Why is there so much editor opinion in this piece about why an NFT would be beneficial?

Strange. So its fine now to have fools and money parted? Or: perhaps the general sense of 'make money at any cost' is what got people all up in arms... a sign of the times, perhaps.

I think its very positive to see massive backlash against anything that is clearly driven by profit and profit alone. If the game can't carry itself without an NFT... sad story. So I think there are many angles to how you can look at that. But promoting NFT as something idiots are going to sink a lot of money into 'so its good'... myeah... strange.

Isn't it a much more ethical stance to just say 'keep this nonsense out of our lives'? Its a scam, why normalize it?

I'm also reading a stab at 'gamer outrage culture' here... but that outrage culture has killed a lot of bad things for gaming already, and NFTs are definitely in that category. Today it doesn't destroy a game... but what about tomorrow?

NFT is cancer, especially in gaming. Developers and studios are just using this to milk people and make an extra buck.

Let me remind you :
Standard Edition - $59.99
Limited Edition - $79.99
Collector Edition - $179.99
Ultimate Edition - $339.99



Game also has season pass and story expansions which are paid addons that come included starting from Deluxe Edition.
You want devs to make extra buck? Buy the freaking ripoff physical edition.

ChomiqNFT is cancer, especially in gaming. Developers and studios are just using this to milk people and make an extra buck.

Let me remind you :
Standard Edition - $59.99
Limited Edition - $79.99
Collector Edition - $179.99
Ultimate Edition - $339.99



Game also has season pass and story expansions which are paid addons that come included starting from Deluxe Edition.
You want devs to make extra buck? Buy the freaking ripoff physical edition.

Wow, that is some next-level plastic merch right there

And they wanted NFTs even on top of all this? Dayum. That game better be massive and awesome.
Its like the focus is on everything except the content of the base game. Funny, because it echoes what GSC has been doing post-STALKER release up to this point...

Vayra86Wow, that is some next-level plastic merch right there

And they wanted NFTs even on top of all this? Dayum. That game better be massive and awesome.
Its like the focus is on everything except the content of the base game. Funny, because it echoes what GSC has been doing post-STALKER release up to this point...

Yeah poor guys can't make a buck.

They also abandoned it because NFT integration could void their ability to sell their game on Steam. Rule 13 under "What you shouldn't publish on Steam"

The caveat here is that NFT integration means nothing specifically to a games' quality, or the quality of its systems.

It actually does. The more a developer pushes this dumbed down crap, the more likely you are to feel your intelligence insulted whilst playing, which for me definitely downgrades the gaming experience...

And of course, any gamer who wants nothing to do with the rampantly speculative NFT market can simply... Not care about the NFTs that are being integrated. The fact remains that anyone not willing to enter the NFT world yet would not be forced, in any way, to spend any sort of money or to interact with NFTs themselves.

Reminds me of the doe-eyed naivety back in the early to mid 2010's with "I disagree that putting mobile game mechanics in full price PC games is a bad thing. I'm SURE that micro-transactions will remain purely about cosmetics" which took all of 5 minutes before morphing into "surprise mechanics" in next year's games...

The real issue with NFT's is that people pushing them as harmless today are like advertisers, they just never know when to stop. We've already lost the war for preventing mobile gaming turning into almost wall to wall hyper-monetized trashware. Don't be a useful idiot and push PC gaming down the same route...

I'm writing this as a TPU forum member.

BSim500It actually does. The more a developer pushes this dumbed down crap, the more likely you are to feel your intelligence insulted whilst playing, which for me definitely downgrades the gaming experience...

I'm interested. Why does it insult your intelligence and why is it dumbed-down? And why does it have to have anything to do with gameplay mechanics?

Vayra86Strange. So its fine now to have fools and money parted? Or: perhaps the general sense of 'make money at any cost' is what got people all up in arms... a sign of the times, perhaps.

I think its very positive to see massive backlash against anything that is clearly driven by profit and profit alone. If the game can't carry itself without an NFT... sad story. So I think there are many angles to how you can look at that. But promoting NFT as something idiots are going to sink a lot of money into 'so its good'... myeah... strange.

Isn't it a much more ethical stance to just say 'keep this nonsense out of our lives'? Its a scam, why normalize it?

I'm also reading a stab at 'gamer outrage culture' here... but that outrage culture has killed a lot of bad things for gaming already, and NFTs are definitely in that category. Today it doesn't destroy a game... but what about tomorrow?

Why do you say it's profit alone? Of course, it's a corporation. The metahuman NFT likely would have made GSC tons of money, and... How would that impact your or mine experience in the world? Since this discussion is mostly hypotheticals, what if the Metahuman NFT made GSC 1 million dollars and all of that went back into the games' production? Likely we'll now never know; the money could just as well go to someone's pockets. But then again - we don't know. We didn't get to the stage where we asked the right questions and got the right answers.

Again, the choice lies with the consumer. It lay with the consumer when mobile game monetization encroached on AAA gaming space, it lays with the consumer when they spend hundreds of dollars on lootboxes or when they spend 3x MSRP on a graphics card from a scalper. That's in people's respective liberties.

Where do we draw the line? Because we think it's a cashgrab and because we Think it may not be beneficial, or do we actually act as thinking, rational individuals (which again, depends on all of us) not to put our money where our mouth isn't? What about people who want this NFT integration? why should your opinion (or mine, or anyone's) take that away?

It all just seems very "pitchforky" to me. And the almost automatic NFT backlash and possible review bombing (which we know can happen overnight) just seems like a very unhealthy relationship to have with anything. It shouldn't be a power relationship between developers and consumers. It should be collaborative. And this isn't a collaborative stance.

ChomiqNFT is cancer, especially in gaming. Developers and studios are just using this to milk people and make an extra buck.

Let me remind you :
Standard Edition - $59.99
Limited Edition - $79.99
Collector Edition - $179.99
Ultimate Edition - $339.99



Game also has season pass and story expansions which are paid addons that come included starting from Deluxe Edition.
You want devs to make extra buck? Buy the freaking ripoff physical edition

Hmm...since when is €109.99 the same as $339.99??

RaevenlordI'm interested. Why does it insult your intelligence and why is it dumbed-down? And why does it have to have anything to do with gameplay mechanics?

Even if the NFT is purely about putting free content in-game because some rich person paid for that, it can still degrade a game (and you don't need to "change mechanics" to do that). Pillars of Eternity 1 springs to mind. The first thing I did when playing was to download a mod to remove the "Kickstarter Backer Rewards" of community written gravestones of which about 5% fit the tone of the game and the other 95% were literal spam / attention seeking graffiti that completely ruined the tone of several areas of the game and made it feel trashier than it otherwise could have been. The only thing selling NFT's for people to pay large sums of money in exchange for "have your face scanned" or add other personal stuff does is open things up for future in-game advertising / badly made fan-faction / turn game content into the dumb side of someone else's Facebook account. Not what I look for in video games at all and if a game really can't stand on its feet without these silly gimmicks, it says a awful lot about how games have indeed been dumbed down over the recent years.

VulkanBrosHmm...since when is €109.99 the same as $339.99??

Retail and digital are different.

BSim500Even if the NFT is purely about putting free content in-game because some rich person paid for that, it can still degrade a game (and you don't need to "change mechanics" to do that). Pillars of Eternity 1 springs to mind. The first thing I did when playing was to download a mod to remove the "Kickstarter Backer Rewards" of community written gravestones of which about 5% fit the tone of the game and the other 95% were literal spam / attention seeking graffiti that completely ruined the tone of several areas of the game and made it feel trashier than it otherwise could have been. The only thing selling NFT's for people to pay large sums of money in exchange for "have your face scanned" or add other personal stuff does is open things up for future in-game advertising / badly made fan-faction / turn game content into the dumb side of someone else's Facebook account. Not what I look for in video games at all and if a game really can't stand on its feet without these silly gimmicks, it says a awful lot about how games have indeed been dumbed down over the recent years.

