With EA's expressed interest in NFTs/crypto, how would you see this interest influencing a future NFS title?

  • Thread starter MIE1992
  • 7 comments
  • 772 views
3,173
United States
Connecticut
Ridley-X4
If I had the proper influence at EA, I'd make various "official character cars" have limited quantities within the game's economy, with more iconic ones like the BMW M3 (E46) GTR from MW2005 being the rarest and minor rival team members like a car from Carbon's Rotor 4 team being the most common. Of course, they wouldn't necessarily be better than anything you can obtain yourself in more natural ways, and you could even replicate some of these cars using bodykits and other parts available in-game. But these limited-edition cars would be officially from EA, so you wouldn't have to worry about downloading another player's livery, only to find out there's an oh-so-slight error in how they placed a decal. They could even include real-world cars that've tied into NFS, like the BMW Z4 GT3 that used NFS as a main sponsor.

Then, in addition to that, I'd have some of the limited-edition cars be based on models exclusive to being limited-edition, but also include more common variants. So for example, the BMW M3 (E46) GTR from MW2005 would sure enough use the exact same iconic engine and so on as the real-world car, and the road-going M3 (E46) GTR (Link to an example from GT6) would similarly be available in limited amounts within the in-game economy. However, the more typical M3 (E46) would be easily available in-game, without any limits on how many would be around. The limits on cars like the M3 (E46) GTR would mirror real-world production numbers, so for the Pagani Zonda Cinque, there would only be a total of ten, with five coupes and five roadsters. (These quantities would be repeated for the NFS Edition of the Zonda Cinque.) However, the Zonda F would also be available while not having these limits, as would the Huayra. As I mentioned earlier, these limited-edition cars would hardly offer a notable competitive advantage, and I would potentially even ban them from some (if not most) ranked competitive events. These rare cars would also be unable to be modified, to preserve their original states as much as possible. (Indeed, this would be another advantage of using a car that isn't restrained by these "virtual production numbers.")

Another idea that could either replace this or add to it would be something resembling an in-game version of SEMA or the Barrett-Jackson auction, where player-customized cars can be shown off and auctioned on, potentially with credits that could translate into actual money, since we're talking about NFTs/crypto.

Of course, I would only support this specifically if Ethereum fulfills its plan to become more environmentally-friendly. Otherwise, that'd be crossing the line for me personally.
 
Last edited:

AudiMan2011

Scottish
Contributing Writer
12,705
Scotland
GTPlanet
Street-King-07
Quattro Saltire
It would kill any interest in any title. It'll end up being the most scum idea to further bleed money from consumers since the loot box gambling mechanics.
 
Last edited:
885
United States
Madison, WI
FerrariF1GT
FerrariFan24
It would kill any interest in any title. It'll end up being the most scum idea to further bleed money from consumers since the loot box gambling mechanics.
You underestimate the amount of fools whom game companies can easily make money off of by selling NFTs.

NFTs or any kind of blockchain would be an instant turn-off for me, but since they’re the hot new way for companies to make money this is unfortunately the way most triple-A gaming is going to be for the forseeable future. Hopefully Sony and Microsoft follow Valve’s lead and ban blockchain games from their stores.
 
3,173
United States
Connecticut
Ridley-X4
You underestimate the amount of fools whom game companies can easily make money off of by selling NFTs.

NFTs or any kind of blockchain would be an instant turn-off for me, but since they’re the hot new way for companies to make money this is unfortunately the way most triple-A gaming is going to be for the forseeable future. Hopefully Sony and Microsoft follow Valve’s lead and ban blockchain games from their stores.
It certainly seems to be a divisive topic in the industry, with some developers/publishers being interested in it and others expressing antipathy.
 

Moglet

Gendertrash
Premium
12,414
United Kingdom
Cambridge
Moglet85
Moglet
Linking in-game items to NFTs is one of the stupidest things to happen to the games industry IMO. You want to have an item that is owned only by one particular person? The entitlements system that modern platforms use can already do this. The only difference is it's centralized, which makes little difference when the studio/publisher still owns the servers the game runs on.

Now if we're talking players owning an item that they can carry across multiple games then it's a different matter entirely, but why would a publisher want that when they can instead sell the same items again?
 
Last edited:
3,173
United States
Connecticut
Ridley-X4
Linking in-game items to NFTs is one of the stupidest things to happen to the games industry IMO. You want to have an item that is owned only by one particular person? The entitlements system that modern platforms use can already do this. The only difference is it's centralized, which makes little difference when the studio/publisher still owns the servers the game runs on.

Now if we're talking players owning an item that they can carry across multiple games then it's a different matter entirely, but why would a publisher want that when they can instead sell the same items again?
Hey, I didn't say it was my idea to endorse it like EA did. Hopefully they'll do some more research on it before deciding on any sort of commitment, instead of just going by hype.
 
Last edited: