Phil Spencer Says NFTs in Gaming “Feels More Exploitive than about Entertainment”

Peter_Brosdahl

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 28, 2019
Messages
8,893
Points
113
phil-spencer-xbox-e3-2014-briefing-1024x576.jpg
Image: Microsoft



The talk of NFTs in gaming has been increasing. Earlier this month, Ubisoft invested in a blockchain gaming company and announced it would integrate blockchain into future games for monetization. EA has also said that NFTs and play-to-earn games are the future of the industry. Now, Xbox head Phil Spencer has given his thoughts, sharing that he’s not wholly against them but doesn’t feel the present experimentation is truly focused on entertainment.



What I’d say today on NFT, all up, is I think there’s a lot of speculation and experimentation that’s happening, and that some of the creative that I see today feels more exploitive than about entertainment,



But he doesn’t believe that it’s all exploitive, and many people are...
Click to expand...

Continue reading...


 
Oh, oh, when was the last time AAA developers were actually about entertainment and not how to exploit the players best.
 
I don't know who Phil Spencer is (when I first read the article my brain autocorrected it to Phil Spector) but I agree with the man.

1637174853228.png
 
Denpepe said:
You may need to start buying different games :unsure:
Click to expand...
OK, which games sacrifice monetization for the sake of entertainment? Because so far it was a one way street. Sacrificing playabiility to push xp boosters, time savers, in-game currency, add-on skins, or outfits etc.
 
It's interesting how many of these issues I don't have due to my sub to cheathappens.com. it's like I'm free to enjoy games without spending additionally money on them. (Single player games )
 
MadMummy76 said:
OK, which games sacrifice monetization for the sake of entertainment? Because so far it was a one way street. Sacrificing playabiility to push xp boosters, time savers, in-game currency, add-on skins, or outfits etc.
Click to expand...

There are pklenty of fun games around that give you a good game for the price like Borderlands 3 (which had DLC but you don't need them to enjoy the game and they are mostly pretty good end decent length) or Control.

There are also F2P games like apex legends which offer you plenty for no cost, I been playing that since it launched and have not spent a cent on it, I have all heroes and a ton of cosmetic stuff. Afaik there is nothing in the game that requires money that adds to the game. that is not cosmetic
 
Denpepe said:
There are pklenty of fun games around that give you a good game for the price like Borderlands 3 (which had DLC but you don't need them to enjoy the game and they are mostly pretty good end decent length) or Control.

There are also F2P games like apex legends which offer you plenty for no cost, I been playing that since it launched and have not spent a cent on it, I have all heroes and a ton of cosmetic stuff. Afaik there is nothing in the game that requires money that adds to the game. that is not cosmetic
Click to expand...
That was not the question. Plenty of games that are playable still despite the monetization. Cosmetic items locked behind paywalls are just as bad. Just because it doesn't completely ruin the game (yet) doesn't mean they are all about entertainment.

Because I have not seen a title in a very long time that had no microtransactions of some sort in it. That it is possible to play these games without engaging in them is quite irrelevant to the point I was making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top