Web3 incorporates this ownership. While Web 2.0 was about writing something to the internet and the World Wide Web was about reading something on the internet. It's a further iteration which just makes sense.
I only really see a use when mapping to an actually digitally scare good, say an IPv4 block or a domain name. But that's it really. Maybe some gacha/collectible games, but that's iffy.
Have you read the list of restrictions Ubisoft has for their NFTs? Do people really own those?
Even today, there are 3rd party websites that let you play Magic online with other people, but you get to play with any cards you want which removes a certain aspect of the meta game.
As long as I owned the NFT on a decentralized blockchain, any 3rd party could verify my ownership and let me use those cards.
I really don't get this argument at all. I bought an in-game mount for World of Warcraft as a NFT, WoW shuts down, where the hell am I going to use the in-game mount again? A shitty game that tells me "your WoW mount works here as well!"?
It really feels it's all a preparation for the "metaverse" bullshit.
A token representing a Magic card doesn’t need any association with the art on that card, it just needs to exist so anyone can verify that I purchased that card (and therefore the ability to use its mechanics) from WoTC. A 3rd party game that allows me to play Magic can verify the NFT card ownership and can use it’s own art or no art at all, just like they do today.
The only difference is that today’s 3rd party Magic sites don’t have verified ownership of cards so everyone uses the most expensive cards.
Yeah, someone else can create a new game and say "we accept the NFT items from Defunct Game X", you are still completely under the control of whomever is providing you the platform for these in-game items to actually exist. If that platform is taken away you just have some bits of data pointing to other bits of data with no meaning and no value at all...
They can still have meaning (we know what item it was); whether there are people who would value the pure notion of owning such a digital item in the absence of concrete functionality is indeed the question that NFTs explore/raise.
We have of course been able to buy and own more or less exlusive licenses to digital goods for a long time now. The video game market is now larger than the music and film industries combined and quickly becoming entirely digital.
And if it's own work and the more literal form of ownership rather than just a license to it, these rights are well protected in law and don't really use to become a problem? Unless you live in a state with state-sponsored copyright infringement, but these would absolutely not respect NFT's and proofs of ownership either.
But if you for some reason need to support the specific case of proving original ownership, NFT is a technology that can help although I think this is becoming a too niche use for a widespread internet-wide revolution. It's still digital which can be made into perfect copies and I think this alone reduces the appeal even if it would come with a sticker that validates the product. At least it does so for me. Sure it's "useful" kind of like how an MD5 sum is, and now we get even further along the way than that but... it's still digital goods with everything that implies...
It doesn't even do that. See: all artists whose work was stolen and sold as NFTs