How would people validate ownership of an NFT when there could be hundreds of blockchains in the future? Would I have to go and verify each one of them to make sure my NFT hasn't been sold multiple times already?
The real issue is proving that a specific sale was the “true” one. There have already been incidents of people trying to sell other people’s artwork as NFTs. If you buy an NFT and the artist later comes out and declares that your NFT wasn’t authorized or licensed or whatever, the value would presumably drop. The artist could then sell the “real” NFT.
Of course, none of this real-world authorization or provenance is actually encoded in the blockchain, nor can it be. The value lies entirely in the off-chain perception of what an NFT represents and whether or not it’s real / authentic / authorized / legitimate.
The blockchain hype has led to a misconception that blockchain solves everything, but they’re all still limited to whatever we all agree the on-chain data represents what we want it to represent.
Nothing prevents someone from making copies and selling each "unique" one.
Since it is decentralized, there is no centralized authority to take down the copies (that is, a DMCA-style take down).
The "no one can censor you" upsides of decentralization are not without downsides: you cannot censor or take down others, even in cases of copyright breach.
A few trusted ledgers is all that's needed.
For example, if an NFT represented a game asset, then the game (or potentially a whole ecosystem of games) would be the system that recognizes it, and the NFT would have value within the context of that game.
This is, of course, a pipe dream. First of all, there's no business reason for any game to implement this feature -- they'd be undercutting their own sales of cosmetic items by honoring sales of items by their competitors. Second, actually porting assets between games is nontrivial; even if two games are built on the same engine, there are significant barriers to transferring assets between them (like differences in physical scale, art style, or game mechanics).
It can setup a marketplace of unique items without the game founders having to create anything at all, or users recurring to unsafe selling and buying mechanisms.
Game applications are definitely interesting to explore and experiment with.
Since that would take an inordinate amount of effort for *absolutely no benefit for WoW or Dota*, this would only ever feasibly be used *between games made by the same company*, which at that point they would just use a centralised database for obvious reasons.
The Movable-Game-Assets thing has been done before on a huge scale by the biggest gaming company in the world, with nintendo's Amiibos. Look at how they turned out! Barely any games on the switch actually support the full set of amiibos, and those that do don't give much. Amiibos already implement the exact thing you're talking about without any blockchain at all.
Yes? Why wouldn't that work?
Since that would take an inordinate amount of effort for absolutely no benefit for WoW or Dota, this would only ever feasibly be used between games made by the same company, which at that point they would just use a centralised database for obvious reasons.
> The Movable-Game-Assets thing has been done before on a huge scale by the biggest gaming company in the world, with nintendo's Amiibos. Look at how they turned out! Barely any games on the switch actually support the full set of amiibos, and those that do don't give much. Amiibos already implement the exact thing you're talking about without any blockchain at all.
Nintendo is a super closed system. But also there is a difference in kind: games that implement API for cross-game assets will get users, players and payers, by implementing an entry way to an already existing community.
The future is uncertain, but if you are not curious about this i don't know what to tell you.
Because videogames are different? There's absolutely no logic connecting items in one game to another in almost all cases. As such, the set of items the developers would actually want to implement (ever) would be only those that make sense inside their game, and they'd have to reimplement the models and statistics.
Even more so, the effort necessary to implement new items in any game means that they'll only ever bother with the most expensive items (that also happen to make sense within their world), which restricts the set of items *massively*. Oh, and the developers get absolutely nothing back for doing this except a PR disaster.
Furthermore, it's entirely centralised anyway. You have to trust the game client to interpret 0x1fabc3... as $ITEM when the game client could completely lie and change what item that corresponds to, or how useful it was. This is quite literally just an expensive API call.
NFTs serve literally no purpose here. There's no decentralisation, there's no reason why items in videogames should ever be cross-compatible anyway (It's literally like asking why you can't write C# and Haskell in the same file and just have it work).
1- Taking money
2- Having Achievements and API's on Steam
3- Accepting OAuth login
4- Supporting non-standard inputs like joysticks
And interestingly you could implement 3/4 items above with NFT's alone with some benefits:
1- No store commissions
2- Public data/metrics on usage (that could be interpreted as achievements)
3- No country, age or identity restrictions
Public Metrics on usage is already possible without the blockchain, you can do this with a centralised database and an API. If your retort to this is "what if steam change your progress underfoot?", that is nonsense because they gain absolutely nothing from doing that except annoying users.
No country, age or identity restrictions is a disaster. The age one primarily, since it is necessary to require age restrictions on things like online gambling for ethical reasons.
Also, what the hell do NFTs have to do with implementing joystick input?
Like let's take something that already exists in games, like Shovel Knight. Shovel Knight is such a popular video game character that other developers incorporated the character as cameos or even playable characters in their games. Here's the Wikipedia:
"Shovel Knight appears as a playable guest character in several games including Indie Pogo, Blade Strangers, Cook, Serve, Delicious: Battle Kitchen, Move or Die, Dino-Run DX, Runner3, Riverbond, Rivals of Aether, Blaster Master Zero, Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night, Road Redemption, Epic Manager, C-Wars, Starr Mazer, Runbow, All-Stars Dungeons and Diamonds, Ghost Police, Mutant Mudds Super Challenge, Pixel Noir, and Mighty Quest.
Shovel Knight characters make cameo appearances in Brawlhalla, Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, Azure Striker Gunvolt 2, Two Brothers, Yooka-Laylee, Aegis Defenders, The Reward: Tales of Alethrion, River City Ransom: Underground, Creepy Castle, Puzzle Depot, Crypt of the NecroDancer, Enter the Gungeon, Katana Zero, and For Honor. Its music appears in Just Shapes & Beats and Voez. Shovel Knight collaborated with Arby's in March 2021 to release a set of toys, which included Arby's themed cheat codes for the game."[1]
Now imagine an NFT collection that's popular enough to have multiple games wanting to incorporate it into their games (I'd argue at least Bored Ape Yacht Club is this popular, it's being incorporated into many things already). Yes developers would have to spend time or effort coding it, but the buzz and increased sales from being able to advertise integration with that popular NFT collection could mean some media attention and sales they might not otherwise get.
For Indie Game developers in particular it could literally be the difference between getting any attention to their game from the media at all, or not, and thus between success and failure. Hence why Shovel Knight is in so many indie games (with permission from the original creator).
Shovel Knight didn't get popular because it was crossed over into so many games, Shovel Knight got incredibly popular for being one of the best platformers of the decade that kept releasing high quality free DLC.
It was notorious for being a kickstarter that actually gave back. The reason it ended up in so many other games is because it was so popular. The exact same thing happened with UNDERTALE.
> Now imagine an NFT collection that's popular enough to have multiple games wanting to incorporate it into their games(...)
This was *already done* with amiibos. They just weren't NFTs, and were infinitely more efficient. Literally any game developed for the switch has an api to interact with amiibos, the names in amiibos are some of gamings largest characters, and barely anybody uses it.
You are seriously detached from what gamers actually want if you think they'd react positively to Bored Apes being put in WoW. Not only would it be a PR nightmare for the developers of WoW, but they would quite literally gain nothing from it except an expensive, comically inefficient lookup table of hashes to items they don't care about.
Unlike previously, if you do find an older copy on a blockchain you're given stronger guarentees that it actually is older.
If digital artworks move towards proof via hash on blockchains for timestamping I'd imagine this problem would become easier to solve in future!
So you already know what blockchain you’re using. It’s like saying “what facebook are you using? The ftp one or the http one or the https one?”