Thank you for your reply. Considering your example, I'd say that that leaves room for meaningful, interesting integrations to be done that don't actually ruin the experience. And while you may have felt that way, other players likely didn't. So... Are we just projecting our personal experiences and opinions on others?

You're looking at it with a negative bias. People could argue I'm looking at it with a positive bias. I just think that more options usually means more liberty.

RaevenlordThank you for your reply. Considering your example, I'd say that that leaves room for meaningful, interesting integrations to be done that don't actually ruin the experience. And while you may have felt that way, other players likely didn't. So... Are we just projecting our personal experiences and opinions on others? You're looking at it with a negative bias. People could argue I'm looking at it with a positive bias. I just think that more options usually means more liberty.

My "Negative bias" comes from simply observing how "but it's only cosmetics" ended up for both mobile & PC gaming. You all know full well that normalizing / mainstreaming this stuff is going to end up the same way. It's simply an itch those pushing for their $200 games just can't help but scratch...

VulkanBrosHmm...since when is €109.99 the same as $339.99??

You're comparing DIGITAL to PHYSICAL.

RaevenlordWhy do you say it's profit alone? Of course, it's a corporation.

That is buying into the extremist predatory capitalist ideology that, while being the law of the land in the US for a few decades and is often taken for granted, is in no way "natural" or inevitable or any such thing. One could just as easily argue that corporations only exist in order to produce valuable products for users, and that profits are entirely separate from their core workings.

Raevenlordwhat if the Metahuman NFT made GSC 1 million dollars and all of that went back into the games' production?

It might, but how would you have any guarantee that it would go back into the games' production? With your seeming wholesale embrace of extreme capitalist tactics, you also need to accept what follows from this: profits are in large part paid out to executives as bonuses and/or shareholders, with tiny fractions being used to fund the normal operations of the company. With NFTs, there's the added risk of this triggering the creation of teams working specifically on this (to drive further profits), either through reallocating workers (taking resources away from development) or new hires (which will likely be hired for their NFT expertise, i.e. there is an extreme risk of them being gung-ho NFT/crypto bros, which is in turn extremely likely to cause dramatic shifts in the work environment, culture and goals of the company even in the relatively short term.

Raevenlordthe choice lies with the consumer.

That kind of willful naivete is kind of shocking coming from someone who actually works as a journalist. Yes, choice, exists, but it does not exist in a vacuum. If the game has an active community (likely) or any kind of multiplayer aspect (also most high budget games these days), the introduction of NFTs will cause a shift in the tone and culture of these environments, in turn affecting both how players feel and act in-game and outside of the game, as well as the choices they make. Please stop talking as if people are never convinced of doing stuff they either didn't care about or were opposed to through an activity they enjoy - that is literally one of the easiest ways of convincing anyone to do anything.

RaevenlordThank you for your reply. Considering your example, I'd say that that leaves room for meaningful, interesting integrations to be done that don't actually ruin the experience. And while you may have felt that way, other players likely didn't. So... Are we just projecting our personal experiences and opinions on others?

There is a veritable mountain of evidence of how NFTs are harmful, have negative effects on individuals and communities (and the environment), all of which drastically outweighs any potential or actual positive sides. Yes, as with all scams there are a few lucky winners. That does not make it good in any way.

RaevenlordYou're looking at it with a negative bias. People could argue I'm looking at it with a positive bias. I just think that more options usually means more liberty.

Please define "more liberty". The liberty to be tricked into spending your hard-earned money on digital "goods" because of various social pressures? That's a liberty most of us can do without, to be quite honest. The liberty to have your account hacked because you happen to own some token that people can steal and sell for a profit? The liberty to have your leisure activities transformed into desperate profit-seeking chores? The liberty to have the demands of capital seep into even more aspects of your life (which, if it isn't clear, is a loss of liberty)?

