Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
Can someone simply explain how this NFT thing is a bad thing? Or what it actually means?
So much talk and anger over it yet I dont see any reason as to why? Me and my misses dont really know what it is...
Certainly haven't seen any difference in the chapter, its price etc.
So if someone could actually explain why.... as simplistic as possible please I'd be very grateful
Comments
-
An NFT is comparable to a piece of paper that says you own a particular image. However, the piece of paper isn't legally binding, and the amount of power required to print it was about as much as an entire household consumes in 2.5 days. So in short, it's a massive waste of resources for something that only holds value to other people who buy into the NFT market.
If that sounds like a really bizarre concept, you're not getting confused, you have a proper grasp of the situation. You understand, roughly, what an NFT is. The concept itself is just a really dumb idea.
12 -
pretty much this. They have no tangibility to the real world, and the only thing that gives them some sort of "value" are other people wanting to buy an NFT. If nobody wanted to buy the NFT, then they would hold no value. Unlike real world items that can hold value, despite not having any buyers.
The funniest part is, if you want an NFT, you can quite literally just right click and save the image. And you've achieved the same thing for free.
4 -
Don't forget why people have stopped playing dbd.
NFT = bad
Pinhead license holders and NFT company = partnered with bhvr.
BHVR = owns dbd. Also signed a contract which they knew invovled NFT.
DBD = the pinhead model is being sold as an NFT.
Devs = works for bhvr and apparently had no idea this was a thing.
Therefore the game is facing backlash for what the company has done. As the game and devs themselves could be (in)directly involved. Especially since the in-game pinhead model is being sold as NFT.
At least that's my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong or got things mixed up.
5 -
So the anger is over it being costly? Affects players and the community by nothing? Just an expensive form or digitial currency?
Well the only thing that gives anything is value is humanity. It's why you get phrases like "one mans junk, another mans treasure" etc. But I get what you mean.
Im still not 100% on it, seems abit pointless to do, just seems like a fancy form of a liscene for a design. Still not sure it warrants the mass anger though, millions of people waste money and energy on a daily basis
1 -
BHVR is taking the pinhead model and selling it as a NFT and if you know what an NFT is it makes sense why it's a bad thing to do
if you don't know what an NFT is the best way to explain it is buying something but not being the legit owner, the seller will always be the true owner of the original but will tell everyone that you own it, it's a very scummy way of selling something
3 -
Isnt that just like owning a copy of something? I still dont get how its affected me badly as a player
1 -
it's like buying something at a store like a piece of art or a new couch or chair and the owner tells you you own it but can't take it home with you but whenever somebody asks if they can buy it he will tell them you own it
they are selling pinhead models to people who want bragging rights/who don't know what they are actually buying
1 -
the anger is over the enviromental impact and that nfts etc are commonly used in money laundering, insider trading and other illegal activities. Not to mention it is -not- a digital currency comparable to e.g. auric cells.
the anger is about bhvr (once again) lying, mocking and belittling its community.
Like, they COULD have made a limited number of dbd-version pinhead figurines and sold those, 3d printing and shipping would have been excessively cheaper than crypto in mid and long term. but companies nowadays are not capable of mid- or even longterm planning. You know the riddle about if someone would offer you either $1 million now, no strings attached, or one cent now and over the course of 30 days always double the amount per day, again, no strings attached, would you take the million immediately or the cent and wait? Companies nowadays all act as if taking the million is the only sane thing (especially when they don't know or have no intend of investing it), when... well... do the math yourself
5 -
the anger is because the technology used for NFTs is excessively power hungry. A single transaction for an NFT consumes enough energy to power your house for 2 and a half days. They're also most commonly used in scams and money laundering as cryptocurrencies are untraceable. That's why players out angry, that BHVR would support such actions.
Also it's not a form of liscencing as you don't get exclusive rights to what you "buy" what you're really buying is a receipt that says you bought something, not buying the item itself.
5 -
The issues people have with this are more moral ones than practical ones that actively impact the game.
