• NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    You could sell the NFT and lose access to the game just like a disc

    You wouldn’t be able to modify it as the nft would just allow you to download (edit and run) the game.

    Edit: But allowing people to freely resale their digital copies would be a big win for people. No gatekeepers just like with discs

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        If it’s a networked game, but there’s no reason a offline game shouldn’t work other than incompetence.

        Also since the NFT is the DRM the game could be available for download outside of the publishers purview, such as a public torrent site.

        • bufalo1973
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          But if the game has to call home every time it starts and there is no server your game won’t work. StarCraft can be played offline, as it was created, but you need to connect to play because Blizzard.

          • iopq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            You don’t need to, you can play offline. You just need to call home every 30 days to keep the remastered graphics since the base game is free to play now

    • Pasta Dental@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      One big “advantage” (for the companies) of NFTs is that the emitter can take a commission or fee every time the NFT is sold. This can kind of alleviate their fears of people buying from each other instead of buying a new copy. I think that’s a fair middle ground for owning a fully digital copy, between physical copy that companies don’t want and digital copy that consumers don’t want.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        How can they force that and not also force a fee to move it to a different wallet you own?

        People change wallets all the time and putting a fee on that would be inexcusable

        • IcePee@lemmy.beru.co
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Without knowing why people change their wallets, it’s hard to nail down a solution. But, perhaps a smart contract wallet whose access is controlled by an underlying wallet that can be swapped out may help. In any case, all transfers or smart contract execution attracts a fee. Even sending money between wallets.

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Well I know all transactions have fees, I meant a fee charged as a commission to transfer it that goes to the developer.

            Wallets get compromised, you might upgrade to a multi sig wallet or make a new shamirs secret sharing wallet. You might want to get more privacy after leaking your identity. All sorts of reasons to change it. Having to pay an extra 4% resale fee or whatever it is doing that wouldn’t be acceptable.