver posted about FinSoul, and I don’t know if it’s mind blowing or inevitable and obvious that they’ve moved from scamming fake coins to building fake game worlds to con people into being vaporware investors.
I played a “web3” game for a while, based on real estate. It’s still around. It has some possibilities to make real-world money but seems to function mainly on game scrip, like most microtransaction games. The idea is solid, “crypto virtual property” copy of the real world, but holy cow were the developers absolutely terrible at making it fun. The non-financial mechanics of the game are the most god-awful boring thing I have ever seen. I guess they’ve improved it recently with street racing, but I haven’t tried that.
I'm so sick of the late stage capitalism approach to art 'Well FOOD as an art lives on Tips, why not ALL ART live on constant hand reached out while dancing for approval?'
Pay to pay games. Of course they fail, apart from when poor people play them in the hopes of making some pocket change. Most of them don't even have gameplay outside of the monetization.