RaevenlordIt shouldn't be a power relationship between developers and consumers. It should be collaborative.

Interesting point. In an ideal world, where money is not the determining factor for literally everything and ethical behaviour is on top, sure. We collaborate.

But in a world that has developed serious trust issues wrt how we use money (note that crypto is a result of this!) it seems very illogical to be collaborative.

Lets look at the resume of publishers and developers in their relentless quest to acquire budget for games, or, put differently, how they try to move the risk to the consumer before even releasing the product. Early access, pre order bonuses (with ingame advantage, they still exist), empty promises of content or features, lootboxes, moving base game content to DLC... I can add another dozen tricks. And is this all consumer choice? The lootbox actually got the banhammer for delivering gambling to kids. Very responsible, very ethical. Games are becoming pure psychological manipulation and this is fine, live and let live?!

The consumer/market relationship is most definitely a power relationship. Dont be naive. You even said so yourself, we can just not buy in. And we can also voice complaints, which could be seen as a warning sign: we are about to not buy, be careful now!

Or, take a brief look at the history of GSC and this franchise. Crytek V2.

www.shacknews.com/article/71536/stalker-developer-admits-we-will-do-our-best-to-continue

gamerant.com/stalker-apocalypse/

RaevenlordThis is an interesting discussion. However, you seem to be interpreting my stance incorrectly. In no sane world am I a libertarian capitalist. I think I know myself better than you.

I agree with you that "profit at all costs" isn't inevitable; I agree that it's the base perception, and that it's grounded in history. That's also the stance people are taking when it comes to NFTs, though, isn't it? You're basing your decisions and behaviours based on past history, not on facts. Yes, past history may serve (as it should more often) as a predictor. But then if you accept that, then you must also believe that you have no power to change the present and alter the narrative. In which case, we're all just doomed to repeat our past mistakes or to sail into oblivion with our arms up. Damn. Is that naiveté, pessimism, factual?...

Fact: we don't know if the money would have gone into development, like we don't know if it would go to someone's pockets, or distributed through multiple charities. Everything here is speculation, because we pulled out our pitchforks instead of asking the right, needed questions that might make this into a moment of collaboration between customer and company. We are purely in speculative terrain in all of this. Which is why I'm simply trying to state this, and this is the gist of my argument:

We could have taken the time to ask GSC the details of implementation AND THEN, "burn them at the stake". It was less that 24 hours before the company reversed its decision to include NFTs. Do you think this happened out of interesting debates and actual idea exchanges, or from an invisible, digital-only pitchfork crowd?

Of course choice doesn't exist in a vacum. As a human, before ever being a journalist, I understand culture shifts. I understand the slippery slope that's so easy to go through. I actually see how people get used to having security cameras on their workplaces and streets over cries of "increased security" and "crime reduction", and what that does to their perception of freedom and what liberties they have to surrender for that 10% reduction for non-serious crimes that happen 30 times a year. So I am well aware, thank you.

I also understand, however, that NFTs and blockchain aren't going anywhere, and it's thus our responsibility as consumers to vote not only with our wallets, but with actually taking the time to read announcements, ask what questions still need answering, and then actually... Ask them. Not like this. I couldn't care less about the NFT. What I do care about is that unrestrained backlash (maybe even some deaththreats, some poor excuses for human beings do love doing that, after all) did take away something that would be there and that I and others could Maybe choose to interact with.

Companies will integrate NFTs, the slipperly slope will still happen, and in a decade, the anonymous mass that is "humanity" will generally accept and use the tech. What I'm against is the predatorial cancel culture and the harm it does to actual, you know, liberty?

And I will not argue with your last paragraph. That's a whole lot of assumptions and about 20 cans of worms and debate in a single (very debatable) sentence that actually looks more like a jab than actual discussion. I'll let it rest.


Other people would argue otherwise; GSC could have perfectly set up a dedicated team for this (again, we don't know because we didn't ask) and so again you're making assumptions, and I will rest my case on this matter. I think I've expressed myself pretty clearly.

No, a vocal group has spoken. Where are the statistical reports to back up your claim that the majority spoke? The 90,000 likes on the twitter post backtracking on NFTs? How many of those are there because it is such a polarizing subject and people go with the vocal mainstream? 90,000 likes as a majority for a franchise that sold more than 15 million copies. Hmm. Doesn't add up, does it?

And thus we arrive at the core question: the dictatorship of the vocal minority, taking choices from others, in a democratic society.

