I totally agree but I have to admit, that is one reason why I am so interested in it and how it works because I want to know the why which I probably won't be able to figure out until "it is too late" and it is already here. I am also curious about how life works if they end up be successful. I think because multiple companies are coming together and spending billions on the project, I think they will probably succeed.
Actually earlier today I was learning and discovering just how many games are releasing this year that is built for the metaverse and are play to earn instead of the common phrase we hear, pay to win. They do use NFTs, probably because in many of them you can make assets yourself. A couple of games actually look interesting and fun. I just don't know "how scam-y" they would actually be. But then again, I also feel like pay wall games that do not allow any progression at all until you drop some money are scam-y but some people wouldn't categorize them that way.
Anywho, the two games I find interesting are Illuvium which is a pokemon like game and Blankos Block Party. Both are active now because they released eariler this month. I think they are both early access but unsure. I know Blankos is early access. They have some interesting features in them beyond the fact of owning whatever you buy. Value is increased by ranking up your armor or characters or whatever. Blankos, the characters can be combined to make special colors or patterns that could be "one of a kind". The markets to buy sell and trade are internal.
It seems crypto currency wise, not native game currencies, Ethereum seems to be the most common with gaming. I don't know much about the currency itself, but I did learn today that some currencies leave a bigger carbon foot print than others, for those who are concerned about the amount of electricity used per currency.
So, I guess a couple things here.
The idea of some cryptocurrencies having "less" of a carbon footprint than other cryptocurrencies smacks smacks of that old "clean coal" canard to me - whatever distinction there might be is almost meaningless. If any smaller crypto gets large enough for its early adopters to make a significant amount of money, then it would have to grow big enough to run in to the same problems that the larger currencies do when it comes to data mining. Besides, its not really "this individual currency is better/worse than that other currency", the entire infrastructure of cryptocurrency shares the foundational flaws that make it so bad for the environment.
Another thing about crypto/NFTs is that there's even less regulation than the bigger corporations are used to, so scams are EVERYWHERE, and even the things that don't start out as scams often become them through sheer incompetence, as things like "game development" or "handling people's money" turn out to be much more involved, specialized skills than the average cryprobro anticipates. A lot of people in NFTS and crypto believe that they are extremely clever, and try to do extremely clever things that they think no one ever thought of before which are, in fact, illegal in any stable financial institution for good reason. Also, there have already been a few NFT games that have collapsed under their own weight and ran off with people's money, and a few more are being started by known scam artists. Again there is no regulation or accountability for any of these people.
As for this "play to earn" model I find it completely grotesque on every level. Bad enough our worth as people is generally based off how much we can "produce" now we're expected to produce for big corporations as part of our vanishing leisure time. Why should they have to put the time/effort/money into making a "game" that people "want to play" when they can cobble together a rickety skeletal impression of the game and tell the masses to fill in the blanks, and also make them money while they do it! We've already seen that model with things like Roblox, which blatantly exploits children in order to make money off the content they create. "Pay to win" was bad enough - it
is scammy and psychologically exploitive, no matter what some people categorize them as - but this is somehow an even more bald-faced attempt to make more money while providing even
less of value.
Maybe one of those games or others in the future will turn out to be actual functional
games rather than thinly veiled attempts to scam people out of money before the NFT bubble bursts, but even if it does as far as I can tell they're all fruit of the poisoned tree and we'd be much better off sticking to the regularly vaguely exploitative games we've been enjoying for years.
Also, I figure I'll drop some sources, since I've been spending so much time ranting:
1.
Behind the ******** is probably my favorite podcast, and they have a great two part series about cryptocurrency
Part 1,
Part 2
2.
A Death in Cryptoland is an absolutely
wild tale about one particular company that highlights a lot of pitfalls inherit in cryptocurrencies
3. James Stephanie Sterling of the Jimquisition has long been the Cassandra of the insidious ways exploitative mechanics have been creeping in to videogames for decades. They did a specific video about
how pay to win mechanics exploit the vulnerable,
the general badness of NFT's, and
recently had a great big rant about this whole metaverse thing
4. I named dropped the Roblox so here's a two parter about
How Roblox is Exploiting Young Game Developers and then after roblox tried to make them delete that how they dug in deeper and found
how much worse it was than they thought
Also, might be a good idea to look into beanie babies in the nineties. Seems somewhat relevant.