Are you tired of talking about NFTs? I bet you're tired of talking
about NFTs. I know I am tired of talking about NFTs. So let's talk
about NFTs!

Specifically, Ubisoft's take on the stupid things, it's "Digits" that
were first embedded in "Ghost Recon: Breakpoint". Nobody - except the
head honchos at Ubisoft who obviously had drunk deeply from the
crypto-Kool Aid - wanted the damn things, but they put them in anyway.
Customers complained. Ubisoft execs accused people of 'not getting
it'. Virtually nobody engaged with the damn things beyond those who
claimed them because they were free. The third-party resales of the
"Ghost Recon: Breakpoint" Digits numbered in the double-digits, with
most of them selling in the double-digit dollar values (or less).
Marketplaces stopped selling the things. As NFTs they were a flop. As
in-game DLC cosmetics, they were a flop. As a marketing move, it was a
flop. A savvy company would have admitted their error, and moved on.

But if Ubisoft was that sort of company, I wouldn't be writing this.

Despite the subject line, its unclear as to whether the company is
actually still 'gung ho' about NFTs, but they haven't given up on them
either. Even as they were announcing the end of development of "Ghost
Recon: Breakpoint", they were still insisting* that more NFTs ('future
drops', in Ubisoft lingo) would appear in other games.**

Given the failure of Ubisoft's Digits to catch on, combined with the
increasing awareness amongst average folk about how pointlessly,
wastefully stupid NFTs are (not to mention how the law is, inevitably,
starting to catch up with the technology and cracking down on the
scammers and speculators), its hard to imagine why Ubisoft remains so
confident about the technology. I honestly believe this is because
there are several C-levels who are, to borrow the phrase,
'crypto-bros' who have personally invested in the blockchain.** *

It's the hope of personal profit, and not an earnest belief that NFTs
will - somehow? - make games better. But given how poorly Ubisoft's
Digits were received, that's the only reason I can see for the
companies adamant stance regarding them: it's a personal crusade and
not one motivated in hope of improving the company's bottom line or
changing gaming for the better.

In any event, this is just another example of a large gaming company
acting illogically, a topic which always brings me equal part joy and
disgust****. Sadly, I don't think the NFT bubble is going to pop soon,
at least not in the sense of the darn things reverting to their actual
value. NFTs will continue to accrue ridiculously high sale prices for
a while, I think.

What will change - and arguably already /is/ changing- is that
population growth of NFT-fanatics will slow or reverse, leaving an
ever-smaller pool of true believers desperately trying to prop up the
value of their digital goods. So, sadly, this probably won't be the
last you read from me about the damn things. And believe it or not,
I'm not any happier about that than you are. But in the mean time, at
least we can get a good laugh at Ubisoft's expense.

-----------------

* https://quartz.ubisoft.com/Game:7c788439-f696-4362-8848-d719eeb3e9d2
"As the last Digit for Ghost Recon® Breakpoint was released on
3/17/2022, stay tuned for more updates with features to the platform
and future drops coming with other games!"

** No indication was made if existing 'drops' would survive the
inevitable shut-down of the current game's servers, of course. It's
possible, but Ubisoft would have to pay for the artists and modelers
to convert the "GR:Breakpoint" assets into a format that could be used
in other games, and ensure the server capability to verify those
'drops' were legitimate... all that effort for cosmetic items that
wouldn't be earning them any new revenue.

*** Probably not in Ubisoft's "Digits" themselves - doubtlessly they
recognize it as worthless as anyone else - but any NFT sale bolsters
the value of cryptocoin and further legitimizes them all. But, of
course, NFTs and cryptocoins only earn you money if you can find
somebody else - usually somebody new and clueless - to buy the things
off you for more money than you paid... so its advantageous to them to
get as many people engaged with the blockchain as possible.

**** Not to mention an urge to post on Usenet. So if you're tired of
these long diatribes, feel free to blame them on NFTs too ;-)

On 07/04/2022 04:43, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> It's the hope of personal profit, and not an earnest belief that NFTs
> will - somehow? - make games better. But given how poorly Ubisoft's
> Digits were received, that's the only reason I can see for the
> companies adamant stance regarding them: it's a personal crusade and
> not one motivated in hope of improving the company's bottom line or
> changing gaming for the better.
>

There's obviously a problem of the more interesting people are the ones
you get to hear about but I've seen a few blockchain 'promoters' who in
another life could have been a religious preacher, also of the more
interesting type. They are complete confident that they're correct and
any disagreement is because people just don't understand or are stupid.
It really does come across more as a faith based ideology position than
anything else.