Edits: typos and clarification.

Ninja Edit 2: GSC made the bulk of the mistake here in not seeing how NFTs had been previously received by the gamer community and making this announcement as they did. They would have lost nothing in explaining how it would work, where the money would go, what they were doing to make sure this addition doesn't detract from the game (perhaps with a dedicated NFT team). That's definitely on them for not being smart. The rest of it is on us.

I'm stunned by how you managed to put on yourself strong blinkers of what the world is about.
First you should not say "you seem to be interpreting my stance incorrectly" ; but "it seems that I've not be clear about my opinion, let me rephrase that". Enhanced by "I think I know myself better than you".
If you think like you know yourself better, you're wrong. I don't know you, but I pretty sure it's true. Never assume you're in control of yourself. Back to the main subject !

Facts are not one side of the coin, and History the other. As a European, you should know better than anyone. Facts are here to anticipate what is going to be the outcome based on History.
Quick History of virtual goods (examples) :
- Share of a company ? (previous century) We regulated it because it can be pretty harmful. It's a success, pretty much.
- Coins ?(previous decade) It's unregulated and every piece of electronics is now evaluated as "how much it has value when mining", resulting in unprecedented chaos and non-sense we all know now.
- NFT ?(previous year) It's unregulated. We have yet no evidence of any consequences since it's not yet used

Want fact and history ? You have an unregulated market, wide open, with company ready to enter as large as Facebook, in a already disturbed world (covid + coins + lack of chips).
History told us that even the smallest unregulated market is going to create a problem. You can add to the list many mobile app like Uber, Airbnb which had a strong impact on economy.
NFT are, looking back at History through the lens of facts, in the best way to go south.
It's unregulated. => As coins
It's not manipulating a concrete thing. => As coins
It's linked directly to our economy. (which leads back to "unregulated") => As coins
Major companies are investing. => Later, as coins

Sounds more like pitchfork and fire than sweet bakery.

You can play the Candide card as long as you want, but turning your back on a problem won't make it disappear. You have to take some actions, like sending mails to the company making the game you waited for a long time, that what they are trying to do is not a good idea at all.
Many problems can be solved with small actions. This on was. Another could be to stop putting resources into Denuvo implementation and put back those resources on making a better game !
Examples are countless.


It takes a few to disturb a mass. We all know it can turn to good use (bitcoin is technically a great idea), but we all know some people are greedy, leading unpredictable use and chain reactions.
Thank you @Valantar , you told it probably better than me. I just added my opinion on why he's misjudging the gravity of the situation.

Well, one thing is clear, NFT's are gonna be the next devil in the flesh judging by comments.
Also I have a feeling this might have been a marketing stunt. They couldn't have not known the reaction plus decision was reversed in just 2 days.

Oh GSC, you silly drama queen.

VulkanBrosHmm...since when is €109.99 the same as $339.99??

Digital vs retail.

ChomiqNFT is cancer, especially in gaming. Developers and studios are just using this to milk people and make an extra buck.

Let me remind you :
Standard Edition - $59.99
Limited Edition - $79.99
Collector Edition - $179.99
Ultimate Edition - $339.99



Game also has season pass and story expansions which are paid addons that come included starting from Deluxe Edition.
You want devs to make extra buck? Buy the freaking ripoff physical edition.

I don't think that Ultimate (Physical) Edition would be a rip off if the figurine is resin-based, the lamp being tin/aluminum and the backpack is high-quality. A good resin figure can easily surprass $150.

But if they're all plastic, yeah screw that $340. :laugh:

CheeseballI don't think that Ultimate (Physical) Edition would be a rip off if the figurine is resin-based, the lamp being tin/aluminum and the backpack is high-quality. A good resin figure can easily surprass $150.

But if they're all plastic, yeah screw that $340. :laugh:

Surly, the industry does not want to repeat a “Bethesda and Fallout 76 Power armor edition featuring premium items!”-type of situation again. :rolleyes:

Testsubject01Surly, the industry does not want to repeat a “Bethesda and Fallout 76 Power armor edition featuring premium items!”-type of situation again. :rolleyes:

Yeah that was a crap show. They replaced the supposedly canvas bag with a subpar nylon one. The helmet was good quality plastic though from the one I've seen in displayed in conventions.

