Konami NFT Auctions

[phart010 | 1,708]

Konami is getting into the NFT space. Check it out

https://www.konami.com/games/memorial-nft/en/

[RH | 4,980]

[The Count | 534]

Ugh, enough of this shit already.

[Gloves | 11,843]

I'm gonna come at this from the other side of the coin. I'll note that I do not "own" any NFTs at all, personally, but as someone who spent a fair chunk of his winter break familiarizing myself with the current ecosystem.

I can see some potential in NFTs for the future. It's honestly an interesting idea, and one that I think will be shaped heavily by the actions of users. Unfortunately IMO it will continue down the road of capitalism and businesses will continue to simply use them to hawk wares, in much the same way that mobile games have "whale" users, so to do NFTs. 

Where I think the more interesting use case lies in true digital ownership potential. I imagine a world where you buy, say, Horizon Zero Dawn once as an NFT and gain through that ownership a perpetual license to re-download forever an instance of that version of the game. We are all familiar with the horrors of digital distribution causing us to lose access to things. I have hope for a more consumer-friendly future for NFTs.

As far as Konami doing this, it's definitely just them getting into the space within the realm of the current landscape. They're not pushing boundaries, they are being a business and making money doing what's current. Don't expect that to go away, this is a "new" form of "ownership" and people like to say they own things, it's why we don't rent games anymore (generally speaking). If you don't like it you can very easily just ignore it.

[DefaultGen | 5,436]

So this is just 14 NFTs total right? As opposed to Capcom who has 100,000s if not millions of Street Fighter NFTs. The big 2 third parties are at it again guys. It's gonna be just like the 80s.

[Tanooki | 4,953]

I guess I'm confused, what really are you buying here?  I saw the Vampire Killer piece of music was a choice, you're not actually owning this piece of music, but...something else?

[JamesRobot | 5,840]

2 hours ago, Gloves said:

Where I think the more interesting use case lies in true digital ownership potential. I imagine a world where you buy, say, Horizon Zero Dawn once as an NFT and gain through that ownership a perpetual license to re-download forever an instance of that version of the game. We are all familiar with the horrors of digital distribution causing us to lose access to things. I have hope for a more consumer-friendly future for NFTs.

This is brilliant and I love you for it.  And it'll never happen.

[phart010 | 1,708]

Corporations have been aware of cryptocurrencies and Web 3.0 for years, and have wanted to participate but they just didn’t know how. What NFTs have done is they have made a practical example of something that companies can do to participate in blockchain. NFTs are like the gateway. They are simple instances of the brand encapsulated into a digital product. They can be a simple jpeg image, a sound, a short video clip, even a game. 
 

All the big companies are jumping in now largely because it’s all they know how to do in this innovative space. (Actually, they don’t even know how to do it, that’s why they are partnering up with all these smaller tech firms). 
 

There is definitely big money to be made. Crypto millionaires are happy to dump millions of dollars worth of crypto for these digital products. Honestly I see it as a big hype game, no different than Pokémon cards or sports cards. You’ll see the top 5% ultra desirable stuff retain its value, even appreciate. The rest of the stuff goes to the crap bin after some time passes.

But a lot of companies are making NFTs part of their main focus in 2022. For example, Square Enix is forecasting that NFT and metaverse will be their main focus for company growth, even in the heat of criticism from skeptics 

[Code Monkey | 2,014]

NFT are going to replace online shopping. There's definitely a use case for them that can't be replicated with any other technology.

[Gloves | 11,843]

11 minutes ago, Code Monkey said:

NFT are going to replace online shopping. There's definitely a use case for them that can't be replicated with any other technology.

There are a looooot of barriers in front of that happening, and I'm not sure that your very broad general statement is quite accurate. Specifically "replace" is an interesting and bold claim. You're implying that NFT specifically will replace buying a new kettle off amazon using fiat? That just doesn't make sense, NFT isn't a form of payment. 