1 -
We were also lied to as well, so another reason why we are angry
4 -
NFTs are pretty much another blockchain/form of cryptocurrency that can store data stating that you own a certain digital item through said blockchain tech. The issue is that, like other forms of cryptocurrency, one of the major concerns with NFT's is that it takes a metric crap-ton of energy to process the transactions. (Along with just the energy from mining in general, and that's not even mentioning the problems people have with the whole mining scene and the effects on the graphics card industry.) They're also being sold at awfully high prices, which makes it even harder for your average consumer to want to consider buying into. (Afterall, why pay over 1k USD for ownership of a digital art piece, when they can instead buy that same artist's merch for $20 dollars or a commission from another talented artist for less, and without as major of an environmental impact?)
So NFT's are pretty much bad for the environment and are at a price that most consumers cannot justify spending.
As for DBD/BHVR, they got the license for Pinhead/HellRaiser, which is why we have the chapter. As a part of their license agreement, they worked with the license holder to make sure their models were up to the license holder's standards. As another part of their license agreement, they gave the license holder a copy of the in-game models used for the Chapter (Which is Pinhead, the Box, and Chatterer) along with some codes for the HellRaiser chapter that they could do what they pleased with. The license holders had plans to sell those goods received from BHVR as part of a HellRaiser NFT. This is something that BHVR knew was going to happen, as it sounds like it was in their license agreement. (Along with a public endorsement of the NFT.) So, basically, BHVR sold out/bought into a license that they knew was going towards an NFT, and people are unhappy about it.
There are also concerns regarding Steam banning games with NFT's in it, however, BHVR/DBD doesn't actually produce or sell NFTs. They gave some materials they made as part of a licensing deal to its license holder knowing it would be used for an NFT, and did a public endorsement of the NFT. That's it. The game has yet to be banned from, and there are many reasons to believe that it won't be, as it's not breaking Steam's NFT rules.
Basically, NFT's are bad, HellRaiser license holders are doing NFT stuff, and BHVR agreed to buy into/support their NFT in exchange for the rights to the HellRaise license to bring PinHead into the game. People are freaking out in mass over the whole deal due to a mix of misinformation (Like saying that DBD is doing NFTs, or saying that people who buy into the NFT will be getting exclusive things in DBD, neither of which is true) and theories, along with the general outcry of people being against NFTs. (For good reason, mind you, NFT's aren't good and I don't support them myself, but I've just seen a lot of posts on various platforms about this issue that's spreading misinformation.)
Hope that clears things up and explains things well enough for you.
3 -
Mass hysteria based on incomplete understanding of NFTs, inability to correctly comprehend tweets/text, unrealistic fear of Steam deleting DBD.
Many people complain about the environmental impact of NFTs, which is correct because NFTs use cryptocurrencies to work, and cryptocurrencies have high energy demand which mostly comes from coal plants. But this is a bit unfair, because I don't believe they were outraging when some companies started to accept e.g. Bitcoins.
0 -
It's 2021, people love a hate train, especially internet communities. The DBD community is one of the worst communities there is when it comes to overreacting and jumping on hate trains. Right now everyone is oooh all NFTs are bad because one or two of their favorite streamers said so, but I'm sure if you ask them individually how they feel about Bitcoin or one of the many other cryptocurrencies and if they would like to own some of them their answer would be yes. Next week it'll be something or someone else that they hate en masse.
0 -
The entire Idea of NFTs sounds really dumb. you don't even own a physical object.
It sounds like, and I repeat sounds like so it might not be the truth. To even get permission to use Hellraiser in any way BHVR had to sign on to NFTs for whatever reason. NFTs are a joke, they don't mean anything and are a bunch of games trying to jump on that train. there was a huge presentation at E3 this year involving a game that was built around them. I don't remember what it was but it boiled down to, "you created this in our game so you own it and can sell it to others if you want." Either way it was boring as #########.
NFTs are a just a new money making fad that is trying to sound revolutionary so people jump on board. they will crash eventually.
There's been no real explanation about what's actually going on from either side of this. So who knows what crazy contract BHVR signed.
2 -
You keep saying you never saw outrage at various things involving crypto - you really should start Googling, because you've been wrong every time.
2 -
'mass hysteria' in these situations is a term commonly used by pathetic, ignorant, vile people who know that those against it are right, but who want to pretend the people with common sense and basic decency are wrong.
4 -
Why would the DBD forums be in outrage over a company completely unassociated with DBD misbehaving?
That's like saying it's unfair for people to criticise DBD's balance because League of Legends has bad balancing too.
1 -
cuz its terrible for the environment, I think that's enough
0 -
Considering the history of the term 'hysteria' - yeah. There's no time in modern history where it's not fit that description.
0 -
You know what makes this whole mess even worse?
By all means, bhvr could have just said 'no, we're not going to do that, we'll wait till january and then contact mr barker about the licensing rights'
But no.
(Heck, i'm not entirely certain, but didn't barker also create Candyman? doesn't he have the rights to that too if yes? We COULD have gotten hellraiser AND candyman, with NO nfts, but NO)
2 -
Unfettered and unmasked greed - appropriate terms, considering BP's ties to antivax and 9/11 truther groups.
1 -
Maybe BHVR management was fine with NFTs, so there was no reason to wait.
If they wait until January they can't really work on it before that.
Maybe they had good contract conditions now, who knows what would happen in January with new owners.
Why do you assume that Mr Baker would not want to create NFTs?
0 -
As someone pointed out on twitter, they've done more for nfts and crypto than for lgbtq+ inclusion... now keep in mind barker is queer...
1 -
One of the primary concerns, is if Steam in its decision to ban/block/refuse NFT, will extend that to DBD or other games that utilize NFT.
This, because Steam cant control NFT of games/businesses outside of its services, and thus cant leverage profits off them.
This puts Steam in a bad position, as game providers on/using its services can sell NFT without Steam getting any share of that, whilst Steam "is" the service provider they operate through to clients on its platform.
0 -
Speaking as someone who didn't really give a crap about crypto because I didn't easily understand it at first and was like: meh, cool, doing computations in tandem with associating it with a currency, sounds like a win-win... like when Borderlands 3 did that thing where they helped solve some problems with an in-game minigame!
And then I read up about it more.
0 -
NFTs are a way to kind of indelibly track who owns an "original" copy of a digital artwork. I like to think of it like if you went to an art gallery and see an original painting. You can purchase the original painting and the gallery will most likely have some sort of authenticity paper saying that it is, in fact, the original painting and not a copy and they'll give you that authentication so you can prove that what you own is the original. Of course if you don't care about owning the "original", you could also just go to the gift store and get a copy of that original that looks identical. Even though it looks identical it's still "just a copy" so it's not worth nearly as much to a collector as the original piece.
So what NFTs do is allow you to buy "original digital works". If someone makes a digital painting, for instance, they can use NFT to indelibly track who actually possesses that original file. Of course you could still make digital copies of that original that look completely identical to the original, but again to a collector the "original" file is probably a lot more valuable because it's got a unique heritage in a sense. (I guess, I'm not a collector so I couldn't care less about owning "originals" of things versus copies, but obviously there are some people who do and who are willing to spend a lot of money on owning originals.)
So how does all this tie to DbD? Not much, honestly.
Basically a company that DbD works with owns some Hellraiser content that has NFTs attached to them. (Again, think "the original digital picture file of Pinhead" or "original voice recording files of the actor playing Pinhead", etc). That other company is selling those NFT exclusive originals, and as a sales incentive they're offering coupons to get the Hellraiser DLC in DbD for free (or something along those lines). DbD isn't actually buying or selling anything that has NFTs in it, it's just partnered with this other company that is giving away the DbD DLC.
Of course all that would be completely under the radar for 99% of people since, honestly, hardly anybody actually wants to buy NFTs. They're really a niche market. What got a lot of forum posters up in arms is that supposedly NFTs and Etherium blockchain transactions in general are extremely energy inefficient to handle. The estimates vary kind of widely but figures around something like "enough energy to power a house for six days per NFT transaction" are floating around. And a lot of that electricity happen to be generated by fossil fuels, so they allegedly work against the climate goals of trying to be "carbon neutral". (I say allegedly because, again, all these estimates vary pretty widely and NFT defenders will argue that Etherium is eventually moving toward a much more energy efficient system and toward being actually carbon neutral.)
Mind you, I'm no expert on this! But hopefully I summed it up to a reasonable degree of correctness. 🤷♂️
0 -
A lot of the individuals squealing about this are the very same people who will happily part with literally $/£1000s for a collection of plastic Funko Pops or Neca action figures.
