> but web3 enables players to buy/sell directly (and allowing this can be a product draw, much like APIs were for Twitter). Web3 technologies can enable an ecosystem for this without a bunch of bespoke work that likely isn't core to what a business is trying to achieve.
I'm old enough to remember that in the ancient history of just 10 years ago Diablo III was released with an auction house that let people buy and sell items from other players for real money.
I'm also old anough to remember that in the ancient history of just 7 years ago it was removed from the game and I also am old enough to remember the reasons.
Having players trade in-game items is not as good a proposition for "what a business is trying to achieve" as you think it is.
It's likely because you can make more money by holding more control over the supply. Even users of the Steam Market would scoff a bit at it - they would rather have it be without taxes and exchangeable for real money. I wonder if there is a web3 solution already in place which could achieve that...
> It's likely because you can make more money by holding more control over the supply.
Because, surprise-surprise, businesses are not charities. They do need to earn money.
> they would rather have it be without taxes and exchangeable for real money.
Of course users want all the perks with none of the responsibilities: let the business support all these items in perpetuity while users trade them outside of the business' purview.
> Because, surprise-surprise, businesses are not charities. They do need to earn money.
And?
> Of course users want all the perks with none of the responsibilities: let the business support all these items in perpetuity while users trade them outside of the business' purview.
Everyone would like all the benefits with no cost in all cases; that's not what's being suggested as its obviously impossible. The more decentralized service simply has the potential to be a better deal for users at the cost of centralized business - it does not mean costs disappear. You say yourself the business need to earn money (which is only true for sub profit margins), so you seem to understand that the money goes somewhere, why not let it go more to users willing to shoulder some cost while also giving them more freedom?
That's my mistake - indeed nothing is free, but when the protocol is open source and interchangeable the market will settle on a sustainable marketplace which users prefer the most; price will of course play a role in that. Point being I'm not sure Steam is simply compensating their database operations with their marketplace tax, and that they have no competition for market making their own items.
With all due respect, the point of all these crypto buzzwords is to forgo what's 'good' for [centralized] businesses in favor of what users want. I can imagine the vast majority of Diablo players (assuming the market was ran legitimately) would prefer to still have the market, while Blizzard discovered they could make more money closing it. A high ideal (to me) for web3 is that users can uphold the system they want and be compensated for doing so at the same time.
While the web3 example still features a creator and early investors who may make the most money, users will prefer the market which promises to stay up via its contract code. We may be a long way from enough users understanding this to influence developers, and it may never reach that perfectly, but that's the direction web3 can hopefully push things.
> the point of all these crypto buzzwords is to forgo what's 'good' for [centralized] businesses in favor of what users want.
The point I was replying to was literally this: "Web3 technologies can enable an ecosystem for this without a bunch of bespoke work that likely isn't core to what a business is trying to achieve."
The core business can actually be hurt by unchecked trading of items.
> I can imagine the vast majority of Diablo players (assuming the market was ran legitimately) would prefer to still have the market
Why don't you go and ask the vast majority of Diablo players before making these assumptions?
> We may be a long way from enough users understanding this to influence developers,
How do you "influence developers" by trading some items outside the core of what the developers are building?
BTW, building tradable items can and usually is still outside the core of what business is building.
> but that's the direction web3 can hopefully push things.
Ah yes, the hope that web3 may push towards unchecked trading of meaningless items (meaningless outside the game/business in question) that actually ruins the core game experience.
> The core business can actually be hurt by unchecked trading of items.
Again, that's the point. Its obvious centralized market makers only make money when they control the market and limit market freedom, which is why its easy to imagine the players in general would prefer to avoid such a tax/manipulation/centralizing forces.
> How do you "influence developers" by trading some items outside the core of what the developers are building?
By placing personal value in systems that give users more freedom and assurance of the protocols they initially bought into. When people can understand that that is what they are being offered with a 'web3' approach, they can influence developers to build what's most demanded, i.e. basic economics.
> Ah yes, the hope that web3 may push towards unchecked trading of meaningless items (meaningless outside the game/business in question) that actually ruins the core game experience.
Ahh so Diablo items are meaningless now? Maybe to you, but certainly not to many other players as you've demonstrated. What about decentralized exchange protocols is unchecked? Its as safe as the blockchain itself - perhaps you are thinking of government regulations.
Core gameplay: is being hurt by players only chasing it in hoping to make money
Cryptopeddlers: yes, that's the point.
Thank you.
> they can influence developers to build what's most demanded, i.e. basic economics.
Core gameplay: is being hurt by players only chasing it in hoping to make money
Cryptopeddlers: yes, that's the point. That's what devs should build: ways to monetize assets in the game. That's what influence and basic economics is!
> Ahh so Diablo items are meaningless now? Maybe to you, but certainly not to many other players as you've demonstrated.
What part of "meaningless outside Diablo" did you not understand?
Don't bother. Judging by your answers there's very little of what you understood from my message.
> Core gameplay: is being hurt by players only chasing it in hoping to make money
That's just your opinion, man. I've heard from more Diablo players than just you that they dearly miss it. But I guess if all the value of your game is extracted to the team running the servers and zero of it to players is what you find compelling, feel free to fritter away on centralized grinding for truly and practically worthless pixels.
Clearly those items weren't meaningless outside Diablo when they sold for real money. How thick can you be? You think its that impossible to decentralize a market? You think it hasn't already been done?
> It's amazing how you totally dismiss the opinion of all the players who didn't like and didn't want the marketplace as irrelevant
It's amazing how you dismiss the opposing. Or is it? I had to stop reading after that, its clear this is isn't hitting for you as I'm forced to keep backtracking for your sake.
I'm old enough to remember that in the ancient history of just 10 years ago Diablo III was released with an auction house that let people buy and sell items from other players for real money.
I'm also old anough to remember that in the ancient history of just 7 years ago it was removed from the game and I also am old enough to remember the reasons.
Having players trade in-game items is not as good a proposition for "what a business is trying to achieve" as you think it is.