Sure they can be traded, but to say that NFT will replace online shopping is... Weird? 

[0xDEAFC0DE | 1,277]

4 hours ago, Gloves said:

Where I think the more interesting use case lies in true digital ownership potential. I imagine a world where you buy, say, Horizon Zero Dawn once as an NFT and gain through that ownership a perpetual license to re-download forever an instance of that version of the game. We are all familiar with the horrors of digital distribution causing us to lose access to things. I have hope for a more consumer-friendly future for NFTs.

I don't understand why NFTs are necessary for that to happen. Can you explain why? I don't have a super deep understanding of NFTs so correct me if I get something wrong. But, the actual data for the game wouldn't be stored on the blockchain, correct? It's just a proof of ownership. So, wouldn't that mean you would still lose access to the game if whatever service you bought the game through gets taken down? With the way things currently work, proof of ownership isn't the issue, it's keeping the game available for download. Most likely if the game is still available through the storefront you bought it from, they will also still know that you do in fact own the game.

17 minutes ago, Code Monkey said:

NFT are going to replace online shopping. There's definitely a use case for them that can't be replicated with any other technology.

Similar to above. I don't see the use case for them that you claim exists. To me, it seems more like a solution seeking a problem. What is the "use case for them that can't be replicated with any other technology"?

[Gloves | 11,843]

14 minutes ago, 0xDEAFC0DE said:

I don't understand why NFTs are necessary for that to happen. Can you explain why? I don't have a super deep understanding of NFTs so correct me if I get something wrong. But, the actual data for the game wouldn't be stored on the blockchain, correct? It's just a proof of ownership. So, wouldn't that mean you would still lose access to the game if whatever service you bought the game through gets taken down? With the way things currently work, proof of ownership isn't the issue, it's keeping the game available for download. Most likely if the game is still available through the storefront you bought it from, they will also still know that you do in fact own the game.

Similar to above. I don't see the use case for them that you claim exists. To me, it seems more like a solution seeking a problem. What is the "use case for them that can't be replicated with any other technology"?

You make good points, I'm just pontificating based on my limited research. Honestly I don't think anybody has "the answer" and that's why we have the pure capitalist mess we're seeing now. 

My thought though was that through "eternal" proof on the block chain, you retain ownership of the ability to download the game from WHEREVER its available. Obviously in today's world this is unfeasible since MarketA isn't gonna give up the bandwidth on its servers for you to download what you bought on MarketB without getting a kickback themselves. 

My thinking though is based partially on something GOG has done in the past - you can link your Steam account to your GOG account, and certain games they'll let you add to your GOG account if you own them on Steam. 

But again, that's way too consumer friendly for almost any company to realistically consider at this time. My HOPE is that there is some way to use emerging technology to remove the idea of a server which the game downloads from or something. 

Another benefit is ease of transferral. Even ignoring long term goals I've stated, imagine if companies checked against the owner of the hash for whether a game can be downloaded and/or played on a given console. Yes, this introduces pesky "always online" but we already have that fairly often. However if they just check against the owner of the hash on the block chain to verify ownership, now there is a happy little, let's call it an API, to transfer the ownership of digital games. 

Let's say you and I both own PS5s (yeah I wish!). I buy Spiderman, and my receipt is on the block chain. I can now sell you ownership of the game completely separate of whatever system the console has, and the console will still be capable of checking and the game will be effectively transferred to you. 

Technically this isn't "new" - they could build this today, the ability to sell games between each other. However that takes a lot of dev hours, blah blah blah. If there was an easy API that any system could use to validate ownership like that, adoption of the ability to trade/sell digital game ownership second hand would be more viable. 

 

Again though, spit balling based on my limited research. Not months or years of it. 

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

I am so sick of hearing about NFTs. The younger guys all talk about them constantly lol. 

Sounds like a big pyramid scheme to me. Hard pass!

[Code Monkey | 2,014]

1 hour ago, Gloves said:

There are a looooot of barriers in front of that happening, and I'm not sure that your very broad general statement is quite accurate. Specifically "replace" is an interesting and bold claim. You're implying that NFT specifically will replace buying a new kettle off amazon using fiat? That just doesn't make sense, NFT isn't a form of payment. 

Sure they can be traded, but to say that NFT will replace online shopping is... Weird? 

The future of online retail is taking your personal avatar on a shopping trip into the Metaverse Mall, trying on the clothing and purchasing the digital NFT clothing asset from that mall. Then the retailer ships you the physical item. That's the future on online retail.

1 hour ago, 0xDEAFC0DE said:

I don't understand why NFTs are necessary for that to happen. Can you explain why? I don't have a super deep understanding of NFTs so correct me if I get something wrong. But, the actual data for the game wouldn't be stored on the blockchain, correct? It's just a proof of ownership. So, wouldn't that mean you would still lose access to the game if whatever service you bought the game through gets taken down? With the way things currently work, proof of ownership isn't the issue, it's keeping the game available for download. Most likely if the game is still available through the storefront you bought it from, they will also still know that you do in fact own the game.

Similar to above. I don't see the use case for them that you claim exists. To me, it seems more like a solution seeking a problem. What is the "use case for them that can't be replicated with any other technology"?

Currently if PayPal's servers go down (all of the co-locations included), your entire balance is wiped. Or if a rogue employee modifies your account balance, that's a problem. Do you trust them not to do that? Sure they'll change it back if you complain but why bother? If all transactions are hosted and processed autonomously by the blockchain, it's much more secure and redundant than a server.

Currently the blockchain is just used to provide a ledger of ownership but the core idea of the blockchain is decentralized storage which is the future of the internet. Why are we storing things on someone else's computer only they can access? I'd much rather store it on a network of millions of linked computers so that even if an entire continent is wiped off the Earth, the blockchain will continue to run without even slowing down. 100% uptime can't be guaranteed any other way.

And do you know how long it takes to transfer money using traditional fiat right now if you had to send money to Singapore? It could take a week to process the payment all the way down the line but using tokens on the blockchain, it's near instant and about 10% of the cost.

[OptOut | 8,892]

Unless explicitly stated in the terms of "sale", NFT's do NOT transfer copyright ownership to the "purchaser" of the NFT.

Neither, in fact, does the NFT "purchased" contain the actual digital file of the item itself, apart from VERY rare instances of VERY small files. The cost of hosting an actual file of anything more than a few kilobytes on a Blockchain is RIDICULOUSLY expensive, and so the NFT itself only points to an IP address contained on the regular internet.

Of course, independent of the NFT one purchases, the web domain it points to can be changed, taken down, or even "resold" by someone else in another, different NFT.

The ONLY thing unique about the NFT someone "buys" is just that. The NFT itself. Nothing else associated with the NFT, the art, the web domain, the copyright, nothing else is contained within the purchase. You are "paying" for the receipt. Literally.

 

Oh, and one last thing, the reason I placed all the purchasing terms in "quote-marks" up there is because people are "purchasing" these things with fake money. Every time you see XX NFT sold for XXXXXX amount of money, no actual money was changing hands, just crypto.

So whoever is buying these for the insane valuations we are seeing on NFT'S right now probably paid pennies on the dollar in real terms due to how much their crypto currency has inflated in the last few years. Nobody is taking a hundred grand of ACTUAL money and buying an NFT. They are transferring crypto spuriously VALUED at that amount, but which they probably paid nothing for a few years ago.

Edited January 7, 2022 by OptOut

[Code Monkey | 2,014]

10 minutes ago, OptOut said:

Unless explicitly stated in the terms of "sale", NFT's do NOT transfer copyright ownership to the "purchaser" of the NFT.

