So there has been quite a bit of talk these days about Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), and the role they might play in video games. Even some of the biggest gaming companies have expressed interest in some sort of supposed potential that NFTs represent when it comes to gaming.
I, for one, have been unable to figure out real benefit NFTs could potentially bring to gaming that doesn’t just revolve around a few people making a lot more money, often ignoring just about every other aspect that goes into designing and releasing a video game that’s… you know… fun. With this article, I hope to sufficiently explain what NFTs are in their current form, and what—if anything—the concept might have to do with video games in general.
The Blockchain and the NFT
To understand what an NFT is on even a surface level, you have to first understand what a blockchain is. Aside from being an incredibly popular buzzword for just about every new tech startup these days, a blockchain is essentially a chain of records, called blocks. Hence the name. A single block in a blockchain contains a fair bit of information: a cryptographic hash of a previous block, a timestamp for when the block was created, and data about the transaction that created the block. The cryptographic hash, being evidence of the previous block’s existence, is what makes these blocks chain.
Too technical? Yeah, I know. Currently, the idea of a blockchain is mostly used to create cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Etherium. The blockchain has several legitimate uses as well, like actual record keeping, since the whole chain tends to be resistant to a single block’s details being changed because of the cryptographic hash for an earlier block in every block. More recently, however, blockchains were used to create the main subject of this article: Non-Fungible Tokens.
The fundamental idea behind a non-fungible token is that it can't really be altered. An NFT is essentially a small bit of data that's stored on a blockchain. Each NFT is typically unique, making them inherently different from cryptocurrencies. You might be seeing NFTs being talked about all over the place, from random threads on Reddit to random tweet threads where some one or the other is trying to sell you on a really cool NFT.
I just spoke about all of this stuff at a surface level. I’m no software/hardware engineer, and I couldn’t explain the finer details even if I wanted to without making some glaring mistakes. I just read all this stuff on Wikipedia. To that end, I’ll leave a video that does a much better job of explaining the idea than I possibly can.
What makes this bad?
Nothing in the core concept of a blockchain or NFT is inherently really all that bad, aside from the absurd amount of energy it takes to prop up the most popular blockchains these days. By all accounts, however, efforts are being made to try and minimise the damage blockchains, cryptocurrencies, and NFTs are causing to our planet because of the absurd energy costs required to keep them going, and some of the newer blockchains and cryptocurrencies are making use of new methods that have a much smaller carbon footprint.
NFTs, however, are being peddled by just about every hyper-capitalistic evangelist out there, presumably in an effort to make a quick buck. NFTs, on their own, have no real monetary value, so you can imagine why news headlines about random NFTs being sold for hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars might seem stupid. That’s because it is stupid.
What about NFTs in video games?
Video game publishers like Square Enix, and most notably today, Ubisoft, seem really interested in the idea of using NFTs in their games… somehow. Ubisoft launched Quartz not too long ago, which is the publisher’s effort to bring NFTs to its line-up of games, starting with Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Breakpoint. Originally announced to incredible backlash, Ubisoft has since only doubled down on its NFT project, with the company's Strategic Innovations Lab vice president Nicolas Pouard telling Finder in an interview that gamers just don't understand NFTs.
The main argument in favour of bringing NFTs to video games largely seems to boil down to giving players some sort of stake and ownership in their game’s growth. Theoretically, a player could buy an NFT in Ghost Recon Breakpoint—cosmetic gear with unique numbers on them—and once they’re done playing the game, they could sell it to another player, driving a player-made economy. And Ubisoft gets a cut of every transaction, of course.
Now, on a fundamental level, this just sounds like microtransactions with extra steps to me. And if we’re talking about player-made economies, Valve seems to have managed the idea just fine with the Steam Marketplace without actually needing to make use of NFTs at all. There’s an insane market that hides underneath the cosmetics marketplace for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, after all.
There are also tech evangelists who typically take to Twitter and try to make some points about NFTs benefiting gamers in some sort of nebulous ways. The thing is, I just don’t get it. All of these arguments seem to come down to making money in some way. As if the only real value playing a video game can possibly have lies in somehow making money off the experience.
Play to Earn?
There have been a couple of games out there that run on the basic idea of playing a game to earn money—blockchain games. These games are pretty simple affairs: you play them, and could potentially make some money in the process. Great idea right? The problem is that money, as a concept, fundamentally changes the reason why someone might do anything. A real question any number of these games have to answer is this: would the game still be played if you can’t make money off it?
No. These games are incredibly simplistic, and they look borderline boring. The only real reason to really give them any attention at all is if the idea of playing games to earn money sounds appealing. Now, everyone who plays these games isn’t making money. Actually earning money would largely be relegated to a small subset of players that have the knowledge and experience to play with the market. Most players are realistically playing these games for a chance at making money. Sounds a bit like gambling to me? Why play a slot machine if there’s no chance of a payout?
This has really rotten vibes, as if I’m being told that I’m just wasting my time with video games. Why spend hours playing a game if you can’t make money? It’s not like video games have some intrinsic artistic merit that’s worth experiencing just for the sake of experiencing it.
Following trends on a global, historical scale, money often tends to be a major root of the problem. Video game design rapidly shifts. Rather than focusing on the game being enjoyable on its own merits, it has to instead focus on keeping engagement metrics high enough for everyone to make a tidy profit. Everything becomes a ‘design-by-numbers’ affair, with no real room for something as ephemeral as ‘fun’. Fun, after all, can’t really be monetised after the first time a player pays money to buy the game. All core design principles will revolve around pushing more NFT transactions, because that’s how the most money can be made.
Other than money… why are NFTs and Blockchains so good for gaming? I don’t think they are. I think it’s just another way for a select few to make a quick buck, and then leave to peddle their snake oil elsewhere.
Closing Thoughts
If it hasn’t been perfectly clear, all of this is just my opinion. I’m sure I’m just too stupid to realise the true potential for NFTs and cryptocurrencies and the blockchain for gaming. I’m just an idiot who really likes to play video games, and likes talking about them. To that end, if you, faithful reader, have any potential idea on why any of this stuff matters to gaming, outside of the money aspect, please tell me. I honestly just don’t get it.