That's the thing here: the "negative bias" is based on quite a lot of evidence, as well as a realistic outlook of the potential benefits and harms that may come from this. The "positive bias" is based on pie-in-the-sky libertarianism that runs contrary to all evidence, contrary to science and economics, and contrary to all that is known to be healthy for the mental, social and physical well-being of the vast majority of people living in the world today.

RaevenlordHow would that impact your or mine experience in the world?

Do you think this would just appear in the game out of thin air and not require any development or further upkeep? GSC has put out notoriously buggy and half baked games, and I say that as a die hard fan that has invested an absurd amount of time into the STALKER series. They don't need to have any of their focus or attention taken away from the actual game to implement or maintain some awful NFT b.s. so Sergiy can pad his pockets a little more.

Again, the choice lies with the consumer.

And we've clearly spoken. The majority of the game's fans want nothing to do with NFT's in STALKER.

ValantarThat is buying into the extremist predatory capitalist ideology that, while being the law of the land in the US for a few decades and is often taken for granted, is in no way "natural" or inevitable or any such thing. One could just as easily argue that corporations only exist in order to produce valuable products for users, and that profits are entirely separate from their core workings.

It might, but how would you have any guarantee that it would go back into the games' production? With your seeming wholesale embrace of extreme capitalist tactics, you also need to accept what follows from this: profits are in large part paid out to executives as bonuses and/or shareholders, with tiny fractions being used to fund the normal operations of the company. With NFTs, there's the added risk of this triggering the creation of teams working specifically on this (to drive further profits), either through reallocating workers (taking resources away from development) or new hires (which will likely be hired for their NFT expertise, i.e. there is an extreme risk of them being gung-ho NFT/crypto bros, which is in turn extremely likely to cause dramatic shifts in the work environment, culture and goals of the company even in the relatively short term.

That kind of willful naivete is kind of shocking coming from someone who actually works as a journalist. Yes, choice, exists, but it does not exist in a vacuum. If the game has an active community (likely) or any kind of multiplayer aspect (also most high budget games these days), the introduction of NFTs will cause a shift in the tone and culture of these environments, in turn affecting both how players feel and act in-game and outside of the game, as well as the choices they make. Please stop talking as if people are never convinced of doing stuff they either didn't care about or were opposed to through an activity they enjoy - that is literally one of the easiest ways of convincing anyone to do anything.

There is a veritable mountain of evidence of how NFTs are harmful, have negative effects on individuals and communities (and the environment), all of which drastically outweighs any potential or actual positive sides. Yes, as with all scams there are a few lucky winners. That does not make it good in any way.

Please define "more liberty". The liberty to be tricked into spending your hard-earned money on digital "goods" because of various social pressures? That's a liberty most of us can do without, to be quite honest. The liberty to have your account hacked because you happen to own some token that people can steal and sell for a profit? The liberty to have your leisure activities transformed into desperate profit-seeking chores? The liberty to have the demands of capital seep into even more aspects of your life (which, if it isn't clear, is a loss of liberty)?

That's the thing here: the "negative bias" is based on quite a lot of evidence, as well as a realistic outlook of the potential benefits and harms that may come from this. The "positive bias" is based on pie-in-the-sky libertarianism that runs contrary to all evidence, contrary to science and economics, and contrary to all that is known to be healthy for the mental, social and physical well-being of the vast majority of people living in the world today.

This is an interesting discussion. However, you seem to be interpreting my stance incorrectly. In no sane world am I a libertarian capitalist. I think I know myself better than you.

I agree with you that "profit at all costs" isn't inevitable; I agree that it's the base perception, and that it's grounded in history. That's also the stance people are taking when it comes to NFTs, though, isn't it? You're basing your decisions and behaviours based on past history, not on facts. Yes, past history may serve (as it should more often) as a predictor. But then if you accept that, then you must also believe that you have no power to change the present and alter the narrative. In which case, we're all just doomed to repeat our past mistakes or to sail into oblivion with our arms up. Damn. Is that naiveté, pessimism, factual?...

Fact: we don't know if the money would have gone into development, like we don't know if it would go to someone's pockets, or distributed through multiple charities. Everything here is speculation, because we pulled out our pitchforks instead of asking the right, needed questions that might make this into a moment of collaboration between customer and company. We are purely in speculative terrain in all of this. Which is why I'm simply trying to state this, and this is the gist of my argument:

We could have taken the time to ask GSC the details of implementation AND THEN, "burn them at the stake". It was less that 24 hours before the company reversed its decision to include NFTs. Do you think this happened out of interesting debates and actual idea exchanges, or from an invisible, digital-only pitchfork crowd?

Of course choice doesn't exist in a vacum. As a human, before ever being a journalist, I understand culture shifts. I understand the slippery slope that's so easy to go through. I actually see how people get used to having security cameras on their workplaces and streets over cries of "increased security" and "crime reduction", and what that does to their perception of freedom and what liberties they have to surrender for that 10% reduction for non-serious crimes that happen 30 times a year. So I am well aware, thank you.

I also understand, however, that NFTs and blockchain aren't going anywhere, and it's thus our responsibility as consumers to vote not only with our wallets, but with actually taking the time to read announcements, ask what questions still need answering, and then actually... Ask them. Not like this. I couldn't care less about the NFT. What I do care about is that unrestrained backlash (maybe even some deaththreats, some poor excuses for human beings do love doing that, after all) did take away something that would be there and that I and others could Maybe choose to interact with.

Companies will integrate NFTs, the slipperly slope will still happen, and in a decade, the anonymous mass that is "humanity" will generally accept and use the tech. What I'm against is the predatorial cancel culture and the harm it does to actual, you know, liberty?

And I will not argue with your last paragraph. That's a whole lot of assumptions and about 20 cans of worms and debate in a single (very debatable) sentence that actually looks more like a jab than actual discussion. I'll let it rest.

DonKnottsDo you think this would just appear in the game out of thin air and not require any development or further upkeep? GSC has put out notoriously buggy and half baked games, and I say that as a die hard fan that has invested an absurd amount of time into the STALKER series. They don't need to have any of their focus or attention taken away from the actual game to implement or maintain some awful NFT b.s. so Sergiy can pad his pockets a little more.


And we've clearly spoken. The majority of the game's fans want nothing to do with NFT's in STALKER.

Other people would argue otherwise; GSC could have perfectly set up a dedicated team for this (again, we don't know because we didn't ask) and so again you're making assumptions, and I will rest my case on this matter. I think I've expressed myself pretty clearly.

No, a vocal group has spoken. Where are the statistical reports to back up your claim that the majority spoke? The 90,000 likes on the twitter post backtracking on NFTs? How many of those are there because it is such a polarizing subject and people go with the vocal mainstream? 90,000 likes as a majority for a franchise that sold more than 15 million copies. Hmm. Doesn't add up, does it?

And thus we arrive at the core question: the dictatorship of the vocal minority, taking choices from others, in a democratic society.

Edits: typos and clarification.

Ninja Edit 2: GSC made the bulk of the mistake here in not seeing how NFTs had been previously received by the gamer community and making this announcement as they did. They would have lost nothing in explaining how it would work, where the money would go, what they were doing to make sure this addition doesn't detract from the game (perhaps with a dedicated NFT team). That's definitely on them for not being smart. The rest of it is on us.

what if the Metahuman NFT made GSC 1 million dollars and all of that went back into the games' production

Time and time again, history has shown us otherwise.

People said the same "oh who cares it's only..." when we got horse armor.
Guys spending 10s of thousands of $ on Ultimate Team every year, and because of that EA prioritized taking money from whales rather than improving the core game.
And all because "it's only horse armor, it doesn't affect the gameplay"

Raevenlordand so again you're making assumptions

And so are you. Frankly I'm not sure how you're not aware of that.

DonKnottsAnd so are you. Frankly I'm not sure how you're not aware of that.