Neither, in fact, does the NFT "purchased" contain the actual digital file of the item itself, apart from VERY rare instances of VERY small files. The cost of hosting and actual file of anything more than a few kilobytes on a Blockchain is RIDICULOUSLY expensive, and so the NFT itself only points to an IP address contained on the regular internet.

Of course, independent of the NFT one purchases, the web domain it points to can be changed, taken down, or even "resold" by someone else in another, different NFT.

The ONLY thing unique about the NFT someone "buys" is just that. The NFT itself. Nothing else associated with the NFT, the art, the web domain, the copyright, nothing else is contained within the purchase. You are "paying" for the receipt. Literally.

 

Oh, and one last thing, the reason I placed all the purchasing terms in "quote-marks" up there is because people are "purchasing" these things with fake money. Every time you see XX NFT sold for XXXXXX amount of money, no actual money was changing hands, just crypto.

So whoever is buying these for the insane valuations we are seeing on NFT'S right now probably paid pennies on the dollar in real terms dude to how much their crypto currency has inflated in the lest few years. Nobody is taking a hundred grand of ACTUAL money and buying an NFT. They are transferring crypto spuriously VALUED at that amount, but which they probably paid nothing for a few years ago.

Digital file? Not all tokens have files associated with them, every Bitcoin is a token on a blockchain and there's no file associated. Sure Bitcoin is fungible so technically that's a FT and not NFT but I assume you're talking about general data on the blockchain. None of my explanation addressed any sort of associated file.

But, if you want to talk files, your point has already been addressed with blockchains like STORJ and Filecoin which is why I bought heavily into them because they're solving a problem even you have identified. Have you heard of IPFS? It's an InterPlanetary File System which splits your files into smaller chunks and hosts them on the blockchain, thus decreasing the cost associated with hosting files. I don't exactly know how yet but they are currently solving this issue you've outlined so you can't really use that as an argument. Files stored on IPFS are already decentralized.

And you want to talk about money? There's no money in your bank account, it's all just digital 1s and 0s, only about 3% of the world's money supply is physical. Have you read a Milton Friedman article lately? The things you use to buy your groceries isn't money unless you're going to the bank to get cash and bringing that to the store, even then it's still just backed by hopes and dreams. The money you get paid every week is no different than the cryptocurrency being used to "purchase" digital tokens.

Edited January 7, 2022 by Code Monkey

[Gloves | 11,843]

22 minutes ago, Code Monkey said:

The future of online retail is taking your personal avatar on a shopping trip into the Metaverse Mall, trying on the clothing and purchasing the digital NFT clothing asset from that mall. Then the retailer ships you the physical item. That's the future on online retail.

I don't believe that that is the case. Some people might LIKE it to be, but I simply don't believe that it will be the full 100% replacement you seem to believe it will be. 

Firstly, that's incredibly wasteful. Of time, effort, and resources. To imply that every online retailer is going to adhere to a 3D world is pie in the sky dreaming. Further, I and I promise you MANY others, probably the majority of people really, dont and won't see any point in purchasing an NFT version of a shirt when they just want a literal shirt. 

I can see AR going places where we're trying on clothes and feeling comfortable with the purchase through that. We're already doing that, and it's gonna be more accurate every time compared to some silly 3D avatar that half of us simply don't want. 

And you run into the classic "dilemma" of that nobody in tech can agree on ANYTHING. Which is better, React or Vue? Does PHP still have a place? Java? Chrome or Firefox? Windows or Mac? Linux? Which distro? There's never going to be ONE solution for anything and honestly that's part of the appeal. 

I am not blind to that people live as their online personas or avatars, we're here doing it right now. Kids are on Roblox, the Metaverse has already existed for 10+ years, it's just that finally corporations are privvy to that they can make a buck off it so its all the buzz. 

I'm sure taking some 3D avatar to a mall online will be some version of some store's experience online, but it won't be all that exists as you are implying. 