EasoWell, one thing is clear, NFT's are gonna be the next devil in the flesh judging by comments.
Also I have a feeling this might have been a marketing stunt. They couldn't have not known the reaction plus decision was reversed in just 2 days.

Oh GSC, you silly drama queen.

I don't think it was a marketing stunt, they reversed it quickly because the backlash was also very quick an decisive, and just after Ubisoft also started a beta for some kind of nft thing that got disliked to hell to the point they unlisted the video.

screenrant.com/ubisoft-quartz-nft-game-youtube-dislikes-controversy/
(so cool youtube removed the dislike count isn't it? it's all to protect the content creators of course... that's why even the api is now gone, but a different discussion).

This is all motivated by greed, but ultimately GSC still wants to be able to sell the game so they didn't have a choice. Even then, it's bad publicity that they didn't need, gaming community does not forget that easily and they're already up to a bad start.

Just to drive the point home I'm gonna paste 2 tid bits related the ubisoft debacle from developers who actually work on this stuff and from a youtuber
(kotaku.com/ubisoft-devs-don-t-understand-company-s-nft-push-eithe-1848215633)
“I still don’t really understand the ‘problem’ being solved here,” wrote one employee. “Is it really worth the (extremely) negative publicity this will cause?” Another asked, “How can you look at private property, speculation, artificial scarcity, and egoism, then say ‘yes this is good, I want that, let’s put it in art?’”
“I normally try to stay positive on our announcements but this one is upsetting,” wrote a third.

“600 hours to earn an NFT!” tweeted YouTube game critic SkillUp. “Now crypto bros will just afk bot to farm hours so they can collect their shitty helmet. Ubi wins because they can book these metrics as ‘increased MAUs’ [monthly active users], even though [it’s] all pumped up by this garbage.”

I wholeheartedly agree with the statement made by numerous gamers, "Who asked for this"? This is just another wave of bs buzzwords like "blockchain tech" being shoved into the games we enjoy. Simply for additional revenue out of all the other schemes they've added over the last decade to increase profits and shareholder value. Thankfully so far, the people have spoken. However based off of various companies working on similar schemes at the exact same time. Unfortunately, a developer/publisher will eventually push this into a major title that's highly anticipated like GTA 6. Which will open the floodgates just like microtransactions did with mobile/PC gaming.

I'd like to understand the perspective on the hate on NFTs in the digital world..

CSGO has real money tied up with its skins. TF2 for hats, DOTA2, etc. Yet these games are still being played for fun. What makes in game NFTs any different? Is it because of "environmental" stuff? Because some modern blockchains like Solana consumes less power that two google searches for its transaction.

Oh noes, someone wants to make money, shun them! Everything should be given for free to please socialist snowflakes!
Do you guys work for free? Would you want to?

It's a game, essentially an optional toy. Don't like it? Then don't buy it, simple as that. If NFTs were implemented as an option, who really cares and how does it differ from skins you all love so much? Some people want to spend money on pointless things - ask your wife/girlfriend what is the practical reason for owning jewellery -, some don't. To each his own.
Don't you worry, snowflakes, someone will do it. Probably EA in one of their sports games, and it will become the norm soon enough.

NFT are quite useful. Only that currently they are used as

RenaldI'm stunned by how you managed to put on yourself strong blinkers of what the world is about.
First you should not say "you seem to be interpreting my stance incorrectly" ; but "it seems that I've not be clear about my opinion, let me rephrase that". Enhanced by "I think I know myself better than you".
If you think like you know yourself better, you're wrong. I don't know you, but I pretty sure it's true. Never assume you're in control of yourself. Back to the main subject !

Facts are not one side of the coin, and History the other. As a European, you should know better than anyone. Facts are here to anticipate what is going to be the outcome based on History.
Quick History of virtual goods (examples) :
- Share of a company ? (previous century) We regulated it because it can be pretty harmful. It's a success, pretty much.
- Coins ?(previous decade) It's unregulated and every piece of electronics is now evaluated as "how much it has value when mining", resulting in unprecedented chaos and non-sense we all know now.
- NFT ?(previous year) It's unregulated. We have yet no evidence of any consequences since it's not yet used

Want fact and history ? You have an unregulated market, wide open, with company ready to enter as large as Facebook, in a already disturbed world (covid + coins + lack of chips).
History told us that even the smallest unregulated market is going to create a problem. You can add to the list many mobile app like Uber, Airbnb which had a strong impact on economy.
NFT are, looking back at History through the lens of facts, in the best way to go south.
It's unregulated. => As coins
It's not manipulating a concrete thing. => As coins
It's linked directly to our economy. (which leads back to "unregulated") => As coins
Major companies are investing. => Later, as coins

Sounds more like pitchfork and fire than sweet bakery.

You can play the Candide card as long as you want, but turning your back on a problem won't make it disappear. You have to take some actions, like sending mails to the company making the game you waited for a long time, that what they are trying to do is not a good idea at all.
Many problems can be solved with small actions. This on was. Another could be to stop putting resources into Denuvo implementation and put back those resources on making a better game !
Examples are countless.


It takes a few to disturb a mass. We all know it can turn to good use (bitcoin is technically a great idea), but we all know some people are greedy, leading unpredictable use and chain reactions.
Thank you @Valantar , you told it probably better than me. I just added my opinion on why he's misjudging the gravity of the situation.

I rephrased my opinion multiple times. After the second or third rephrase and insistence on misinterpretation, you know, the ball's not really in my court anymore.
And you did say it all; glad you're "pretty sure it's true" :p

We are far and away from my argument by now. We were not discussing the merits or demerits of unregulated markets. I specifically referred the point of contention being with the pitchfork atitude, which makes consumers lose power in the long run, and does nor us nor businesses any good.

If people want to lose their ability to guide technology implementation, that's with them. I'd have preferred that we were colectively able to hold our breath and think about these issues for more than the time it takes to write a 140-character tweet. My argument is that that attitude only shoves the problem further down the line (companies will still implement whatever brings them money), and we'll have lost the ability to guide the implementation towards something we might actually want.

Or maybe I just like people to operate on a basis of mutual respect. I, for one, would prefer if the vocal minority didn't make uninformed choices for me. Do note the "uninformed" adjective - no-one knew how and if NFTs would impact their gaming experience on STALKER 2 in any way. Being at the mercy of knee-jerk reactions is all fun and games until you're the target.

TheinsanegamerNPot, meet kettle:


People have spoken, they want NFTs nowhere NEAR gaming. It seems to me you are Projecting your personal experiences onto others. You may enjoy microtransactions, but many gamers HATE them, for obvious reasons: games with microtransactions are designed around them, to the detriment of both gameplay and the experience of users.

What liberty does this provide? This allows suckers to pay heaps of cash for digital items that are "different" that they can then trade like stocks. Why is this "liberty" needed in games, and what do you lose if this "liberty" is not included?

Because we have seen, repeatedly, over the last decade how game companies have shoved overt monetization into games, and said games have come out in worse states then ever before with game breaking bugs and attrocious half baked content. This is what we call a "pattern". Game companies do not get the benefit of the doubt, this is about getting those sweet crypto dollars that are flying into every market right now, and the greed machine fueled by whales buying microtransactions needs MOAR. It's not enough to sell the game for over $300 bucks, we need MOAR, and consumers can see right through that.

And consumer choice is to wholesale reject NFTs.

What gives you the right to shove NFTs into my game? Where is my option to have the game without macrotransactions shoved into it, and gameplay built around it?

Also, why do players want a stock system to buy digital goods built into their games, isnt ebay, the stock market, the crypto market, ece already good enough? Why does it need to be in games as well?

Who are you to call anyone a sucker? We're all just so much better and smarter than everyone else, and so are our choices, right?

Btw, I don't love or do microtransactions (I've spent what, $19 on those through the years?).

Also, yes, of course. You can say that games' content was destroyed by microtransactions... Or maybe it's because games and their assets and their systems are now much more complicated than when you inserted your magazine demo CDs on your PC of the time. I'd say it's a mixture of the two with about 100 other factors thrown in, but you seem to have eveything completely and undoubtedly figured out. Must be nice.

Let's see about your "consumer choice is to wholesale reject NFTs" bit in ten years, shall we? =)

RaevenlordI, for one, would prefer if the vocal minority didn't make uninformed choices for me. Do note the "uninformed" adjective - no-one knew how and if NFTs would impact their gaming experience on STALKER 2 in any way. Being at the mercy of knee-jerk reactions is all fun and games until you're the target.

What makes this a vocal minority? Or what makes it a majority? Who knows, probably marketing companies, who quickly informed GSC Gameworld that this wasn't going to turn out well for them... but what do we know, we can only know what's public info like GSC quickly reversing their plans, or Ubisoft unlisting a video after being heavely ratioed on youtube...