I am. I said "all of these are assumptions" various times in my previous replies. But my "vocal minority" argument sticks better with what we know of consumer culture and feedback than your assertion that the majority has spoken.

Part of my argument is that maybe we didn't need to be so embroiled in assumptions if we'd done the right thing as gamers and consumers.

I'll buy a retail copy of the game, even if it uses Steam as a requirement to run the game. I just won't pay Steam/Valve for a copy of the game.

I haven't purchased a retail copy of a game for years. I miss those days. But I won't be dropped extra cash for novelty items. I also miss the days that games came with everything you'd need in the box and if extras were put in there (like a mouse pad for Max Payne), it's an awesome bonus! While some of the novelty items can look appealing and very interesting, I just have no need for unnecessary stuff to further clutter my house.

ShurikNTime and time again, history has shown us otherwise.

People said the same "oh who cares it's only..." when we got horse armor.
Guys spending 10s of thousands of $ on Ultimate Team every year, and because of that EA prioritized taking money from whales rather than improving the core game.
And all because "it's only horse armor, it doesn't affect the gameplay"

I still play a MUD game (yeah, MUD text based game) and the GMs have moved the game to a cash grab. I think the item they created a year ago was one that sold for the most money.....

Someone spent upwards of something like $28k on a pair of boots that you wear and the boots do a handful of things, but the most impressive aspect of them is that they cancel the negative affects of a hunting area. Someone spent $28k on a text item in a text based game. They have a few dozen whales that drop thousands of thousands of dollars on the game for the pay events that are held every 6 months.

The GMs were so focused on milking the whales for a few years that they basically flat out neglected anything that wasn't a game breaking bug, they didn't develop things that were on the "new to come" list. At least in the last year they've started to shift focus back to updating the game, making QOL improvements and more. But, they still focus heavy on getting their whales to drop more and more money during the pay events.

BSim500Reminds me of the doe-eyed naivety back in the early to mid 2010's

That was the same period where a lot of people were assuming we wanted our PC to be like a phone! (the-computer-illiterate-kind) The same with games, but we fought back.

RaevenlordSince this discussion is mostly hypotheticals, what if the Metahuman NFT made GSC 1 million dollars and all of that went back into the games' production? L

You mean like the R* billions in profit from GTA Online went into GTA5 SP content production, GTA6 development and GTA Definitive Edition remasters?

Business 101: all additional profits go to executive's pockets.

neatfeatguyI'll buy a retail copy of the game, even if it uses Steam as a requirement to run the game. I just won't pay Steam/Valve for a copy of the game.

No need to get a physical disc for that. Just buy the game on any of the dozen retail key stores. Valve does not take a cut from those.

RaevenlordThank you for your reply. Considering your example, I'd say that that leaves room for meaningful, interesting integrations to be done that don't actually ruin the experience. And while you may have felt that way, other players likely didn't. So... Are we just projecting our personal experiences and opinions on others?

I would agree with BSim500 as well. A few more examples:

• Horse armor mutated to DLC split off from the full game after development.
• Games being cut into a “base game” and multiple DLC from the get go. (Paradox Interactive, EA)
• Releases being split in an unnecessary amount of versions, with often questionable value propositions. (EA, Ubisoft)
• F2P elements like season passes (pushed by fear of missing out), timers, premium currencies, progression grinds in full price single-player games. (EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar Games, Activision Blizzard)
• “Unlockable Rewards” in older games being transferred to in-game stores, purchasable with premium currencies in newer titles.
• Loot boxes started as an optional gimmick and ended up locking content behind a “surprise mechanic” and only got partially reign in after Governments founded new Laws.
• “Remasters” entirely replacing old original releases. While neither being a proper Re-release (same game just bug fixes, stability tweaks, resolution extension, modding support etc.), nor a full Remake (Modern reinterpretation, new engine, polished mechanics and gameplay, added previously cut content, etc.). Instead, the negatives of both combined (mostly done cheap, minimal effort, etc.), just to put a new higher price tag on old software.