We're doomed.
0 -
you.... are quite wrong.
Because you are NOT buying the painting, as per your example, you are buying the receipt. The painting stays in the gallery, with only the person who 'sold' it to you having control over it. They can gladly just delete your receipt from the database and sell it again, without you being able to do anything as the transaction can not actually be traced (which is why crypto IS used for all sorts of shady financial stuff)
so no, you are not buying an original or a copy, you are buying the promise that you did buy the original.
What your example describes are art commissions, not nfts. And cryptobros like fog up there HATE commissions with a passion, citing that they are 'too expensive' commonly (which, translated into plain english means they are scandalized at the thought of having to interact with another person politely and respectfully, with there being a risk that they don't get their will if they don't)
1 -
To clarify, I'm not saying you're buying the "copyright" for the image, you're buying the "original image". The copyright holder can still license who can make copies of that images and who can't, or can sell that license to the NFT owner, or what have you.
And I didn't mean "commissions". Commissions are paying an artist to create something for you. This is rather paying for an original work that's already been created. What I'm talking about is more like buying something already made at a gallery or auction.
As far as "shady transactions", that's another issue entirely.
P.S. Mind you, I'm not trying to defend or attack NFTs, just trying to have a decent analogy to them in the physical world.
0 -
You are also wrong:
- Once it is in the blockchain it can't be deleted, you will have there the proof forever that you received it.
- Crypto can be traced, because all transactions are publicly available in the Blockchain. You see how cryoto moves from one account to the other. You just don't know to who does an account belong, but it can be often figured out.
0 -
No, you are NOT buying the original image. You are buying what IRL would be a napkin with 'dugman owns the mona lisa' scribbled on it. That's it. And the person who sold you the mona lisa might not be the creator (Granted, I wouldn't put it beyond DaVinci to have invented a timemachine, but that's a different topic). So, you are neither buying a copyright, a copy or and original. you are buying a slip of paper that says you own the thing.
And that's it. And if the person who sold you the slip of paper decides to say they didn't sell it to you... they absolutely can.
edit: also any statement saying 'no it cannot be deleted' are factually wrong as this has happened before. several times.
3 -
If you buy a property out of state that you have never been to, you get a piece of paper that says you own it. Someone could scam you and sell you a fake deed to a property they don't actually have the title to but it doesn't mean that in non-fraudulent cases you wouldn't actually own the property.
I think the question isn't "what happens if you get scammed", the question is, "what happens when you don't get scammed?" And assuming the business is on the up-and-up then what you're buying is the original work.
P.S. Here's a more detailed article on NFTs that even uses a similar analogy I did to buying an original painting. When you buy an original painting you have the right to display it for personal use at your home, for example, but don't automatically get any copyright to the painting to sell copies to other people or get intellectual property rights to it.
NFTs Govern Ownership of the Token, Not the Underlying IP Rights
Ownership of an NFT as a unique token – versus ownership of the content that such NFT may be associated with – is a critical distinction. When someone purchases an NFT tied to a piece of content, they have not automatically purchased the underlying intellectual property rights in such piece of content. Under Section 106 of the U.S. Copyright Act, a copyright owner has certain exclusive rights to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, perform, display, and distribute the copyrighted work. As a general rule, the purchase of a piece of art does not transfer all copyright in such work to the buyer. For example, when someone buys a painting at an art gallery for their home, they are acquiring the physical painting itself, which they can display, but not the underlying rights to reproduce, make derivative works of, or distribute copies of such painting.
In reality, the underlying copyright only transfers if the copyright’s owner evidences in writing that they intend to transfer those rights alongside the copy of the work. Unless the NFT owner has received explicit permission from the seller, the NFT owner does not automatically acquire the legal right to take pictures of the creative work attached to the NFT and make T-shirts or postcards for sale. Absent further documentation, the purchaser of an NFT acquires through that purchase an implied non-exclusive license to display the related media in their token wallet for personal purposes only, but does not own the underlying copyright in the content the NFT is associated with or the right to display that media on third-party products, websites, or platforms.
https://www.thefashionlaw.com/nfts-what-are-you-buying-and-what-do-you-actually-own/
0 -
The difference is that one is legally backed, the other is not. Buying an NFT isn't buying the original work, even in the best scenario. Legally, the rights to the original work remain with the creator until they are transferred via a valid, legal system. The absolute best you can hope for is that the creator doesn't come after you when you try to exploit whatever you purchased the NFT of.