As for NFT's in games, it does seem companies have gone away for a
rethink but personally my expectation is they still want to go ahead
(for whatever reasons) but are now trying to work out how to repackage
the idea in a more palatable form. Look you just don't understand, they
aren't NFT's they're digital collectibles. How can that not be good for
games - are you stupid or something?

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 09:08:35 +0100, JAB <noway@co.uk> wrote:

>On 07/04/2022 04:43, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> It's the hope of personal profit, and not an earnest belief that NFTs
>> will - somehow? - make games better. But given how poorly Ubisoft's
>> Digits were received, that's the only reason I can see for the
>> companies adamant stance regarding them: it's a personal crusade and
>> not one motivated in hope of improving the company's bottom line or
>> changing gaming for the better.
>>
>
>There's obviously a problem of the more interesting people are the ones
>you get to hear about but I've seen a few blockchain 'promoters' who in
>another life could have been a religious preacher, also of the more
>interesting type. They are complete confident that they're correct and
>any disagreement is because people just don't understand or are stupid.
>It really does come across more as a faith based ideology position than
>anything else.

There definitely are a lot of people who give off a true-believer
vibe, people who have fully bought into the Libetarian ideals they
think crypto-coin promotes and how it - and its more pointless
offshoot, NFTs - will transform the world for the better. But even
their beliefs tend to be couched in terms of personal gain, and
failure to do so is foolish. The negative effects to society are
always ignored or belittled. The sleaziness of the method - rugpulls
and market manipulation - are not only accepted, but expected. It's
all about making the value of the crypto-token increase, by whatever
means are necessary, because that's ultimately all that matters.

Criticism of crypto is - too often - met with confused looks; after
all why would anyone be against it if it could make them money? Why
should you care if the creation of crypto destroys the environment or
pushes more wealth into even fewer hands if you have a few million
dollars of your own?

Where do the hypothetical cadre of Ubisoft C-levels pushing "Digit"
fall in the crypto-bro hierarchy? That's hard to say. Its possibly
they think that an NFT economy would (somehow) be a net-benefit to the
world, but I think it more likely they are aware of how vacuously
speculative the things are, and are just hoping to ride the tidal wave
to mega-riches before the bubble bursts. The true believers - the ones
who have drunk most deeply from the Kool Aid - tend to be younger and
without much business experience. Ubisoft's initiative feels more
calculated.

>As for NFT's in games, it does seem companies have gone away for a
>rethink but personally my expectation is they still want to go ahead
>(for whatever reasons) but are now trying to work out how to repackage
>the idea in a more palatable form. Look you just don't understand, they
>aren't NFT's they're digital collectibles. How can that not be good for
>games - are you stupid or something?

Heh. But again, that displays the primary motivation of crypto-fans;
the only value that matters is monetary. A digital collectible can be
sold and make you richer! If it turns the game into a grind-fest and
consumes 10,000 times more energy to do it than a simple DLC
transaction, who cares? Your token is marginally more valuable - and
resellable - than it was yesterday.

