This one made me laugh, it's basically a cheap runner game with the
catch that you need to buy an NFT to enter and the person with the
highest score ends up getting a unspecified prize. The problem of course
that's just going to be a magnet for cheating which wasn't helped but
the code being left unencrypted and the seed for the RNG was available
for each run.

Now obviously the cryptobros are now out in force with either this
wouldn't have happened if the game was based around Web 3.0 technology
or the company has really strong anti-cheat mechanisms in place (yeh
right, I'm sure they do).

The downside I would assume that the company made a ton of cash, the
upside is it probably came from those trying to make a quick buck and
have had their fingers burnt.

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 11:19:34 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

>This one made me laugh, it's basically a cheap runner game with the
>catch that you need to buy an NFT to enter and the person with the
>highest score ends up getting a unspecified prize. The problem of course
>that's just going to be a magnet for cheating which wasn't helped but
>the code being left unencrypted and the seed for the RNG was available
>for each run.
>
>Now obviously the cryptobros are now out in force with either this
>wouldn't have happened if the game was based around Web 3.0 technology
>or the company has really strong anti-cheat mechanisms in place (yeh
>right, I'm sure they do).
>
>The downside I would assume that the company made a ton of cash, the
>upside is it probably came from those trying to make a quick buck and
>have had their fingers burnt.

How low?

The game is dookie. Literally.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 06:29:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 11:19:34 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
>wrote:

>>This one made me laugh, it's basically a cheap runner game with the
>>catch that you need to buy an NFT to enter and the person with the
>>highest score ends up getting a unspecified prize. The problem of course
>>that's just going to be a magnet for cheating which wasn't helped but
>>the code being left unencrypted and the seed for the RNG was available
>>for each run.

>How low?

>The game is dookie. Literally.

I mean, this isn't really that low as far as NFT games go. It's slimy,
sure, just like everything associated with NFTs and crypto. But at
least there's an actual game, and not just NFTs sold for a game that
doesn't exist. Badly designed? Of course. Overpriced? Definitely. Uses
NFTs unnecessarily? Only to be expected. But given how the vast
majority of NFT-enabled games are nothing more than rug-pull scams,
the fact that you can actually PLAY the game makes it actually one of
the best NFT games around.

Which, sure, isn't a very high bar to clear. But they could have gone
much lower.

On 2/23/2023 8:31 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 06:29:44 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 11:19:34 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
>> wrote:
>
>>> This one made me laugh, it's basically a cheap runner game with the
>>> catch that you need to buy an NFT to enter and the person with the
>>> highest score ends up getting a unspecified prize. The problem of course
>>> that's just going to be a magnet for cheating which wasn't helped but
>>> the code being left unencrypted and the seed for the RNG was available
>>> for each run.
>
>
>> How low?
>
>> The game is dookie. Literally.
>
> I mean, this isn't really that low as far as NFT games go. It's slimy,
> sure, just like everything associated with NFTs and crypto. But at
> least there's an actual game, and not just NFTs sold for a game that
> doesn't exist. Badly designed? Of course. Overpriced? Definitely. Uses
> NFTs unnecessarily? Only to be expected. But given how the vast
> majority of NFT-enabled games are nothing more than rug-pull scams,
> the fact that you can actually PLAY the game makes it actually one of
> the best NFT games around.
>
> Which, sure, isn't a very high bar to clear. But they could have gone
> much lower.
>
Quit giving them ideas!

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 23/02/2023 12:29, Zaghadka wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 11:19:34 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
> wrote:
>
>> This one made me laugh, it's basically a cheap runner game with the
>> catch that you need to buy an NFT to enter and the person with the
>> highest score ends up getting a unspecified prize. The problem of course
>> that's just going to be a magnet for cheating which wasn't helped but
>> the code being left unencrypted and the seed for the RNG was available
>> for each run.
>>
>> Now obviously the cryptobros are now out in force with either this
>> wouldn't have happened if the game was based around Web 3.0 technology
>> or the company has really strong anti-cheat mechanisms in place (yeh
>> right, I'm sure they do).
>>
>> The downside I would assume that the company made a ton of cash, the
>> upside is it probably came from those trying to make a quick buck and
>> have had their fingers burnt.
>
> How low?
>
> The game is dookie. Literally.
>

I just had to look that up as can't say it's a word I'd heard of before.
It would seem to be the Bevis and Butthead school of humour which
doesn't surprise as it comes from cryptobros!