Molyneux's NFT Blockchain Game Legacy

Peter Molyneux the developer who promises the world and fails to deliver with his games is back agian. This time with a "Play-To-Earn" NFT Blockchain Game called Legacy.


Edit: Link - https://www.pcgamer.com/peter-molyne…ll-in-on-nfts/

I hope he fails, and does it quickly. What a heap of nonsense.

What's up with all these NFT, EFT, (whatever)FT games nowadays? I really don't understand the appeal from a customer point of view.

Oh, what fresh Hell is this…

Really drives it home of how not a scam NFTs are, now that Molyneux is involved.

Originally Posted by basharran
What's up with all these NFT, EFT, (whatever)FT games nowadays? I really don't understand the appeal from a customer point of view.

To try and get a piece of the cryptocurrency dream. I don’t know how feasible that is by playing the games but I’ve made a pretty penny trading gala (gala games) crypto.

The devs for Stalker 2 recently announced that they were going to do the NFT thing too. They were going to auction off 1 NFT, and the winner was going to have a rendered version of themself in the game as an NPC.

The reaction from the fanbase was so intense, the devs have already backtracked on the idea.

https://twitter.com/stalker_thegame/…20399997886472

NFT to me means Not For Thisguy! -)

Originally Posted by sakichop
To try and get a piece of the cryptocurrency dream. I don’t know how feasible that is by playing the games but I’ve made a pretty penny trading gala (gala games) crypto.

But this only works as long as new people enter the fray, the last one to step in is the fall guy and has a load of *FT's without a means to make them into other currency?

If I'm missing something please let me know.

They can fuck off with this bullshit

I've just taken part in my first NFT project (but not simply an image, a whole metaverse ecosystem), but I must admit the whole space is superheated and over-hyped. I find it all a bit silly. Certainly, owning a JPG NFT is not sensible - anyone can make a copy of the image - you just own the 'receipt of ownership' as it were. Whoopee. And most image NFTs being all digital…there's no physical artefact, like an actual painting, to hold onto as the 'real deal'.
These days, you just need to add 'blockchain' to some project, and people roll in, hoping to make a million… In most cases, that blockchain part is (practically speaking) almost superflous. And people get excited about tech that has been around for ages e.g. distributed rendering!…but now 'on the blockchain'. Using your idle GPU on network connected device. To Render NFTs (among other things I have some of the tokens for this project - because other people believe they have value - but as someone who worked on this kind of shit in 2006 (yea, didn't finish it, but it was not new even then) and knows quite a bit about the render back-end, this not rocket science but people are lecturing me on how "groundbeaking" it is and how it redefined everything blah blah.
So bottom line: it's hugely overhyped, and many says its in a bubble. I think when the bear market arrives - as it always does - many NFTs wil go to 0.
I simply don't care enough to be the proudly block-chain certified owner of most NFTs. As usual, a lot of celebs and influencers have driven up the hysteria. And the prices…Jeebus…millions of USD?! For crazy ugly pictures….the mind boggles.

Originally Posted by booboo
I've just taken part in my first NFT project (but not simply an image, a whole metaverse ecosystem), but I must admit the whole space is superheated and over-hyped. I find it all a bit silly. Certainly, owning a JPG NFT is not sensible - anyone can make a copy of the image - you just own the 'receipt of ownership' as it were. Whoopee. And most image NFTs being all digital…there's no physical artefact, like an actual painting, to hold onto as the 'real deal'.
These days, you just need to add 'blockchain' to some project, and people roll in, hoping to make a million… In most cases, that blockchain part is (practically speaking) almost superflous. And people get excited about tech that has been around for ages e.g. distributed rendering!…but now 'on the blockchain'. Using your idle GPU on network connected device. To Render NFTs (among other things I have some of the tokens for this project - because other people believe they have value - but as someone who worked on this kind of shit in 2006 (yea, didn't finish it, but it was not new even then) and knows quite a bit about the render back-end, this not rocket science but people are lecturing me on how "groundbeaking" it is and how it redefined everything blah blah.
So bottom line: it's hugely overhyped, and many says its in a bubble. I think when the bear market arrives - as it always does - many NFTs wil go to 0.
I simply don't care enough to be the proudly block-chain certified owner of most NFTs. As usual, a lot of celebs and influencers have driven up the hysteria. And the prices…Jeebus…millions of USD?! For crazy ugly pictures….the mind boggles.

What's the reason behind choosing a blockchain system, is that for anonymity? Because otherwise it would be very simple to design a central authority (in theory) based on public cryptography, which would be much more efficient.

In practice I suppose several of them would pop up. It could be a system similar to certification - it could be exactly that system used for other purposes in fact.

Originally Posted by Redglyph
What's the reason behind choosing a blockchain system, is that for anonymity? Because otherwise it would be very simple to design a central authority (in theory) based on public cryptography, which would be much more efficient.

In practice I suppose several of them would pop up. It could be a system similar to certification - it could be exactly that system used for other purposes in fact.

Yeah, the blockchain provides something like anonymity in the sense that while (non centralized) wallet addresses/transactions are public, in theory you don't know who owns a wallet address. Of course, you can apply some deduction - and governments, national security agencies and tax authorities are now doing this. The big 'deal' with (most) blockchains is trustless peer to peer transactions, without a bank/third party - so centralization is a dirty word (!) Of course, govs are pushing to regulate and have all wallet addressed verified, so they can trace flows. But really, most projects using block chain don't need it - they're hopping on the hysteria wagon.

Originally Posted by booboo
Yeah, the blockchain provides something like anonymity in the sense that while (non centralized) wallet addresses/transactions are public, in theory you don't know who owns a wallet address. Of course, you can apply some deduction - and governments, national security agencies and tax authorities are now doing this. The big 'deal' with (most) blockchains is trustless peer to peer transactions, without a bank/third party - so centralization is a dirty word (!) Of course, govs are pushing to regulate and have all wallet addressed verified, so they can trace flows. But really, most projects using block chain don't need it - they're hopping on the hysteria wagon.

Yeah, and that's part of what annoys me - there are some really good and legitimate uses for a blockchain, and a few years back that's what most of the talk was about. Now everyone's copped onto cryptocurrencies, and every little grifter has some bullshit scheme. It's a pity, as many in the general public now recoil at the mention of blockchain, which is a shame for the productive uses.