• stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    6 months ago

    I could honestly see the blockchain being used to coordinate game ownership between gaming platforms.

    I am far from crypto advocate, I think it is a waste of time and resources, but having a blockchain of who owns what games would be great.

    Then you could pick the platform you want to download the game from and get the experience you want

    • ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I could also see a database being used to coordinate game ownership with a fraction of the power usage. But neither will happen because consumers always get the raw end of the deal and nothing will ever be done to their benefit without being forced.

      • stoy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        Sure, I agree but I doubt publisher’s would since a database can be modified.

        • Starbuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          6 months ago

          But blockchains get “bad” records added all the times. Database entries and blockchain blocks are both equally as susceptible to bad business logic making incorrect entries. No business is going to adopt a sales recording system that doesn’t allow them to control the entries and to reverse the entries they don’t agree with.

        • Norgur@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Publishers will like a database because it can be modified. If they were forced to implement such a system (thus abandoning all ‘sell the same game to the same person twice’ for different platforms), they’d oppose a blockchain system hard, since it would make it pricier to:

          a) publish seven bazillion versions of any given game
          b) revoke ownership of games just because it’s cheaper to do that than honor the deal they made with customers
          c) correct any data-fuckups they will inevitably make because they went for the cheapest route possible to implement this, and it went pear-shaped from day 3 onwards

          I’m very much on the database-side here as well. I work for a Telco company here in Germany, and we use several such databases that are regulated by external bodies and government agencies to communicate between carriers (for number porting and such). Works great overall.

    • brsrklf@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Buy Game on Platform A.

      Go to Platform B and tell them : see, I bought Game already, let me play it here too.

      Platform B : “who are you and why should I care?”

      Proving your digital ownership never was the problem. The problem is those platforms are different companies and have no reason to honor a purchase from somewhere else.

    • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      And then they can lease them instead of selling and have the games expire just like they use the always online to do.

    • HubertManne@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      there is nothing wrong with the blockchain. cryptos main problem is the proof of work using to much energy. blockchain to actually do work with the energy it uses efficiently is great.