Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
このトピックの作成者がこの投稿に質問への回答というマークを付けました。
ルールとガイドライン
この投稿を報告する
It had been a whole seven minutes since the last time I had something that makes no difference whatsoever to flip my lid over, but now I think I'll survive
It's because there is "investment" implied and that what you're buying in an NFT is "real world value." You can sell it. For profit. If you think the marketing being pushed has any truth to it.
But, in a game or even DLC or a "Skin" you can't sell it on the open market. Now, for certain things, you can "trade" them or interact with an exchange that doesn't include "real world money."
Game devs have really tried to work around laws and regulations invlving "real world money" in their games. They have a limited set of options, there, before they run into true, real world, legal problems. Also, their intellectual property is very truly threatened in some cases where they "do it wrong." As soon as they open that "real world currency" box, in comes every trade and monetary policy established since the f'___ Magna Carta. It's dangerous ground.
But, it's profitable ground if they can manage schemes that involve heavy monetization with real-world money being shoveled into their wallets.
NFTs, however, in standard NFT terms, are real-world-money, tradeable, things. Supposedly... The only problem there is that despite claims to the contrary, they don't have any real-world value. They are based on nothing other than someone else's desire to pay someone for them. Increase that desire and the value is increased - That's why certain people promote NFTs.
The only value they have is completely within and defined by someone's willingness to buy and sell them... No rights are attached to these items other than the claim of ownership of an NFT. There is no possible way to expand that given the typical NFT market. It is self-contained and that means that the only thing a buyer into that market is doing is putting money into that market. What happens after that is... immaterial and random, except for the obvious - The only ones making money in NFTs are the people trying to popularize NFTs.
That is the same dynamic present in Bitcoin and all the other crypto, too. Somewhere less that 5% of all crypto owners are the ones controlling a massive majority stake in that market. Everyone else is "little fish" making money only on the whims of the "Big Fish." The people who popularize that market heavily are the only ones who stand to get massive gains when value increases due to that marketing.
He is lying. Plain & simple.
He does not care about "decentralized gaming".
IF he actually & truly cared about the value of "decentralizing gaming" then he would just have Square license all of their games under a Creative Commons license, specifically "CC BY-NC-ND[creativecommons.org]" - for "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives[creativecommons.org]" otherwise meaning : attribution required, no commercial usage, & no derivatives.
IF he actually & truly cared about the value of "decentralizing gaming" then he would also have Square create their own peer to peer client, that would RE-distribute their games, via the peers, (with Square's approval hence the Creative Commons license[creativecommons.org]).
(BUT SQUARE DOES NOT PERMIT REDISTRIBUTION OF THEIR GAMES - AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO)
THAT, (CC-license with a client to facilitate it between peers) however ...is true decentralization.
...and it also would cause them to lose money if they officially facilitated or endorsed it.
Placing priority on the continued existence of the company's legacy & its experience, even if ownership of that company changes hands, or the company shuts down, is the true meaning of decentralization. The problem, with actually putting such a thing into practice, is that you could no longer rely SOLELY on copyright to profit.
Creative Commons licensing, specifically the "CC BY-NC-ND[creativecommons.org]" version, would still prevent derivative works, but people would be legally allowed to freely redistribute games, for non-commercial purposes, in that circumstance, making it so that all sales would actually be donations to the developing company, instead.
And I must reiterate, this is NOT how Square operates, nor will it EVER be.
You are not legally permitted to redistribute their games - because they don't actually care about decentralization of gaming, at least not enough to give up being able to turn a profit.
Oh, but that TRUE decentralization would require that gamers have no explicit incentive beyond "such inconsistent personal feelings as goodwill and volunteer spirit" to continue financially supporting the company, which the article quotes him as being opposed to.
ie. true decentralization would mean that the company would have to rely entirely on donations to survive - you know... kind of like all other Creative Commons & Open Source projects, which consist of small teams of developers that just barely manage to generate enough revenue to continue operating.
Anyways, the article ends with, "Matsuda's letter is not abnormal in the space of large public corporations, who want to be seen by investors as keeping up with the latest in what might affect their field."
The real issue is that corporate investors are more often than not, completely stupid, idiotic, & gullible.
You know, NOT OUR company's investors, but all of the rest of them in the world.
Every abandonware project that wasn't licensed under a Creative Commons license, ever.
If it's not licensed under CC then it can't be legally redistributed but it's still protected by copyright law, and able to be sued over the redistribution & derivative works of, despite the fact that it is no longer being distributed in any legally obtainable manner.
Nintendo is infamous for allowing this to happen & they're still a fully operational company.
It just BARELY falls short of the legal definition of copyright trolling.
The problem exists but the proposed solution is a lie.
That is a different matter to centralization of games themselves, however, there is ONE reason & it is an unnecessary & non-relevant one because there aren't any significant instances recorded of a company revoking access to digital goods & not getting sued over it.
However, companies CAN simply revoke access to content at a whim, & that IS a problem for anyone who cares about that content.
You do realise that you are in a very small percentage of gamer's who care. While most of the gaming world doesn't care. So your voice won't be heard over the clapping of others.
Yeah. This is happening.
So sad that people are investing in blockchain instead of quality video games.
(The money might be going to game development companies but if all they're doing is implementing blockchain gimmicks then the money is really going to the blockchain, not the video game.)
...or that people are investing in blockchain instead of space travel.
...not that Elon Musk needs more money & NASA wasn't going to result in a return on investment... but I do believe that even Elon's Space X is a better investment than BLOCKCHAIN of all things!
i have a jar of pennies worth more than your bank account