[OptOut | 8,892]

 

6 minutes ago, Code Monkey said:

I don't exactly know how yet but they are currently solving this issue you've outlined so you can't really use that as an argument. Files stored on IPFS are already decentralized.

Lol, how can you same my argument is invalid in the same BREATH as admitting that the problem hasn't yet been solved?! 

You're in DEEP on this crypto bullshit dude, so I can understand why you go out of your way to defend this stuff, protecting your investment etc.

But for regular people who have touched grass in the last ten years, we can see how patently worthless all that "currency" actually is, and I don't see that changing any time soon, frankly.

[Gloves | 11,843]

To be clear, I think the idea of a 3d mall platform, that sort of thing is pretty fun. I like it. 

But I'm not drinking any Kool-Aid that makes me ignore:

• Accessibility, eg users with handicaps, blindness, physical impairments etc
• All of the many dissenters of the WHOLE ecosystem surrounding the technology; I don't have to agree with them to acknowledge they exist, and themselves have money
• Third world countries, and others who have limited access to bandwidth and technology

It's willful ignorance to think that all this cool shit is going to straight up REPLACE your typical go to a storefront online, drop your credit card number, and get an item vaguely resembling the picture on the web page. 

[Gloves | 11,843]

2 minutes ago, OptOut said:

 

Lol, how can you same my argument is invalid in the same BREATH as admitting that the problem hasn't yet been solved?! 

You're in DEEP on this crypto bullshit dude, so I can understand why you go out of your way to defend this stuff, protecting your investment etc.

But for regular people who have touched grass in the last ten years, we can see how patently worthless all that "currency" actually is, and I don't see that changing any time soon, frankly.

I'd not go so far as to call it worthless per se, but at the least accepting that it's incredibly volatile should play a part. Imagine bread costing $5 today and $20 tomorrow just because Elon Musk tweeted a photo of his new dog. 

[Gloves | 11,843]

I mean, even just looking at clothes. Body dismorphia exists. You'd be a fool to ignore that. When I make an avatar online it's gonna be a sexy cat girl who weighs 80 pounds less than me. 

You think people are gonna keep their 3d avatar up to date with their real physical dimensions? Our bodies fluctuate 5 or more pounds every day. 

I'm gonna start baking a pie so I can toss it in the air. 

[Code Monkey | 2,014]

12 minutes ago, Gloves said:

I don't believe that that is the case. Some people might LIKE it to be, but I simply don't believe that it will be the full 100% replacement you seem to believe it will be. 

Firstly, that's incredibly wasteful. Of time, effort, and resources. To imply that every online retailer is going to adhere to a 3D world is pie in the sky dreaming. Further, I and I promise you MANY others, probably the majority of people really, dont and won't see any point in purchasing an NFT version of a shirt when they just want a literal shirt. 

I can see AR going places where we're trying on clothes and feeling comfortable with the purchase through that. We're already doing that, and it's gonna be more accurate every time compared to some silly 3D avatar that half of us simply don't want. 

And you run into the classic "dilemma" of that nobody in tech can agree on ANYTHING. Which is better, React or Vue? Does PHP still have a place? Java? Chrome or Firefox? Windows or Mac? Linux? Which distro? There's never going to be ONE solution for anything and honestly that's part of the appeal. 

I am not blind to that people live as their online personas or avatars, we're here doing it right now. Kids are on Roblox, the Metaverse has already existed for 10+ years, it's just that finally corporations are privvy to that they can make a buck off it so its all the buzz. 

I'm sure taking some 3D avatar to a mall online will be some version of some store's experience online, but it won't be all that exists as you are implying. 

I'm saying you'll be required to buy the NFT, that's how the online shopping will work. Try some jeans on your avatar and if you like them, buy them online. The NFT sale happens on the back end and the jeans get mailed out to you form the retailer's warehouse. Then the jeans become part of your online closet and you can apply them to your avatar as part of whichever clothing you want on your avatar that day in the Metaverse.