On 07/04/2022 17:25, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 09:08:35 +0100, JAB <noway@co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 07/04/2022 04:43, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> It's the hope of personal profit, and not an earnest belief that NFTs
>>> will - somehow? - make games better. But given how poorly Ubisoft's
>>> Digits were received, that's the only reason I can see for the
>>> companies adamant stance regarding them: it's a personal crusade and
>>> not one motivated in hope of improving the company's bottom line or
>>> changing gaming for the better.
>>>
>>
>> There's obviously a problem of the more interesting people are the ones
>> you get to hear about but I've seen a few blockchain 'promoters' who in
>> another life could have been a religious preacher, also of the more
>> interesting type. They are complete confident that they're correct and
>> any disagreement is because people just don't understand or are stupid.
>> It really does come across more as a faith based ideology position than
>> anything else.
>
> There definitely are a lot of people who give off a true-believer
> vibe, people who have fully bought into the Libetarian ideals they
> think crypto-coin promotes and how it - and its more pointless
> offshoot, NFTs - will transform the world for the better. But even
> their beliefs tend to be couched in terms of personal gain, and
> failure to do so is foolish. The negative effects to society are
> always ignored or belittled. The sleaziness of the method - rugpulls
> and market manipulation - are not only accepted, but expected. It's
> all about making the value of the crypto-token increase, by whatever
> means are necessary, because that's ultimately all that matters.
>
> Criticism of crypto is - too often - met with confused looks; after
> all why would anyone be against it if it could make them money? Why
> should you care if the creation of crypto destroys the environment or
> pushes more wealth into even fewer hands if you have a few million
> dollars of your own?
>

The big red flag to me is that, as you say, all the possible negatives
are just brushed aside. If NFT's are such a good idea then surely they
should be able to explain that, yes there our some negatives but this is
why the positive outweigh them.

> Where do the hypothetical cadre of Ubisoft C-levels pushing "Digit"
> fall in the crypto-bro hierarchy? That's hard to say. Its possibly
> they think that an NFT economy would (somehow) be a net-benefit to the
> world, but I think it more likely they are aware of how vacuously
> speculative the things are, and are just hoping to ride the tidal wave
> to mega-riches before the bubble bursts. The true believers - the ones
> who have drunk most deeply from the Kool Aid - tend to be younger and
> without much business experience. Ubisoft's initiative feels more
> calculated.
>

One of the things it does remind me of was after the crash of 2008 a
senior member of one of our UK banks (it ended up being taken over by
the government) was interviewed about why they got involved in the
subprime business. Their answer was basically they realised that one day
it would all coming crashing down but they still felt they had to get
involved as everyone else was.

>> As for NFT's in games, it does seem companies have gone away for a
>> rethink but personally my expectation is they still want to go ahead
>> (for whatever reasons) but are now trying to work out how to repackage
>> the idea in a more palatable form. Look you just don't understand, they
>> aren't NFT's they're digital collectibles. How can that not be good for
>> games - are you stupid or something?
>
> Heh. But again, that displays the primary motivation of crypto-fans;
> the only value that matters is monetary. A digital collectible can be
> sold and make you richer! If it turns the game into a grind-fest and
> consumes 10,000 times more energy to do it than a simple DLC
> transaction, who cares? Your token is marginally more valuable - and
> resellable - than it was yesterday.
>

Chaosium, the makers of the Call of Cthulhu RPG, announced a few months
ago that it was pulling out of NFT's altogether. The impression I got is
that they didn't really understand what they had got themselves into and
in particular that speculators would move in and you'll end up with a
lot of pissed of loyal customers who feel they've basically been
scammed. This is not the same market as selling digital props for scenarios.

On 4/8/2022 1:26 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 17:25, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 09:08:35 +0100, JAB <noway@co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/04/2022 04:43, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>> It's the hope of personal profit, and not an earnest belief that NFTs
>>>> will - somehow? - make games better. But given how poorly Ubisoft's
>>>> Digits were received, that's the only reason I can see for the
>>>> companies adamant stance regarding them: it's a personal crusade and
>>>> not one motivated in hope of improving the company's bottom line or
>>>> changing gaming for the better.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's obviously a problem of the more interesting people are the ones
>>> you get to hear about but I've seen a few blockchain 'promoters' who in
>>> another life could have been a religious preacher, also of the more
>>> interesting type. They are complete confident that they're correct and
>>> any disagreement is because people just don't understand or are stupid.
>>> It really does come across more as a faith based ideology position than
>>> anything else.
>>
>> There definitely are a lot of people who give off a true-believer
>> vibe, people who have fully bought into the Libetarian ideals they
>> think crypto-coin promotes and how it - and its more pointless
>> offshoot, NFTs - will transform the world for the better. But even
>> their beliefs tend to be couched in terms of personal gain, and
>> failure to do so is foolish. The negative effects to society are
>> always ignored or belittled. The sleaziness of the method -  rugpulls
>> and market manipulation - are not only accepted, but expected. It's
>> all about making the value of the crypto-token increase, by whatever
>> means are necessary, because that's ultimately all that matters.
>>
>> Criticism of crypto is - too often - met with confused looks; after
>> all why would anyone be against it if it could make them money? Why
>> should you care if the creation of crypto destroys the environment or
>> pushes more wealth into even fewer hands if you have a few million
>> dollars of your own?
>>
>
> The big red flag to me is that, as you say, all the possible negatives
> are just brushed aside. If NFT's are such a good idea then surely they
> should be able to explain that, yes there our some negatives but this is
> why the positive outweigh them.
>
>> Where do the hypothetical cadre of Ubisoft C-levels pushing "Digit"
>> fall in the crypto-bro hierarchy? That's hard to say. Its possibly
>> they think that an NFT economy would (somehow) be a net-benefit to the
>> world, but I think it more likely they are aware of how vacuously
>> speculative the things are, and are just hoping to ride the tidal wave
>> to mega-riches before the bubble bursts. The true believers - the ones
>> who have drunk most deeply from the Kool Aid - tend to be younger and
>> without much business experience. Ubisoft's initiative feels more
>> calculated.
>>
>
> One of the things it does remind me of was after the crash of 2008 a
> senior member of one of our UK banks (it ended up being taken over by
> the government) was interviewed about why they got involved in the
> subprime business. Their answer was basically they realised that one day
> it would all coming crashing down but they still felt they had to get
> involved as everyone else was.
>
And the reason everyone else was involved, and there for that bank was
involved, was the massive amounts of money they could make from it.
There is ALWAYS large amounts of money to be made from conning people.

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

On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 09:26:02 +0100, JAB <noway@co.uk> wrote:
>On 07/04/2022 17:25, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 09:08:35 +0100, JAB <noway@co.uk> wrote:

>Chaosium, the makers of the Call of Cthulhu RPG, announced a few months
>ago that it was pulling out of NFT's altogether. The impression I got is
>that they didn't really understand what they had got themselves into and
>in particular that speculators would move in and you'll end up with a
>lot of pissed of loyal customers who feel they've basically been
>scammed. This is not the same market as selling digital props for scenarios.

I hadn't heard about the Chaosium deal (neither its entry nor exit).
But it doesn't surprise me; there are a lot of people who enter into
the market - or who are supportive of it - without completely
understanding it. After all, while it's not something I'm into,
there's nothing really wrong with selling art assets digitally -
nominally with the idea of it becoming a collectible - and at first
glance, that's exactly what NFTs seem to be.

It's only when you dig into it a bit deeper - when you realize the
NFTs people are buying aren't actually the art themselves, that
blockchain creation is incredibly resource-intensive, and the entire
marketplace is disturbingly corrupt - that the downsides become
(obviously) apparent. This is when most people back out.

The ones who stay usually do so because they've invested heavily into
the market and need to recoup their money... and the only way to do
that is to find new sucker^h^h^h^h^h users to take those coins/nfts
off their hands for less than they original paid.

Sadly, Ubisoft isn't the only company infected with NFTs; Konami still
is tinkering with the idea, and Facebook - after the initial failure
of its Metabucks (or whatever they were called) - is making another
attempt at it.

On the plus side, recent arrests of two NFT-scammers have put paid to
the idea that cryptocoin=anonymity, and have (hopefully) slowed down
the more egregious rugpulls and market-manipulation as people realize
there actually IS risk to doing so. Which means maybe we'll all be
able to afford new GPUs again one day*. ;-)

----------------
* and, possibly more importantly, I'll be able to shut up about NFTs
too. I have seeming as fanatically against the damn things as its
proponents are for them, and really wish the damn things would just
vanish into the ether so I never have to think - much less post -
about them again, but it seems almost criminal to remain silent while
so many people are still getting suckered by the scheme.

On Wed, 06 Apr 2022 23:43:54 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
Meanwhile...

Sega: NFT's are a 'natural extension' for future games
Creative Assembly: 'aware of concerns' but will have add them to Total
War series if Sega insists
CCP: While 'intrigued' by the technology, there are 'no plans to add
blockchain technology' to EVE Online
Team 17 cancels its NFT plans
ESPN: getting into NFTs with help of Tom Brady
Aminoca Brands shuts down "F1 Delta Time" racer and all its NFTs
suddenly worthless
Activision leak suggests NFTs may be added to Call of Duty

The damn things won't go away...

On 08/04/2022 20:26, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> I hadn't heard about the Chaosium deal (neither its entry nor exit).
> But it doesn't surprise me; there are a lot of people who enter into
> the market - or who are supportive of it - without completely
> understanding it. After all, while it's not something I'm into,
> there's nothing really wrong with selling art assets digitally -
> nominally with the idea of it becoming a collectible - and at first
> glance, that's exactly what NFTs seem to be.
>

Someone in our CoC online group thought it was pretty much that and it
was all to do with Chasoium wanting to protect their digital IP.

I did get them to watch a YT video from a crypto-bro looking at the
Chasoium NHT market. The first five minutes was basically how great
NFT's are and the last five minutes were lots of pretty graphs showing
how their investment was going and when they intended to sell up to make
a profit.

On 12/04/2022 02:40, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2022 23:43:54 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Meanwhile...
>
> Sega: NFT's are a 'natural extension' for future games
> Creative Assembly: 'aware of concerns' but will have add them to Total
> War series if Sega insists
> CCP: While 'intrigued' by the technology, there are 'no plans to add
> blockchain technology' to EVE Online
> Team 17 cancels its NFT plans
> ESPN: getting into NFTs with help of Tom Brady
> Aminoca Brands shuts down "F1 Delta Time" racer and all its NFTs
> suddenly worthless
> Activision leak suggests NFTs may be added to Call of Duty
>
> The damn things won't go away...
>

Unfortunately I don't see them going away anytime soon although the
positive is the gaming space that seems to be pushing them is one that I
no longer have any real interest in. My only concern is is the smaller
devs follow suit.

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 8:44:01 PM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> Are you tired of talking about NFTs? I bet you're tired of talking
> about NFTs. I know I am tired of talking about NFTs. So let's talk
> about NFTs!
>
> Specifically, Ubisoft's take on the stupid things, it's "Digits" that
> were first embedded in "Ghost Recon: Breakpoint". Nobody - except the
> head honchos at Ubisoft who obviously had drunk deeply from the
> crypto-Kool Aid - wanted the damn things, but they put them in anyway.
> Customers complained. Ubisoft execs accused people of 'not getting
> it'. Virtually nobody engaged with the damn things beyond those who
> claimed them because they were free. The third-party resales of the
> "Ghost Recon: Breakpoint" Digits numbered in the double-digits, with
> most of them selling in the double-digit dollar values (or less).
> Marketplaces stopped selling the things. As NFTs they were a flop. As
> in-game DLC cosmetics, they were a flop. As a marketing move, it was a
> flop. A savvy company would have admitted their error, and moved on.
>
> But if Ubisoft was that sort of company, I wouldn't be writing this.
>
> Despite the subject line, its unclear as to whether the company is
> actually still 'gung ho' about NFTs, but they haven't given up on them
> either. Even as they were announcing the end of development of "Ghost
> Recon: Breakpoint", they were still insisting* that more NFTs ('future
> drops', in Ubisoft lingo) would appear in other games.**
>
> Given the failure of Ubisoft's Digits to catch on, combined with the
> increasing awareness amongst average folk about how pointlessly,
> wastefully stupid NFTs are (not to mention how the law is, inevitably,
> starting to catch up with the technology and cracking down on the
> scammers and speculators), its hard to imagine why Ubisoft remains so
> confident about the technology. I honestly believe this is because
> there are several C-levels who are, to borrow the phrase,
> 'crypto-bros' who have personally invested in the blockchain.** *
>
> It's the hope of personal profit, and not an earnest belief that NFTs
> will - somehow? - make games better. But given how poorly Ubisoft's
> Digits were received, that's the only reason I can see for the
> companies adamant stance regarding them: it's a personal crusade and
> not one motivated in hope of improving the company's bottom line or
> changing gaming for the better.
>
> In any event, this is just another example of a large gaming company
> acting illogically, a topic which always brings me equal part joy and
> disgust****. Sadly, I don't think the NFT bubble is going to pop soon,
> at least not in the sense of the darn things reverting to their actual
> value. NFTs will continue to accrue ridiculously high sale prices for
> a while, I think.
>
> What will change - and arguably already /is/ changing- is that
> population growth of NFT-fanatics will slow or reverse, leaving an
> ever-smaller pool of true believers desperately trying to prop up the
> value of their digital goods. So, sadly, this probably won't be the
> last you read from me about the damn things. And believe it or not,
> I'm not any happier about that than you are. But in the mean time, at
> least we can get a good laugh at Ubisoft's expense.
>
>
>
>
> -----------------
>
> * https://quartz.ubisoft.com/Game:7c788439-f696-4362-8848-d719eeb3e9d2
> "As the last Digit for Ghost Recon® Breakpoint was released on
> 3/17/2022, stay tuned for more updates with features to the platform
> and future drops coming with other games!"
>
> ** No indication was made if existing 'drops' would survive the
> inevitable shut-down of the current game's servers, of course. It's
> possible, but Ubisoft would have to pay for the artists and modelers
> to convert the "GR:Breakpoint" assets into a format that could be used
> in other games, and ensure the server capability to verify those
> 'drops' were legitimate... all that effort for cosmetic items that
> wouldn't be earning them any new revenue.
>
> *** Probably not in Ubisoft's "Digits" themselves - doubtlessly they
> recognize it as worthless as anyone else - but any NFT sale bolsters
> the value of cryptocoin and further legitimizes them all. But, of
> course, NFTs and cryptocoins only earn you money if you can find
> somebody else - usually somebody new and clueless - to buy the things
> off you for more money than you paid... so its advantageous to them to
> get as many people engaged with the blockchain as possible.
>
> **** Not to mention an urge to post on Usenet. So if you're tired of
> these long diatribes, feel free to blame them on NFTs too ;-)

