kurisu_1974
Banned
They will be released as the first NeoGAF NFT next week is what I heard.
Konami finds a way to milk Castlevania with NFT's for its 35th birthday, because of course they do
They will be released as the first NeoGAF NFT next week is what I heard.
SportsFan581
Member
Konami earned over £118,000 from that Castlevania NFT auction
Konami's first NFT auction - focused on Castlevania - has reportedly earned the company over £118,500 ($162,000).
www.eurogamer.net
LOL Averaged 12k a piece. These NFT collectors should form a public community, it could be lucrative to know them.
Demigod Mac
Member
Now Konami doesn't even have to bother making pachinko machines.Konami earned over £118,000 from that Castlevania NFT auction
Konami's first NFT auction - focused on Castlevania - has reportedly earned the company over £118,500 ($162,000).
LOL Averaged 12k a piece. These NFT collectors should form a public community, it could be lucrative to know them.
You're paying money for a jpg.
for a token of certification for a jpg
SportsFan581
Member
If it was a sound speculative investment, I can see it. But these one-off NFTs typically lose value or at best hold near the original purchase price.
I can see a big urban open world game like GTA selling real estate NFTs or something like that. You could use the blockchain as a virtual deed in that scenario. If GTA had a particular set of homes/condos in the game that could be purchased for your character (and only one player at a time can "live" at that address) and they released them all at low prices at the launch, I can see something like that creating a situation that could be positive for early buyers and Rockstar (assuming they were taking 10% of resales like Konami is). That's how these types of ponzi schemes work best, the items have to start low-priced and allow the scarcity to drive prices up. If you start too high, as happens with these auctions, it is a much riskier investment.
Connificent
Al Pachinko, Konami President
Conami kant keep getting away with this!
Last edited:
MrPotato
Member
It doesn't feel like paying so much when your entire fortune comes from 5k you put in ethereum back in 2016 when eth was below $3.
Maybe, I wouldn't know because I am not that rich.
drotahorror
Member
Conami
IbizaPocholo
NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
Konami’s debut NFT auction earned over $162,000 | VGC
14 NFT Castlevania artworks sold for an average price of around $12,000…
www.videogameschronicle.com
By midnight PT / 8am GMT Saturday the entire Konami Memorial collection had been sold via marketplace OpenSea, with the NFT artworks selling for an average price of around $12,000.
The NFT with the highest sale price was an artwork based on the Dracula's Castle map from the original Castlevania game, which sold for $26,538.96.
Another NFT in the form of a 3-minute highlights video edited from various Castlevania gameplay, was sold for $17,518. An artwork of popular series entry Circle of the Moon also sold for over $17,000.
As part of the sales, Konami says that those who purchase the NFTs will have their desired nickname listed on its NFT website for ten months.
OpenSea takes 2.5% commission from every transaction on its site, which means that Konami could have earned over $157,000 from the auction.
This figure will likely grow over time, as the company can also set and earn a royalty of up to 10% for each time the NFT is sold on in future.
OldBoyGamer
Banned
I've been thinking a lot about NFT's and what positive value they could have in video games.
My understanding of how they actually work is still not complete but I think I get the gist.
With regards to what Konami have done here, there appears to be zero impact on any game in terms of gameplay etc. they have simply used the systems to create digital collectors art works.
In the same way you might buy a print of the Castlevania map, they are selling a digital 'print' of it and are selling it.
The NFT tech allows a single person to own that single copy of that digital print. In the same way I could own print #48 of a 50 run print set.
Again. The difference being it is a digital asset as opposed to a physical one.
Now. If it stopped there. I *think* I could understand the value someone places on that digital asset. There's only a small jump for me between owning a physical thing and owning a digital thing - at least in principal.
However. The caveat that they can't garauntee that the file will always be accessible in the future is where it falls apart.
I could imagine owning a digital Pokémon card that was issue 1/1 and that being provable by its NFT number in the blockchain and that NFT being valued at $X. The place in the blockchain plus the issue number combine to make it a unique item that I own.
But the fact I might not be able access that asset in the future means it now has a lifetime shelf of existence.
Ok. You could say the physical card could become damaged or it will fade over time. Yes but in that case wear and tear is linked to how carefully I treat that thing. There are 82 year old physical copys of Superman's first appearance comic book for example still in good nick today.
Tldr; I *think * I'm ok with digital collecting. But I'm not ok with the shelf life being as long as company who pays for the place in the block chain pays for it.
How does that sound? Am I missing the point somewhere?
(I'm trying to be as dispassionate as possible for the sake of open discussion)
My understanding of how they actually work is still not complete but I think I get the gist.
With regards to what Konami have done here, there appears to be zero impact on any game in terms of gameplay etc. they have simply used the systems to create digital collectors art works.
In the same way you might buy a print of the Castlevania map, they are selling a digital 'print' of it and are selling it.
The NFT tech allows a single person to own that single copy of that digital print. In the same way I could own print #48 of a 50 run print set.
Again. The difference being it is a digital asset as opposed to a physical one.
Now. If it stopped there. I *think* I could understand the value someone places on that digital asset. There's only a small jump for me between owning a physical thing and owning a digital thing - at least in principal.
However. The caveat that they can't garauntee that the file will always be accessible in the future is where it falls apart.
I could imagine owning a digital Pokémon card that was issue 1/1 and that being provable by its NFT number in the blockchain and that NFT being valued at $X. The place in the blockchain plus the issue number combine to make it a unique item that I own.
But the fact I might not be able access that asset in the future means it now has a lifetime shelf of existence.
Ok. You could say the physical card could become damaged or it will fade over time. Yes but in that case wear and tear is linked to how carefully I treat that thing. There are 82 year old physical copys of Superman's first appearance comic book for example still in good nick today.
Tldr; I *think * I'm ok with digital collecting. But I'm not ok with the shelf life being as long as company who pays for the place in the block chain pays for it.
How does that sound? Am I missing the point somewhere?
(I'm trying to be as dispassionate as possible for the sake of open discussion)
IbizaPocholo
NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
PlatinumGames Throws Shade at Konami Over NFTs
PlatinumGames executives Atsushi Inaba and Hideki Kamiya speak out in opposition against Konami's decision to introduce NFTs to the gaming space
gamerant.com
During an interview with Video Games Chronicle, Inaba said "the people who are trying to promote NFTs and partner with gaming companies, their conversations seem extremely one-sided." This was the major problem for both executives, as they struggled to justify how the NFTs would benefit the user or the consumer. The executives acknowledge that NFTs have been widely discussed in the gaming industry, but emphasized that PlatinumGames wants no part in it.