All you're getting is a slim assurance that no one else gets to buy the same NFT. And I suspect even that is on thin ice.
1 -
You replied before my P.S. above where I linked a more detailed article about NFTs.
It's incorrect to say that "even in the best scenario you aren't buying the original work". In fact in the best scenario the person selling the NFT actually does own the original work and the NFT is a part of the legal transaction that serves to help document the transfer. Counterfeiting and fraud are issues but those are not part of the "best scenario".
That article I linked goes into it in greater detail.
NFTs Do Not Inherently Authenticate IP Rights
Many market participants claim that NFTs can be used to prove authenticity. In fact, NFTs can authenticate ownership of a token itself, as well as the unique history of how such token was developed and linked to a creative work — on the public blockchains, anyone can see an owner’s wallet address and its linked metadata, as such information is available as a public record. However, a simple NFT by itself cannot help with matching the creator or owner of an NFT to a real person in the physical world, nor does it validate that the creator of the NFT has the underlying rights to tie that NFT to any specific creative work.
Counterfeiting is an issue associated with NFT artworks. Collectors can be easily left wondering whether some digital art they spent thousands of dollars on is a real Banksy work or merely a knockoff. To solve this issue, some platforms use an old-fashioned method to verify the identities of creators on their platform: manual verification. For example, SuperRare requires artists wishing to post their digital work for sale on its platform to first submit an application that requires information such as name, email, selection of artworks, social network presence, etc. Through this, SuperRare can ensure that collectors receive authentic artworks from reputable artists who have appropriate rights in the underlying art.
Other NFT marketplaces attempt to avoid the counterfeiting issue with broad disclaimers. For example, if a user attempts to buy a listing via the AtomicAssets marketplace, they encounter the following notice, which the user must accept to move forward with the purchase: “Anyone can create AtomicAssets NFTs and freely choose attributes such as name and image, including fake versions of existing NFTs or stolen intellectual property. Before buying an NFT, always do your own research about the collection and double check the collection name to ensure that you are buying genuine NFTs.”
Where Is the Creative Work Actually Stored?
In order to link an NFT with a digital creative work, the NFT needs to carry unique information about such digital work within its smart contract. One way to do this is to store the entire data for the video or song within the actual NFT code. This is often called “on-chain storage.” However, on-chain storage is impractical on most blockchains, since transfers on the chain incur a transaction fee based on the size of the token. Including the entire data for a large file into the NFT code would result in costly and time-consuming transfers. New technologies could resolve this issue, such as by developing secondary layers that allow for larger data sizes to be more easily transferred. However, as of the date of this article, that technology is still largely at the development stage.
In the meantime, the alternative way to link the NFT to the data for the creative work is to store such data off the chain, such as on a standard web server. The NFT then points to the address at which the digital asset is hosted online (in an ERC-721-compliant smart contract on Ethereum, that pointing happens via the TokenURI function). While simply pointing the NFT to the asset off-chain cuts down on monetary and time costs associated with transferring the NFT, the hosted content is now back to being centrally stored rather than being immutably stored on the blockchain.
This raises a legal question: Who has the legal obligation to host off-chain data for the associated creative works? NFT sales contracts or the terms of service for NFT marketplaces rarely specify whether the seller has a legal obligation to host the data in a way so that a specific NFT will always be retrievable by the owner. Absent such contract commitments, a buyer often has no guarantee that the URL or other web address will not be changed or be taken offline. This risk can defeat the whole purpose of using an NFT to secure immutability of the digital assets in the first place.
Some technology solutions attempt to solve this off-chain storage problem, such as the InterPlanetary File System (“IPFS”). At a high level, IPFS breaks up data for any image or other file into hashes — also called content identifiers or CIDs. The data for a specific piece of content is stored in chunks on decentralized nodes. No single web server hosts that content, so the content is still available and retrievable if a single node goes down.
0
