Originally posted by Dogg Thang
View Post
Is this worse than loot boxes? I mean it's subjective obviously, but, nah probably about the same, on balance. Both systems of getting people to unload large (as in, much greater cost than the cost of a game) amounts of cash on items, through scarcity.
The scarcity in this case isn't an NFT thing. The good players in FIFA Ultimate Team are rare, and they're not NFTs (yet). In that case the scheme was loot boxes and has evolved into a clever 'limited availability' model - where you can see the next 3 players you'd get if you bought in, but they're only available for a short time. If you buy them, you'll be shown another three. A Machiavellian repackaging of the same concept.
This NFT scheme is just another example of these systems. Ubisoft or EA can't charge £500 for a character in a game, not directly, because people would kick off (which is why they use loot box or loot box adjacent style schemes to achieve the same effect). With NFTs, the market decides, and they scrape a commission - so £500 can be charged for a character, and, welp, blame doesn't land at the publisher's door, since that's just the market deciding.
Is that good for gamers, and for games? Why would we want that?
Comment