The technology exists today to take a scan of someone and create a measurement-accurate avatar representation of them that's way more accurate than any augmented reality. Importing that avatar into a shopping experience will allow you to check clothing fitment, people want that now and retailers are salivating for it.

6 minutes ago, OptOut said:

 

Lol, how can you same my argument is invalid in the same BREATH as admitting that the problem hasn't yet been solved?! 

You're in DEEP on this crypto bullshit dude, so I can understand why you go out of your way to defend this stuff, protecting your investment etc.

But for regular people who have touched grass in the last ten years, we can see how patently worthless all that "currency" actually is, and I don't see that changing any time soon, frankly.

To address your first statement, I don't understand the grammar.

To address your second statement, I only own a single NFT that I got completely for free so I'm not that deep. Sure it's worth $250 now but I'm not invested in NFT at all currently.

To address the third statement, I go back to my previous post. Your money that you get paid for work is just as worthless as cryptocurrency, it has no real value. Why do you think it has more value, because someone told you so? Money isn't worth anything, it'll be used to keep the fire burning if the apocalypse happens, you can't eat it and you can't live inside it. Fiat, cryptocurrency, it all has no value until you associate it value and then it's only worth what someone else will pay for it.

4 minutes ago, Gloves said:

To be clear, I think the idea of a 3d mall platform, that sort of thing is pretty fun. I like it. 

But I'm not drinking any Kool-Aid that makes me ignore:

• Accessibility, eg users with handicaps, blindness, physical impairments etc
• All of the many dissenters of the WHOLE ecosystem surrounding the technology; I don't have to agree with them to acknowledge they exist, and themselves have money
• Third world countries, and others who have limited access to bandwidth and technology

It's willful ignorance to think that all this cool shit is going to straight up REPLACE your typical go to a storefront online, drop your credit card number, and get an item vaguely resembling the picture on the web page. 

Vaguely? The 3 dimensional assets in the Metaverse will exactly match the physical item, they have the same elasticity, pattern and dimensions as the physical item. You can even see how they react to your avatar's movement by trying them on in the Metaverse mall.

The rest you're right about, access to it will be problematic but if Bend was able to finally let go of their Blockbuster, we can get the Metaverse around the globe! Go Starlink!

[OptOut | 8,892]

I trust a currency backed by the full force of the institutions of the nation-state, every single bank, corporation and company in the world, and every single person alive, over the value of a randomly generated monkey JPEG any day.

Or a @Code Monkey for that matter.

[OptOut | 8,892]

32 minutes ago, Gloves said:

To be clear, I think the idea of a 3d mall platform, that sort of thing is pretty fun. I like it. 

But I'm not drinking any Kool-Aid that makes me ignore:

• Accessibility, eg users with handicaps, blindness, physical impairments etc
• All of the many dissenters of the WHOLE ecosystem surrounding the technology; I don't have to agree with them to acknowledge they exist, and themselves have money
• Third world countries, and others who have limited access to bandwidth and technology

It's willful ignorance to think that all this cool shit is going to straight up REPLACE your typical go to a storefront online, drop your credit card number, and get an item vaguely resembling the picture on the web page. 

I mean, wasn't the whole POINT of online shopping the fact that we DON'T have to remove our sweaty asses from the couch to get up and go to the fuggin mall?

What's it gonna be? The first ten years of metaverse shopping you gonna be getting up on treadmills and putting on your fuggin crusty VR gloves to fondle virtual goods before settling on a purchase... Then an AMAZING revolution in VR occurs when someone invents a virtual smartphone so you can order online in the metaverse WITHOUT actually having to visit the virtual mall? 

Cut out the middleman, lol, just give me the virtual smartphone already!

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

That dude is all in on the metaverse lol

 

Like, what will people wear in real life? All shopping is done online for avatars? What?