Not monetized, but it kinda fits:

• Achievements just being an optional gimmick to actually rewarding in-game rewards / offering gameplay advantages, thous used to pad content/play time.

Good, meaningful, interesting integrations are harder to do and for the most part take longer as well as costing more money. In other words, less likely of being pursued in favor of cheaper and faster solutions.

You're looking at it with a negative bias. People could argue I'm looking at it with a positive bias. I just think that more options usually means more liberty.

Should it not better be in an editorial or opinion piece, instead of part of a news post?

RaevenlordThank you for your reply. Considering your example, I'd say that that leaves room for meaningful, interesting integrations to be done that don't actually ruin the experience. And while you may have felt that way, other players likely didn't. So... Are we just projecting our personal experiences and opinions on others?

Pot, meet kettle:

RaevenlordYou're looking at it with a negative bias. People could argue I'm looking at it with a positive bias.

RaevenlordIt all just seems very "pitchforky" to me. And the almost automatic NFT backlash and possible review bombing (which we know can happen overnight) just seems like a very unhealthy relationship to have with anything. It shouldn't be a power relationship between developers and consumers. It should be collaborative. And this isn't a collaborative stance.

People have spoken, they want NFTs nowhere NEAR gaming. It seems to me you are Projecting your personal experiences onto others. You may enjoy microtransactions, but many gamers HATE them, for obvious reasons: games with microtransactions are designed around them, to the detriment of both gameplay and the experience of users.

RaevenlordI just think that more options usually means more liberty.

What liberty does this provide? This allows suckers to pay heaps of cash for digital items that are "different" that they can then trade like stocks. Why is this "liberty" needed in games, and what do you lose if this "liberty" is not included?

RaevenlordWhy do you say it's profit alone? Of course, it's a corporation. The metahuman NFT likely would have made GSC tons of money, and... How would that impact your or mine experience in the world? Since this discussion is mostly hypotheticals, what if the Metahuman NFT made GSC 1 million dollars and all of that went back into the games' production? Likely we'll now never know; the money could just as well go to someone's pockets. But then again - we don't know. We didn't get to the stage where we asked the right questions and got the right answers.

Because we have seen, repeatedly, over the last decade how game companies have shoved overt monetization into games, and said games have come out in worse states then ever before with game breaking bugs and attrocious half baked content. This is what we call a "pattern". Game companies do not get the benefit of the doubt, this is about getting those sweet crypto dollars that are flying into every market right now, and the greed machine fueled by whales buying microtransactions needs MOAR. It's not enough to sell the game for over $300 bucks, we need MOAR, and consumers can see right through that.

RaevenlordAgain, the choice lies with the consumer. It lay with the consumer when mobile game monetization encroached on AAA gaming space, it lays with the consumer when they spend hundreds of dollars on lootboxes or when they spend 3x MSRP on a graphics card from a scalper. That's in people's respective liberties.

And consumer choice is to wholesale reject NFTs.

RaevenlordWhere do we draw the line? Because we think it's a cashgrab and because we Think it may not be beneficial, or do we actually act as thinking, rational individuals (which again, depends on all of us) not to put our money where our mouth isn't? What about people who want this NFT integration? why should your opinion (or mine, or anyone's) take that away?

What gives you the right to shove NFTs into my game? Where is my option to have the game without macrotransactions shoved into it, and gameplay built around it?

Also, why do players want a stock system to buy digital goods built into their games, isnt ebay, the stock market, the crypto market, ece already good enough? Why does it need to be in games as well?

PumperNo need to get a physical disc for that. Just buy the game on any of the dozen retail key stores. Valve does not take a cut from those.

Yes, but I still enjoy the physical copy of games. I've seen "physical copies" of some games over the past 4-5 years that are sold in stores that aren't really physical copies. You buy the CD/DVD case and inside is just a installation code you use for whatever digital platform the game is tied to....what's the point of that? I want the physical disc with the game on it, even if the game installs from the disc and still requires to be tied to Steam or Origin or whatever. Guess I just like the little bit of nostalgia that it brings me.