Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Is the game distributed and executing on the blockchain? If not, you're close to understanding how NFTs very expensively do not solve this problem…

Games can be deployed on IPFS right? Access to play games on IPFS be trustless, such as holders of NFTs, right?

That is not the only way to employ blockchain technology to avoid a centralized company removing access to games you paid for, but not knowing your familiarity with the current state of the technology that is low hanging fruit.

Also let’s not pretend there isn’t a legal contract between Ubisoft and users, but it’s that very contract that gives them the legal right to take away access to games you have paid for by the rules they dictate. Even if Ubisoft breached the contract, no one is going to hire a lawyer to sue Ubisoft over breach of contract over the cost of a game…don’t forget to take into account legal fees and costs when calling the blockchain expensive.




> Games can be deployed on IPFS right?

They could, but IPFS is not a blockchain and putting it on IPFS would be a competitive disadvantage since you'd still need to pay for hosting but your users would see lower performance than competing options.

> Access to play games on IPFS be trustless, such as holders of NFTs, right?

No. If it's on IPFS, it's globally accessible to everyone on the internet. You could host encrypted blobs but publishers are unlikely to do that because it would mean that any breach of any purchased decryption key would mean that people who did not purchase it could download the same thing paid customers get, and there'd be no way to rotate the keys without breaking access for paying customers.

Moreover, IPFS would only matter if the game is either completely standalone or allows you to run your own servers. If that's not true, what really matters for most people is whether the servers will allow you to login, where again Ubisoft would have complete control about whether they care about your NFT. In the absence of a signed contract, that's “hahaha, no”.

> Also let’s not pretend there isn’t a legal contract between Ubisoft and users, but it’s that very contract that gives them the legal right to take away access to games you have paid for by the rules they dictate. Even if Ubisoft breached the contract, no one is going to hire a lawyer to sue Ubisoft over breach of contract over the cost of a game…don’t forget to take into account legal fees and costs when calling the blockchain expensive.

That is rather the point: Ubisoft has those terms because they created the game and the legal systems in most of the world give them a lot of control over how they grant access to their work. Blockchains aren't magic pixie dust which allow you to redesign their business how you want it to work and, as we've already seen from this same company, if they chose to use a blockchain they would structure the terms to preserve the same favorable position they currently enjoy.

If, as I do, you think that games should have resale rights or there should be some required process & means of recourse before terminating access, what you want are laws. Copyright is a legal creation and your elected officials can adjust the terms for it. Sure, that's won't happen without hard work but a blockchain has no authority to make anything happen at all so why not spend your effort on something which has a chance of working?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: