The first handheld to use PlaytronOS is some Web3 thing - the SuiPlay0x1

Quoting: scaineJesus. That's an eye opener.

His channel in general is, as well as being quite entertaining - I highly recommend digging into it.

[quote=Philadelphus]

Quoting: tarmo888But OK, maybe instead of items in games we could buy and sell games themselves. It certainly sounds like an appealing idea. But how would it actually work? As a permissionless database, everything in it is public, and anything traded on it can be seen by anyone. You could trade some sort of "token" that you now "own" a particular game, but…what does that mean? You still need to download it from somewhere server somewhere in such a way that everyone else on the blockchain can't just download it as well (so you can't have the token include any sort of "key"), which means we're back to some sort of centralized database monitoring who "owns" each game to be able to dole them out (and of course, the games would require some sort of DRM to make sure you couldn't just keep playing them after you've sold them!). And if you have such a centralized database already, you don't need to add a blockchain onto it, you could just have that database (or multiple centralized databases with a hand-off mechanism).

I agree that Valve would like you to stay in their ecosystem for economic reasons, but if Valve and Epic Games suddenly both decided one day that they'd like people to be able to sell games between their platforms they could do it without any blockchain technology.

Ooh I know the answer.
You can just include a piece of data you also include in the drm of the game in the nft and sell it from a developer approved wallet/signing key(means the same in this case).
This way the blockchain itself is the proof as long the first wallet it came from(which by design is tracable in most blockchains) is the approved wallet, the data is the same as the hardcoded value and the current owner has the key of the last wallet we know it's legit. We still have to check if multiple players have the key of the currently holding wallet, but that can simply be achieved that the wallet contains sum too attractive to steal or by embedding some kind of hardware id hash in the transaction.

The blockchain is that monitoring database you talk about. It's inneficient, because for it to be trustworthy thousands of copies of it have to exist. It's big, because it tracks much more than only your ownership. Making changes is intentionally expensive, because otherwise everybody would be doing it, but it's possible.

This is the one thing blockchain can actually do. Assign ownership to a single instance of arbitrary data it can still be copied, but the copy can be recognized as such.



The reason why this will never work. Is, because it requires active work from the people who benefit from a lack of a second hand market and because nobody trusts anything blockchain related for good reason.


Last edited by LoudTechie on 13 April 2024 at 11:46 am UTC

Quoting: PenglingTimely video about NFT/crypto/Web 3.0-gaming from the excellent Jauwn, who covers these things from the perspective of an actual gamer.

One thing I find interesting about them is that not only are the games he tries bad, and in at least one case represent massive copyright violation, none of them actually seem to be using any of the buzzwordy stuff. The most any of them seem to do is sell a few "NFTs" that are just . . . pictures, that aren't even in-game items, and probably aren't even NFTs in any real sense because it seems like they're selling the same picture to everyone. Probably AI-generated pictures too.
So they're scammy, but not because they're actually even using the scammy technologies to scam anyone--rather, they're just using the buzzwords to try to persuade gullible cryptobros to buy nearly nonexistent games.
I suppose this doesn't really prove that those technologies couldn't be used in games; rather, it suggests that actually taking the trouble to write a game is not nearly a quick enough way to get rich for the tastes of the kind of get-rich-quick scammers who are involved with NFTs etc.

Quoting: LoudTechieOoh I know the answer.
You can just include a piece of data you also include in the drm of the game in the nft and sell it from a developer approved wallet/signing key(means the same in this case).
This way the blockchain itself is the proof as long the first wallet it came from(which by design is tracable in most blockchains) is the approved wallet, the data is the same as the hardcoded value and the current owner has the key of the last wallet we know it's legit. We still have to check if multiple players have the key of the currently holding wallet, but that can simply be achieved that the wallet contains sum too attractive to steal or by embedding some kind of hardware id hash in the transaction.

The blockchain is that monitoring database you talk about. It's inneficient, because for it to be trustworthy thousands of copies of it have to exist. It's big, because it tracks much more than only your ownership. Making changes is intentionally expensive, because otherwise everybody would be doing it, but it's possible.

This is the one thing blockchain can actually do. Assign ownership to a single instance of arbitrary data it can still be copied, but the copy can be recognized as such.

Interesting, thank you! This hypothetical DRM would have to be Internet-connected so it could check the state of the blockchain every time you try to play the game, right? So you can't copy it to an air-gapped machine while you own it, then keep playing after you've sold it?

Quoting: PenglingTimely video about NFT/crypto/Web 3.0-gaming from the excellent Jauwn, who covers these things from the perspective of an actual gamer.

OK, that part about the game that tried to steal and repackage a free open-source game but did it so incompetently that the original game creators were able to push an update that made the rip-off unplayable was hilarious.

Quoting: Philadelphus

Quoting: LoudTechieOoh I know the answer.
You can just include a piece of data you also include in the drm of the game in the nft and sell it from a developer approved wallet/signing key(means the same in this case).
This way the blockchain itself is the proof as long the first wallet it came from(which by design is tracable in most blockchains) is the approved wallet, the data is the same as the hardcoded value and the current owner has the key of the last wallet we know it's legit. We still have to check if multiple players have the key of the currently holding wallet, but that can simply be achieved that the wallet contains sum too attractive to steal or by embedding some kind of hardware id hash in the transaction.

The blockchain is that monitoring database you talk about. It's inneficient, because for it to be trustworthy thousands of copies of it have to exist. It's big, because it tracks much more than only your ownership. Making changes is intentionally expensive, because otherwise everybody would be doing it, but it's possible.

This is the one thing blockchain can actually do. Assign ownership to a single instance of arbitrary data it can still be copied, but the copy can be recognized as such.

Interesting, thank you! This hypothetical DRM would have to be Internet-connected so it could check the state of the blockchain every time you try to play the game, right? So you can't copy it to an air-gapped machine while you own it, then keep playing after you've sold it?

Oh, totally and to avoid tampering root permissions still have relevance.
Another win for this hypothetical blockchain based drm is that it diminishes one of the many many problems with drm a little though. It could allow for a game that is playable not so long as it parent company supports it, but so long as it parent company supports it + the blockchain exists.

Also you better hope partial downloading is actually supported for your blockchain otherwise you will be paying those chain checks in golden internet premiums.


Last edited by LoudTechie on 14 April 2024 at 11:29 am UTC

Quoting: Purple Library GuyOne thing I find interesting about them is that not only are the games he tries bad, and in at least one case represent massive copyright violation, none of them actually seem to be using any of the buzzwordy stuff. The most any of them seem to do is sell a few "NFTs" that are just . . . pictures, that aren't even in-game items, and probably aren't even NFTs in any real sense because it seems like they're selling the same picture to everyone. Probably AI-generated pictures too.
So they're scammy, but not because they're actually even using the scammy technologies to scam anyone--rather, they're just using the buzzwords to try to persuade gullible cryptobros to buy nearly nonexistent games.
I suppose this doesn't really prove that those technologies couldn't be used in games; rather, it suggests that actually taking the trouble to write a game is not nearly a quick enough way to get rich for the tastes of the kind of get-rich-quick scammers who are involved with NFTs etc.

Yep! And just think, those are what this hypothetical machine is being pitched for the playing of.

I ask you, PLG, would you buy a machine dedicated to barely-games like those? It sounds to me to be about as good of an idea as the Barcode Battler.

Quoting: PhiladelphusOK, that part about the game that tried to steal and repackage a free open-source game but did it so incompetently that the original game creators were able to push an update that made the rip-off unplayable was hilarious.

It cracked me up, I must admit. Props to the real dev - it was a genius move!


Last edited by Pengling on 14 April 2024 at 12:03 pm UTC

Quoting: PenglingIt sounds to me to be about as good of an idea as the Barcode Battler.

You keep dunking on it, but I swear it took at least a couple of days before we got bored with my classmate's Barcode Battler. I mean, it was a new gadget and we were nerdy kids in our pre-teens.

Quoting: tuubiYou keep dunking on it, but I swear it took at least a couple of days before we got bored with my classmate's Barcode Battler. I mean, it was a new gadget and we were nerdy kids in our pre-teens.

Hehe, I should be clearer, I guess (I may have mentioned this in another thread, but I can't remember for sure off of the top of my head, so pardon me if I'm repeating myself!). I've got no issue with the device itself (it's just not my thing), and the way I refer to it is jokingly.

What I took issue with as a youngster, and the reason I occasionally still mention it today, was how the British press were so disingenuous in claiming that the Barcode Battler was a true competitor to systems like the Game Boy, Game Gear, and Atari Lynx, and did so whilst banking on ignorant (and sometimes scared) parents guided by even-more-ignorant (and considerably more insidious and controlling) busybodies in their local communities.

Anyhow, a couple of days is probably a record with the device, to be fair. At any rate, it's still more usable than the SuiPlay0x1 render looks!


Last edited by Pengling on 14 April 2024 at 4:56 pm UTC

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: tarmo888Many won't understand NFTs until Steam removes trading cards (their ToS allows them to do it).

Ok, let's play through this: Steam removes trading cards. You've got a signature somewhere in a blockchain that one of many million of those cards is yours. What now? I sure won't buy it from you, because... what would it do for me? I can't show it in my profile, I can't make a set, I cannot do anything with it! Neither can you. So... what?

You might not be able to show it on your Steam profile, but any website could read the data from blockchain and display them. That's even if Steam removed it from their API.

Quoting: tarmo888You might not be able to show it on your Steam profile, but any website could read the data from blockchain and display them. That's even if Steam removed it from their API.

There's a website that already archives all that stuff, though, and they don't need the blockchain to do it. Not that the blockchain actually stores image-data in the first place.