The public has sponken time and time again against this stupid monetization mecanics, at least this time the risk was enough to dispell the economic oportunism, but just like it happened with micro transactions, p2w, loot boxes, etc.. eventually we'll have a new cancer in the industry to deal with.

RaevenlordI rephrased my opinion multiple times. After the second or third rephrase and insistence on misinterpretation, you know, the ball's not really in my court anymore.
And you did say it all; glad you're "pretty sure it's true" :p

We are far and away from my argument by now. We were not discussing the merits or demerits of unregulated markets. I specifically referred the point of contention being with the pitchfork atitude, which makes consumers lose power in the long run, and does nor us nor businesses any good.

If people want to lose their ability to guide technology implementation, that's with them. I'd have preferred that we were colectively able to hold our breath and think about these issues for more than the time it takes to write a 140-character tweet. My argument is that that attitude only shoves the problem further down the line (companies will still implement whatever brings them money), and we'll have lost the ability to guide the implementation towards something we might actually want.

Or maybe I just like people to operate on a basis of mutual respect. I, for one, would prefer if the vocal minority didn't make uninformed choices for me. Do note the "uninformed" adjective - no-one knew how and if NFTs would impact their gaming experience on STALKER 2 in any way. Being at the mercy of knee-jerk reactions is all fun and games until you're the target.


Who are you to call anyone a sucker? We're all just so much better and smarter than everyone else, and so are our choices, right?

Btw, I don't love or do microtransactions (I've spent what, $19 on those through the years?).

Also, yes, of course. You can say that games' content was destroyed by microtransactions... Or maybe it's because games and their assets and their systems are now much more complicated than when you inserted your magazine demo CDs on your PC of the time. I'd say it's a mixture of the two with about 100 other factors thrown in, but you seem to have eveything completely and undoubtedly figured out. Must be nice.

Let's see about your "consumer choice is to wholesale reject NFTs" bit in ten years, shall we? =)

That's some serious pedantry here ...

You like to read yourself, but when the time comes of giving real argument, nobody's there.
We're all telling you that including NFT at start will either "do no profit" or "do harm" to any companies based on what we saw the last ten years : Season Pass, DLC, micro-transactions, loot-boxes, deluxe edition without any content.
Yeah sure, you can create a bunch of editions including some soundtracks you already produced, why not. But do you still see season pass ? I don't. Do you still see DLC like when games were sold in kits ? I don't, it's only minor content for most of them now.

Why ? Because nearly all gamers acknowledged that games aren't better with DLC, and companies don't earn more money. Some do, many don't.

A word also on micro-transactions : have you ever tried to apply to a job around a game based on micro-transaction ?
I'm 100% sure that you didn't. Why ? Because one the first business case they give you is how to create a game experience that holds players by the nuts with micro-transactions. Bluntly.
For example, they show you (basically) that you need to create a good experience, show them an entertaining progression curve, but stop them just after you've tasted it. What do you do ? You buy a small amount of content. And it goes on and on, until you spent 100€ in a game without noticing.
Some stops on the road, but many goes nearly to the end.


And if you want to see what blockchain does to your game, you better be well-seated. Because in 10 years, I'm not quite sure you'll have changed your GPU because of mining/shortage/price increase/etc.
If GPU costs 5000€, it's 5000€ also for any game producer and all employees. Is it worth it ? Really ? Are you that naive/rich/despising others ?
Because we don't claim that kind of stuff often. But 13 years of bitcoin mining made us realize that we can't stay short sighted and we can't hope for the best on "whatever brings money" to companies.

We also work in companies, and you don't need to throw a hazard like this to know it's not the right thing to do.

Does Denuvo doing any good to companies paying for it ? Does it help make bigger sales ? No. It doesn't.
It only secures the first week or so of sales for shareholders. That's it.

The list is long and I could go on with so many examples in many games that you could read my post for an entire day. Stop looking at us like we are peasants trying to burn the supposed witch. You know we are right, and there's many other ways to include NFT without damaging game's development if you really like it. It's called an update.


I don't know your angle, but "sit tight and asses" is not something I do.

I'm not thrilled to post a text like this, I can go through trolls without posting anything, but you aren't (a troll), not IMHO. You need to know that we are trying to explain to you what's going to happen.
You're right, it's not 100% sure, but try to understand that 95% is enough for us to shield up and make them think twice.
They did, and they came to the same conclusion. Bet why ?