# Fig acquires Ownage to publish blockchain games



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 19, 2018)

https://venturebeat.com/2018/05/31/fig-acquires-ownage-to-publish-blockchain-games/


> “Shard seeks to accomplish what we set out to do with Fig, center the publishing process around the people who are most passionate about the properties being created – the community,” said Justin Bailey, Fig’s CEO, in a statement. “Shard will be offering a unique community-based approach to the funding, engagement, and cross-promotion of games. We’re really excited to add the talents of Alex, Jack and the Ownage team to help Fig develop this platform for the games industry.”


Details are lacking on Shard...


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 19, 2018)

It's probably just a simple blockchain based polling system...

Not hard to do and something blockchain is very good at.  How is this a cryptocurrency at all, though?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 19, 2018)

Polling?  I think their goal is to put game keys in a blockchain so your license to access the game isn't tied to one specific digital distribution platform.  What isn't clear is if it is a cryptocurrency (bad) or cryptopayment (potentially good).  I'm also very concerned about the scalability of it.  A single game can sell 100s of millions of copies.  That translates into a very big ledger, very quickly.  Game launches could experience delays just because the blockchain can't handle the load.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 19, 2018)

I thought from a cursory glance it was like a way to decide what games to publish vs reject (solving the steam "greenlight" problem).

Sounds like I was wrong though.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 19, 2018)

I think polling is too trivial to warrant the expense of creating a blockchain.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 26, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think polling is too trivial to warrant the expense of creating a blockchain.



Not really.  The expense doesn't come from the blockchain, it comes from proof of work.  You can make a peer to peer functional blockchain with three Pentium III pcs if you felt like it (obviously this would be easy to 50% attack, but point stands).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 26, 2018)

The cost to maintain the network would exceed the value of what it is doing.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 26, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The cost to maintain the network would exceed the value of what it is doing.



That really depends on the value of the poll.

Elections are an example I can think of where it may be appropriate, but obviously this is not an instance where it would be an incredibly valuable use case, agreed.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 26, 2018)

Elections are better off with a trusted platform over peer-to-peer.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 26, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Elections are better off with a trusted platform over peer-to-peer.



I mean, then you have a single point of failure and target for hacking or attempts on the system, but I guess so if you can truly get down to a physical security level and hire enough armed guards...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 26, 2018)

A trusted cloud platform mitigates both of those risks.  Clouds update each other so as long as the code works, failures only reduce bandwidth.  Any hack of one node would be fixed by the other nodes.  All would have to be attacked simultaneously to have an impact.  Each state could have their own servers that are members of the cloud.  That way they can do their own audits on their own hardware.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 26, 2018)

Ah yes, another company applying the concept of blockchain to a problem that doesn't require blockchain.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 26, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> A trusted cloud platform mitigates both of those risks. Clouds update each other so as long as the code works, failures only reduce bandwidth.



What you just described is a peer to peer approach, presumably.  You are talking multiple machines.

This is becoming semantics.  All a blockchain does is further validate the data with multiple copies and a chain of signatures.  Either I think it's irrelevant because the point you are trying to make (that it's not needed here) is completely correct.  A simple blockchainless peer-to-peer system ala the "cloud" is plenty good.



Aquinus said:


> Ah yes, another company applying the concept of blockchain to a problem that doesn't require blockchain.



I mean, the idea of using blockchain to improve something isn't a bad one.  It's just absolute horsecrap here.

People improve things all the time.  I mean transportation was working just fine before the Wright brothers, didn't "require" anything extra etc, they just added air and we were all better for it.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 26, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> People improve things all the time. I mean transportation was working just fine before the Wright brothers, didn't "require" anything extra etc, they just added air and we were all better for it.


...but they also didn't basically say that they need to build a camshaft to produce a solar panel.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 29, 2018)

Ownership is the reason why I see merit to the idea.  Steam isn't going to play nice with GOG who isn't going to place nice with Humble whom isn't going to play nice with Origin whom isn't going to play nice with uPlay . If all keys were on an agnostic, open, peer-to-peer network that all access, it frees up the digital market to let people choose the client they prefer.  Transaction fees go to the hosts so whomever the users choose get paid to host them.  A private cloud would be ideal but who is going to maintain it?  It doesn't solve the problem of these platforms not wanting to work together.  Blockchain can as long the compute overhead is kept to a minimum.

I'm glad Fig is diving into it.  Fig is a neutral party with enough big titles under its belt that it could encourage adoption of the network.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 29, 2018)

Aquinus said:


> ...but they also didn't basically say that they need to build a camshaft to produce a solar panel.



I mean, didn't I just say it was horsecrap in this instance?


----------



## remixedcat (Jul 2, 2018)

I need a TLDR; on this blockchain hype.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 2, 2018)

remixedcat said:


> I need a TLDR; on this blockchain hype.


It has basically been turned into a buzz word. To make a long story short, it's basically *blocks* of data with a digital crypto signature that builds on itself, so each subsequent *block*'s signature is dependent on the earlier ones so as the *chain* gets longer, it gets exponentially harder to forge or alter. Blockchain is a concept more than it is a software.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 2, 2018)

Aquinus said:


> It has basically been turned into a buzz word. To make a long story short, it's basically *blocks* of data with a digital crypto signature that builds on itself, so each subsequent *block*'s signature is dependent on the earlier ones so as the *chain* gets longer, it gets exponentially harder to forge or alter. Blockchain is a concept more than it is a software.



And here's the clincher:

I think what people like about so called "blockchain technology" (hard to hack etc) isn't blockchain:  It's more the nature of peer to peer networks.

We are experiencing a peer to peer revolution and blockchain is stealing the credit.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 2, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> And here's the clincher:
> 
> I think what people like about so called "blockchain technology" (hard to hack etc) isn't blockchain:  It's more the nature of peer to peer networks.
> 
> We are experiencing a peer to peer revolution and blockchain is stealing the credit.


Peer to peer networks really have very little to do with blockchain itself, that's more of a tactic to harden it. That's an implementation specific detail in my opinion. The real benefit comes from how the signatures are generated for each block. Making it distributed is just having more than one authority on who can say what is valid and what isn't and peers coming to consensus isn't fast or cheap which limits its utility in some applications. It only protects you if the private key has been leaked and for a limited time at that. You need to respond to the breach quickly and make sure enough new blocks are generated with a new key before any damage can be done.

Peer to peer gives you time to react, the security comes from the signatures that build on themselves.

One could argue that having a private key in multiple places might be inherently less secure than a single host having a single (or multiple,) private keys.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 3, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> We are experiencing a peer to peer revolution and blockchain is stealing the credit.


Peer-to-peer had its hay day back in the late 20th century and early 21st century with untrusted file sharing.  All blockchain does is establish trust in the peer-to-peer network.


----------

