I take credit because my poking at you about still not having one clearly made you sub up Wallmart+ lmao.

TGAs tomorrow. Was tempted to create a thread so we can play a predictions game (everyone gets 5 etc) but dunno the interest.

I love making predictions lol...

 

It was more the sum total of all the "kek try harder noob" fuckbois on the stock alerts twitter flaunting how they got their ____# console from the Walmart+ or TotalTech drops that really pushed me over the edge.

15 bucks beyond msrp and a general feeling of self disgust at having given Walmart extra dough is def worth it to finally be done with it though.

 

Star Wars: Eclipse



I know literally nothing about it but all of my fucking yes. So happy the creative teams at Lucasfilm are all really biting deep into the Japanese inspirations of the OG trilogy.

 

David Cage is writing it. Be careful.

 

I honestly think Quantic Dream with Lucasfilm Games oversight might produce something interesting. All major content decisions need approval from the Lucasfilm story group now. No one is allowed to get in the sandbox by themselves and play.

 

Gonna have to talk about how Lord Voldemort got to the GFFA and how he's a hot shit percussionist all of a sudden

 

Errybody know Voldie got beats

 

God that show was a dumpsterfire.

Last time I'm letting Geoff hype me up. FFs.

 

Over the weekend I started the Halo Infinite campaign. While I played a bit of the multiplayer, I've never played that much pine halo. Usually sticking to split screen, where my eyes could wander.

I've been a big fan of halo as halo 3 was the first game I ever really put a stupid amount of time into. And over years I've played all the others out of order, having the most fun in ODST. But I never got around to halo 5, probably for the best.

Was I pumped when I saw the teaser? Yeah. But I've been hurt before, so I kept expections low.
And after playing for about 10hrs, I don't think I'll be able to finish.

While the graphics and general gameplay are amazing, the world, UI, level design and plot are really dragging. First off this doesn't feel like an open world game, it feels like a really big level which you can fast travel in.

This is a very empty and sterile open world, where exploring is not reward. You may find a copy and pasted side mision, and have fun grappling everywhere as vehicles are useless. But there are no secrets, no cool side stories or just random encounters.

Plus the open world is pointless because all the campaign missions happen in 'dungeons'.

This is a 5/10 for me, intially fun but became increasingly boring. Plus opening the map doesn't pause your game.

 

All the Halo talk kind of got me to try Destiny 2 finally (played a lot of 1).

Man, the gunplay is still so fucking good. The rest, we'll see.

 

STALKER 2 is gonna be using NFTs. What a way for a game to die even before release.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/15/22834567/stalker-2-nfts-metahuman-dmarket

 

I might have a controversial take on NFTs in gaming.

I quite like the idea in theory, provided it's used in the right way, in the right games, with certain hard problems needing to be solved.

• First, we need to establish a way for consumers to actually own the thing they're earning/ buying, irrespective of the publisher involved in creating/ selling them. NFTs from games being tied to your online identity, and not the game is most important, otherwise it's a scam
• Second. I quite like the idea in MMORPGs, specifically as limited rewards for achievements. Rewards you can flex with or sell (mounts/statues/cosmetic armour)
• Third, players need to be able to trade and sell them. Shouldn't be an issue if my first point is mentioned
• Finally (and most obviously i think?) You have to actually own it, even if it includes copywrited art. None of this 'you're licensing it from us' bullshit you see in EULAs.

Obviously, it'll likely just turn out as a way for publishers to double dip on consumers, but I don't see NFTs in games as inheritantly bad.

 

The problem is that NFTs are fundamentally meaningless. There's absolutely an important discussion around digital property rights that needs to be had, but NFTs are not in any way able to provide an answer for either side of that debate.

An NFT, fundamentally, is an ID number paired with some identifier for a specific instance of a file (this is often a url, but it could be nearly anything; the likely most useful would be an encoded bit string of the specific file in question) that has a record on the blockchain associating it with a specific wallet, in the same way cryptocurrencies are. That's it.

