this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
79 points (96.5% liked)

Games

19172 readers
114 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
79
Sega calls video games that use blockchain technology 'boring' (gamerkick.com)
submitted 2 years ago by GamerKick@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Shuji Utsumi, Sega’s co-CEO, comments in a new statement that there is no point in implementing blockchain technology if it doesn’t make games ‘fun’.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what your point is. You're essentially saying you're screwed with the blockchain, but everything you started implies you're screwed without the blockchain:

central authority could take my house and disregard the blockchain

Sure, and they can do that now. The only thing stopping your city from taking your house is the court system and police enforcement. In a game, there are even fewer protections, so the game devs can take your digital assets if it's inconvenient. I guess you could sue them in civil court, but they're also in control of the EULA for the game. We've seen cases where games ban players, which essentially takes away the license they bought for the game.

With blockchain, you could externalize all of those transactions. If the main servers block you, you could join another server that doesn't recognize the ban. The less control the game companies have over transactions, the more transparent those types of decisions become.

However, it needs to be built properly to actually take advantage of the benefits of blockchain. Everything I've seen has simply been a money grab because there's little incentive to do it properly.

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I typed that right after I got home from a long hike, and i fell and hit my knee on the way back, so I was rather tired when I last replied to you.

The point being is that since some trust in a central authority is required, the central authority can handle verification. And because of the cryptographic signatures, the only way they could cheat would by ommitting transactions. Invalid transactions, either because its unsigned or because the numbers don't add up, can be detected trivially. So if we just give all stakeholders a copy of the transaction, they'd be able to prove that the transaction has been ommitted.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I hope your knee is okay. :)

I'm more concerned about what happens when the central authority disappears. I think everyone has experienced a game being dropped by the studio, and if it's an MMO or something, you could lose valuable items you've purchased even if third party servers exist.

Externalizing transactions means individual servers can decide which transactions (i.e. which central authorities they recognize). So if the game devs act poorly, the community can switch to another authority they prefer. It also gives devs less of a reason to discard transactions between version releases because the community would expect those transactions to remain valid (they are separate from the game after all).

So I think they are a lot of good ways it could be used to players' benefit, but unfortunately it's usually a gimmick or scam.

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

My knee is doing better now. Thanks for your concern.

I’m more concerned about what happens when the central authority disappears. I think everyone has experienced a game being dropped by the studio, and if it’s an MMO or something, you could lose valuable items you’ve purchased even if third party servers exist.

Well, under my model, somebody else could take over for the central authority, as they just need the most recent version of the ledger. Since stakeholders of transactions are supposed to retain copies, that shouldn't be too difficult.

The moment work needs to be done off chain, be that hosting servers or enforcing the law, the blockchain loses its one advantage. I suppose the best verification mechanism would be proof of identity, where key players are known and can't get a new pseudonym.