The question before that is pretty revealing, too:
Is it fair to describe Legacy as a game where you are building and running a company town?
Yeah, that is. If you want to see a perfect example of this, if you look at Bournville, there’s this company called Bournville Chocolate. And when they founded the company, they founded it and paid people in Bournville Chocolate tokens. They built all the houses for the people to live in, they built all the schools. So everybody in Bournville was employed by the chocolate factory, and that is the real inspiration. If you look at something like China, I know a lot of the Chinese companies, the owners of the companies design the houses for the workers to live in. So even in today’s modern world, there are examples of it.
I've been trying to wrap my mind around NFT/blockchain games for the last week and I still don't get it. If the only way for you to make money is to sell to the next sucker buying in, it's essentially a Ponzi scheme that collapses once the game is no longer popular and growing. Beyond that, why would someone want to buy someone else's factory as an NFT? The NFT concept was already pretty stupid in the first place, but now we're doing it for pieces in a game that might not be around in a couple years? :whywhywhywhywhy:
I think they're trying to recreate TF2's lightning-in-a-bottle hat 'economy'. The trouble is, TF2 was an engaging game first. The digital marketplace only works as a supplement to an already successful game.
It’s supposed to sit in the same broad “play to earn” [...] with the kinds of moral choices and management systems for which Molyneux is known.
As in, "known to be shit". This man wants to make movies, and he keeps trying to use videos game to do it.
He gives it away at the very end. They don't want to use a central database because they want people to have to pay to sell their stupid in game shit. Nothing about crypto really has anything to do with this, but it's clear that they're convinced that the window dressing will be enough to trick people.
The question before that is pretty revealing, too:
I've been trying to wrap my mind around NFT/blockchain games for the last week and I still don't get it. If the only way for you to make money is to sell to the next sucker buying in, it's essentially a Ponzi scheme that collapses once the game is no longer popular and growing. Beyond that, why would someone want to buy someone else's factory as an NFT? The NFT concept was already pretty stupid in the first place, but now we're doing it for pieces in a game that might not be around in a couple years? :whywhywhywhywhy:
deleted by creator
Beanie Babies except they're the harbingers of societal collapse.
Building housing for workers is the same thing as paying workers in funbucks that only you accept.
deleted by creator
I think they're trying to recreate TF2's lightning-in-a-bottle hat 'economy'. The trouble is, TF2 was an engaging game first. The digital marketplace only works as a supplement to an already successful game.
As in, "known to be shit". This man wants to make movies, and he keeps trying to use videos game to do it.
I actually paid money for TF2, I'm that old. The hats.... uh... were not the best thing to happen to gamming.
deleted by creator
That fucking game.
He gives it away at the very end. They don't want to use a central database because they want people to have to pay to sell their stupid in game shit. Nothing about crypto really has anything to do with this, but it's clear that they're convinced that the window dressing will be enough to trick people.