I thought the rest of you might enjoy this:

https://theconversation.com/impulsive-psychopaths-like-crypto-research-shows-how-dark-personality-traits-affect-bitcoin-enthusiasm-180782

Also seen stories on how there's a disproportionately large number of psychopaths in CEO positions, goes hand in hand.

- Justisaur

On 14/04/2022 03:37, Justisaur wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 8:44:01 PM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> Are you tired of talking about NFTs? I bet you're tired of talking
>> about NFTs. I know I am tired of talking about NFTs. So let's talk
>> about NFTs!
>>
>> Specifically, Ubisoft's take on the stupid things, it's "Digits" that
>> were first embedded in "Ghost Recon: Breakpoint". Nobody - except the
>> head honchos at Ubisoft who obviously had drunk deeply from the
>> crypto-Kool Aid - wanted the damn things, but they put them in anyway.
>> Customers complained. Ubisoft execs accused people of 'not getting
>> it'. Virtually nobody engaged with the damn things beyond those who
>> claimed them because they were free. The third-party resales of the
>> "Ghost Recon: Breakpoint" Digits numbered in the double-digits, with
>> most of them selling in the double-digit dollar values (or less).
>> Marketplaces stopped selling the things. As NFTs they were a flop. As
>> in-game DLC cosmetics, they were a flop. As a marketing move, it was a
>> flop. A savvy company would have admitted their error, and moved on.
>>
>> But if Ubisoft was that sort of company, I wouldn't be writing this.
>>
>> Despite the subject line, its unclear as to whether the company is
>> actually still 'gung ho' about NFTs, but they haven't given up on them
>> either. Even as they were announcing the end of development of "Ghost
>> Recon: Breakpoint", they were still insisting* that more NFTs ('future
>> drops', in Ubisoft lingo) would appear in other games.**
>>
>> Given the failure of Ubisoft's Digits to catch on, combined with the
>> increasing awareness amongst average folk about how pointlessly,
>> wastefully stupid NFTs are (not to mention how the law is, inevitably,
>> starting to catch up with the technology and cracking down on the
>> scammers and speculators), its hard to imagine why Ubisoft remains so
>> confident about the technology. I honestly believe this is because
>> there are several C-levels who are, to borrow the phrase,
>> 'crypto-bros' who have personally invested in the blockchain.** *
>>
>> It's the hope of personal profit, and not an earnest belief that NFTs
>> will - somehow? - make games better. But given how poorly Ubisoft's
>> Digits were received, that's the only reason I can see for the
>> companies adamant stance regarding them: it's a personal crusade and
>> not one motivated in hope of improving the company's bottom line or
>> changing gaming for the better.
>>
>> In any event, this is just another example of a large gaming company
>> acting illogically, a topic which always brings me equal part joy and
>> disgust****. Sadly, I don't think the NFT bubble is going to pop soon,
>> at least not in the sense of the darn things reverting to their actual
>> value. NFTs will continue to accrue ridiculously high sale prices for
>> a while, I think.
>>
>> What will change - and arguably already /is/ changing- is that
>> population growth of NFT-fanatics will slow or reverse, leaving an
>> ever-smaller pool of true believers desperately trying to prop up the
>> value of their digital goods. So, sadly, this probably won't be the
>> last you read from me about the damn things. And believe it or not,
