It’s a pretty interesting topic to research. It’s all made up value for a shiny rock.
1 Like
tbh a shiny rock is better than a ugly monkey that is used 6000+ times.
1 Like
That’s because you can throw a shiny rock. If you throw an ugly monkey you’ll probably get arrested.
1 Like
How about a weird looking frog? That’s got to be worth 5-6 figures!
Edit: just noticed what was on the blanket. Doh!
2 Likes
i bet throwing an ugly monkey will surprise folks more than a drunk naked hunt- i mean person yelling in trade district that he’s gonna steal the kings crown…
probably
there is now 9000+ different variants of it now!
1 Like
I might have to quit gaming altogether if they’re all shifting into hyper greed mode.
1 Like
also a good way to launder real money.
Because of this thread… I know what NFT’s are, hmmm… I would have been ok, not knowing.
2 Likes
As a YouTuber once said…
Legit, just what the heck they were thinking with that price? 
2 Likes
For some odd reason when I learned what NFT’s are and reading these comments, the song by Dire Straits ‘Money for nothing’ came into my head… hmmm.
1 Like
Sounds like a scam and/or money laundering to me, sir.
Why, as a publisher, would I want to spend time and effort to support someone else’s cash shop items in my game?
Presumably because you’d take a cut.
apple makes a lot from taking a cut in their app store
This isn’t what NFTs are. NFTs have nothing to do with in-game support of external assets.
Think of it this way : if Blizzard sold a mount on their cash shop, but instead of just handing you the mount, they wrote somewhere on a blockchain that you own this mount. They still have to implement the mount in game for you to use it.
Except now instead of being a cash shop item you paid for using Visa, it’s a “Blockchain non-fungible token!”. Basically, it emitted 3 metric tons of carbon to process your transaction rather than 0.2 mg.
1 Like
Apple takes a cut because it controls the platform and distribution, the whole point of an NFT is to use crypto to separate “ownership” from any platform. All I see are costs to supporting outside tokens, no cut or income.
But isn’t exactly this? A third party sells a skin as a token. A game publisher then chooses whether or not to recognize the skin as an allowed mod.
No. NFTs are just blockchain based transactions to acquire a receipt that says you own a particular digital asset.
That’s it.
No, that has nothing to do with NFTs, you can do that without involving NFTs at all. That just requires code that allows for user-generated assets.
That’s an overly convoluted way of repeating what I just said.
You tied it to in-game assets. There’s literally no tie to in-game asset is my point.
If a company wants to support skins from users, they have to implement skins for users.
NFTs are not a system of uploading and displaying skins from users. NFTs literally have nothing to do with game skins.