There is no way to assert control over the file in question, nor is there a way to stop people making an arbitrary number of copies of it (in fact, doing so would render the file completely useless for everything, thanks to the nature of how computers work). The only way you could flex your ownership and control over a specific instance of an achievement would be to, in the very same process, hand copies of it over to everyone you were trying to show off to, thereby relinquishing ownership and control over it.

NFTs are a ridiculous buzzword, and their addition to games does literally nothing but allow the publisher to pretend scarcity exists and drive prices up higher. There's no universe where they even potentially could be anything else.

 

I think a lot of the issues you bring up are broader issues when it comes to digital goods.

I did say unless we can find a way for someone to truly own a digital thing - and along with that, stop others from copying it and stop devaluing it by making more - then NFTs are just a scam.

We can print at much money as we want, but for obvious reasons, we don't (theoretically lol) do that. The currency itself is just meaningless paper, but it has value because we say it does.

Artificial scarcity will be what gives digital goods value. Can the thing itself be valuable if its scarcity is fictional? I mean, maybe? I don't know. People place value on a lot of things that are nonsensical to me, but they'll still drop 500k on a fucking shiny Charizard that you could probably easily recreate...

I do know this new sensation has got me thinking deeply about digital rights, ownership and the value of digital goods. I don't have the answers.

I just think it's a bit presumptuous to act like anyone does in either direction, right now. I dunno.

 

The problem I was trying to explain is that, in the digital space, artificial scarcity and functionality are mutually exclusive. Literally everything that can be done with a file involves making a copy of that file. Do you want to upload it to the internet? That's a copy from your machine to the web host. Do you want to access it after you posted it on the internet? That's a copy from the webhost to your machine (again, making a second copy on your machine). Do you want to access it on your own machine? That's a copy too, just one that's (usually) automatically deleted when the program is done with it.

Anything and everything you might want a file to actually do that isn't "sit on a harddrive collecting dust" involves copying some or all of the file, which fundamentally breaks the very premise of NFT uniqueness in the first place. You literally (and I mean this in the original definition, not as a statement of figurative exaggeration) cannot enforce digital uniqueness and have a file capable of actually doing anything without a fundamental, ground-up retooling of nearly everything computer-related invented since like 1965, possibly even earlier.

There's absolutely a discussion that needs to be had around digital property rights and licensure, one that's been ever so slowly creeping into the discourse as more and more of people's lives moves into the digital space. But NFTs are not a solution to any of the issues there; they're just a catchy buzzword to profit off of the gullible and/or ignorant.

Now, with that said, there are plausible solutions to the digital property problem, even if NFTs aren't the solution. The most obvious of which is empowering license contracts to have the same weight as physical goods. That is, a legal recognition of the right to access (read: 'the license') as a tradeable commodity that is, in and of itself, equivalent to ownership of a physical good.

This has the advantage of smoothly fitting in to existing commercial laws around buyer protections and so on, ensuring such things as the right to resale, legally mandating return policies, etc. It would basically mean a digital license is treated exactly the same as a physical good, and ensure consumer rights are fully enshrined in the digital space. At the same time though, that also means piracy would move from a copyright violation to actual, legal theft. After all, if the license is equivalent to a physical good, circumventing the license is equivalent to theft.

At the end of the day, no matter what the solution reached, enforcing digital property rights means a significant shift in the way we interact with the internet and content. But NFTs aren't a way to enforce digital property rights; they're just a way to make a shitload of money off people blinded by technobabble.

 

They're also an excellent way to launder money.

 

So is art

 

What do you think NFTs are being marketed as?

 

Lol NFTs

 

South Park just made a really great joke/plot based on NFTs.

So I find it absolutely hilarious coming here and seeing you guys discuss it.

I know a guy called Vic Chaos who can totally make you rich through NFTS.

Lol, but seriously, seeing this NFT thing play out in real life reminds me why that show worked so well