Just a reminder: NFTs that link to an image is a simple use case for the NFT token standard, and most of the time it didn't make any sense.
NFTs make more sense when representing ownership of digital assets that grant some utility.
I am a believer in the idea that in-game assets will become NFTs. Playing video games professsionally is like being a tradesperson, and just like a carpenter doesn't need to use a different hammer for each job, a gamer shouldn't need to get new stats or weapons for each game they play.
Just like a famous musician might, a gamer should be able to sell the gun they used professionally to a fan and that fan can have that represented in any game (using that game's native assets).
I see a lot of value in an open registry of digital items I own, each with a cryptographic proof of provenance, and which doesnt require a centralized entity to control and decide which games can and can't participate. This can be done without a blockchain, but then there's no central proof of who owns what (I can own the item, sell it, but still submit old proofs to a game to keep using the item).
I may think this way because I own a lot of digital goods that are stored in private databases which will someday shutdown. At that point, I'll loose all of those items.
- If they want money, NFTs are directly competing with microtransactions/loot boxes. Any NFT imported is money the developer isn't making off their own content.
- If they want a good game, allowing users to import random items from other games is going to be impossible to balance.
- If they want a free for all, they can already implement mods and steam workshop without the crypto aspects.
As an aside, if the goal is simply trading items between players, that's better done with a traditional market. Allowing real money to enter the game tends to incentivise all the worst player behaviors and ruin the experience, as Blizzard discovered with the Diablo auction house.
NFT, like 99% of blockchain tech, are a solution looking for a problem. They have absolutely zero practical use in the real world. The only people getting rich with NFT are the people selling ETH.
NFTs make more sense when representing ownership of digital assets that grant some utility.
I am a believer in the idea that in-game assets will become NFTs. Playing video games professsionally is like being a tradesperson, and just like a carpenter doesn't need to use a different hammer for each job, a gamer shouldn't need to get new stats or weapons for each game they play.
Just like a famous musician might, a gamer should be able to sell the gun they used professionally to a fan and that fan can have that represented in any game (using that game's native assets).
I see a lot of value in an open registry of digital items I own, each with a cryptographic proof of provenance, and which doesnt require a centralized entity to control and decide which games can and can't participate. This can be done without a blockchain, but then there's no central proof of who owns what (I can own the item, sell it, but still submit old proofs to a game to keep using the item).
I may think this way because I own a lot of digital goods that are stored in private databases which will someday shutdown. At that point, I'll loose all of those items.