Support us on Patreon
PayPalIt seems Valve aren't a big fan of cryptocurrencies or NFTs as they've updated their onboarding guide with a new point about disallowing games that allow you to exchange them.
Under the Rules and Guidelines heading where it mentions "What you shouldn’t publish on Steam" there's a new line that states "Applications built on blockchain technology that issue or allow exchange of cryptocurrencies or NFTs".
One game that has already been hit by this is Age of Rust, with the Steam store page no longer appearing in the search. If you manage to get to the store page, Valve has put up a notice that reads "Notice: At the request of the publisher, Age of Rust is no longer available for sale on Steam.". Age of Rust clearly states how it lets players gain various NFTs, plus it also used NFTs from other games using the Enjin Platform.
Speaking on Twitter the developer put up a short thread where they explained they've been upfront and had good communication with Valve but ultimately they lost the battle. In it they said "[…] Steam's point of view is that items have value and they don't allow items that can have real-world value on their platform. […]"
Other games that include NFTs include the popular MIR4 which is still online and the upcoming Mist which still also has the store page live but it's not actually released on Steam yet.
What do you think about this news? Let us know in the comments.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
"We aren’t touching NFTs as the whole field is currently tangled up with an intractable mix of scams, interesting decentralized tech foundations, and scams."
Tim Sweeney on 15th October:
"Epic Games Store will welcome games that make use of blockchain tech provided they follow the relevant laws, disclose their terms, and are age-rated by an appropriate group. Though Epic's not using crypto in our games, we welcome innovation in the areas of technology and finance."
Quoting: GustyGhostSo, what you've got there is a crypto think-tank paper with low-quality citations arguing essentially that the Bitcoin energy consumption is okay, because the entire rest of the financial sector consumes more relative power, while completely ignoring the fact that the scale of the number of transactions between these systems is so wildly different that the argument is basically nonsensical. The fact that Bitcoin consumes over a third of the estimated energy expenditure of the banking system is already a disgrace and if Bitcoin were to handle all of the transactions required of the banking system, it would a.) collapse in on itself due to technological limitations, artificial or otherwise and b.) consume an absolutely ridiculous amount of power.Quoting: EikeOr maybe they're looking beyond their own nose. Like caring for environment.
Bitcoin is not an effective currency.
It quickly degraded into an object of speculation.
The same banking system which formulated that argument to peddle to joe normie in actuality uses much more energy.
Quoting: GustyGhostQuoting: EikeOr maybe they're looking beyond their own nose. Like caring for environment.
Bitcoin is not an effective currency.
It quickly degraded into an object of speculation.
The same banking system which formulated that argument to peddle to joe normie in actuality uses much more energy.
I happen not to be a banking system. I'm Eike. (You're trying to devalue arguments by assigning a source that you perceive as non reliable. That's not valid arguing.)
The data you've shown is terrible - for Bitcoin. The banking system is keeping the world running, while Bitcoin, as said, is not an effective money system to begin with. The one is used for a reason, the other is - literally - dust in the wind. (Which, by the way, was my argument which you didn't really react to. Not valid arguing either.)
My main complaint about buying cheap NFTs is the relatively large Ethereum gas fees associated with them. My NFT games have migrated to side-chains without gas fees, but this introduces new challenges as the side-chains haven't gone through the same examination by researchers as the largest cryptocurrencies have. Etherum is well-known and respected, but the side chains are probably more comparable with the smaller cryptocurrencies.
Quoting: TheRiddickQuoting: GustyGhostsalty about cryptocurrency because of their experiences with inflated GPU prices.
I'm mostly salty over it because it drives up energy costs dramatically (I've seen %40 rise here since Crypto took off a few years ago), and also the cost on the environment is HUGE.
Just do the math on how much coal needs to be burnt in order to perform a full bitcoin transaction, scary.. not sustainable at all and will likely kill us off as a species if we continue in this way.
The best quote I ever saw about cryptocurrencies is that they are "the most direct way capitalists have found of turning global warming into money".
Quoting: SamsaiWouldn't it then be easier to demand that games allow you to refund your in-game currency, instead of trying to do some weird manoeuvre where you first have to convert real money into a cryptobro Monopoly money and then you can take your Monopoly tokens and cash them out at a wildly different rate back to human currency? The in-game currency you can always peg to the user's currency, after all.
Allowing an easily conversion would create a big market of people exploiting the game economy in order to get real world money. Looking at how things are right now, that movement would generate a worst user experience and a very dangerous place for any sub-18 user.
See more from me