>> I'm not any happier about that than you are. But in the mean time, at
>> least we can get a good laugh at Ubisoft's expense.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------
>>
>> * https://quartz.ubisoft.com/Game:7c788439-f696-4362-8848-d719eeb3e9d2
>> "As the last Digit for Ghost Recon® Breakpoint was released on
>> 3/17/2022, stay tuned for more updates with features to the platform
>> and future drops coming with other games!"
>>
>> ** No indication was made if existing 'drops' would survive the
>> inevitable shut-down of the current game's servers, of course. It's
>> possible, but Ubisoft would have to pay for the artists and modelers
>> to convert the "GR:Breakpoint" assets into a format that could be used
>> in other games, and ensure the server capability to verify those
>> 'drops' were legitimate... all that effort for cosmetic items that
>> wouldn't be earning them any new revenue.
>>
>> *** Probably not in Ubisoft's "Digits" themselves - doubtlessly they
>> recognize it as worthless as anyone else - but any NFT sale bolsters
>> the value of cryptocoin and further legitimizes them all. But, of
>> course, NFTs and cryptocoins only earn you money if you can find
>> somebody else - usually somebody new and clueless - to buy the things
>> off you for more money than you paid... so its advantageous to them to
>> get as many people engaged with the blockchain as possible.
>>
>> **** Not to mention an urge to post on Usenet. So if you're tired of
>> these long diatribes, feel free to blame them on NFTs too ;-)
>
> I thought the rest of you might enjoy this:
>
> https://theconversation.com/impulsive-psychopaths-like-crypto-research-shows-how-dark-personality-traits-affect-bitcoin-enthusiasm-180782
>
> Also seen stories on how there's a disproportionately large number of psychopaths in CEO positions, goes hand in hand.
>
> - Justisaur

I shall take a look.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 19:37:39 -0700 (PDT), Justisaur
<justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 8:44:01 PM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> Are you tired of talking about NFTs? I bet you're tired of talking
>> about NFTs. I know I am tired of talking about NFTs. So let's talk
>> about NFTs!

>I thought the rest of you might enjoy this:
>https://theconversation.com/impulsive-psychopaths-like-crypto-research-shows-how-dark-personality-traits-affect-bitcoin-enthusiasm-180782
>Also seen stories on how there's a disproportionately large number of
>psychopaths in CEO positions, goes hand in hand.

Given how our society is increasingly self-selecting for psychopathic
traits, I wonder how long before the term is redefined into something
positive...

I'm not sure, though, that such article as the above is particularly
useful since a) it can be used to pigeon-hole and stereotype an entire
population of users, and b) it diminishes the severity of the disease
(after all, if there are so many psychopaths out there, it can't be
THAT bad, right?). Doubtlessly there are some mentally troubled people
attracted to crypto, but they're the sort to be attracted to any scam.

Instead, I think the bulk of NFTs users are enthusiastic for the
technology more out of ignorance and a lack of experience, as well as
various social factors, such as precarious economic status (most
enthusiasts are young and low-middle class). Add into that the strong
social aspects of the crypto-community, which rewards that enthusiasm
and punishes critical thought about the topic.

That's why education is often the best way to help these people before
they are preyed upon by the less scrupulous.