hey maybe don't buy the crypt tv skins
i hate the internet
Comments
-
Can’t say I’m at all surprised. Nothing is sacred.
7 -
people will throw all their convictions out to make money and it sucks
6 -
They can keep their rep I'd rather have nothing than NFTs
I'm so ######### disappointed in them.
Remember when I had respect for them? ######### that.
27 -
Well I guess at least BHVR apparently backed out of that NFT stuff…
also, don’t have to start looking into CryptTV at all now.
15 -
Everyone's gotta shill out for some damn NFT's...
1 -
judging from some things i won't mention, this is the only thing that kept bhvr from continuing to involve themselves in that trash lol.
i think they're either waiting for people to forget about it or trying to forget about it themselves, so don't let them do either
17 -
I bought the look see skin with shards so I didn't contribute but honestly even if I knew that they had done nft's beforehand and I had spare money I still probably would have bought them.
1 -
I never cared in the slightest about the NFTs thing. Just my opinion.
Post edited by Sepex on11 -
You have gotta be ######### shitting me
6 -
I'm not sure if buying their skins with iri shards would benefit them, but I still refuse to use their skins because of this bs.
6 -
This thing just gets worse.
10 -
nah, the reason most licensed content can't be bought with shards is because that deprives the ip owner of money, which in this case is exactly what people should be doing. i'm not into crypt tv but if a free option that doesn't support them exists that's the best one.
on an unrelated note, my username comes from a really interesting person :)
6 -
Could someone explain this to me, please?
2 -
Crypt TV? More like Crypto TV.
15 -
Crypt Tv, creators of the Look-see, Mordeo, and the Birch skins are now selling NFT's.
8 -
I think we ought to be more concerned with the video game industry.
Just Minecraft alone is said to generate 600,000,000 kg CO2 emissions. That’s the equivalent of 3 cars on the road per game.
Time to cancel DBD?
2 -
x is bad so y, which is worse, doesn't matter anymore
7 -
That’s your interpretation and you’re welcome to it.
My point is more the hypocrisy. The environmental impact of the NFT industry pales in comparison to the gaming industry, so I find it ironic when gamers get up in arms about NFTs.
2 -
NFTs are a scam. Nuff said.
18 -
I love how grandiose and epic these companies try to make NFTs sound. "NFTs are the future! NFTs puts power in your hands" yadda yadda
The reality of it couldn't be more boring and a waste of money.
At least when you buy a video game you can use it to kill time, all you do buying NFTs is kill both your wallet and the environment
I can see why these companies are doing it though, it's easy $$$. Most companies think consumers are stupid, we've known this for years
I bet the people making bank off of selling edited images of a cartoon monkey threw their morals out the window when they realised how stupid some people are
11 -
games have more uses than nfts
8 -
Because the aim of other servers and people playing games is to not make the software run in the most complicated, inefficient manner as possible entirely for its own sake. What you're completely ignoring is the environmental impact per person and per instance of the object in question. NFT's, and crypto in general, are utter garbage about this: they take huge amounts of power and energy to do very little, entirely so a small group of people can crow about how this virtual token is totally worth a lot, or this link says they "own" this PNG even if everyone and their mother has copied it to annoy them.
Seeing as crypto mining has actually caused issues with increases in energy prices, intermittently buggers over the entire GPU industry, and in general wastes power, getting up in arms at the environmental impact of NFTs before they reach the same stage is entirely reasonable!
This is, of course, before we get to the other objections, in that NFTs don't actually add anything of value to the world except for a way for a small group of people to sell the same thing multiple times and create artificial scarcity (which, of course, is the most [BAD WORD] ridiculous use of large amounts of energy in existence) even though it's an infinitely dirt-cheap replicable digital file, and the large amount of people who're actually just stealing other people's art to sell this way. The entire concept is mired in bad faith and environmental wastefulness, and nothing comes of it except a few people get links saying they "own" something. Wow.
10 -
Last I checked the game industry wasn't buying spun down coal fire power plants and spinning them back up to run crypto farms.
The environmental impact of NFTs isn't well documented enough to say exactly what impact it produces. Though since the underlying tech used for NFTs is the exact tech used for validating, staking, and transferring cryptocurrency the power usage versus the actually use you can get from an NFT more likely to not be great.
Minecraft at the very least is a feature complete, feature rich game that people can actually play. NFTs are exactly nothing, at all. An insane amount of power and compute cycles are burned up for the minting and selling of links to jpegs. The most popular blockchain for NFTs is still etherium which still functions on proof-of-work rather than proof-of-stake, or proof-of-time. Proof-of-work is notorious for its energy waste potential. Sure we could make the argument that it pales in comparison to the game industry if the most popular chain was something like Tesos, but the only reason it is more efficient is because it isn't used as much to begin with.
The standard banking industry outstrips the game industry in power usage, but the trade off is they process millions of transactions in a fraction of a fraction of the time it takes for blockchain transactions to validate, append the ledger, and clear.
But sure, tell us how efficient it is compared to the game industry where we have actual products and services to get the benefit of, friendo.
7 -
i really like Crypt tv too. :(
0 -
I'd refund the Look-See skin if I could.
I hope Behavior never collaborates with them again, though given their track record, I don't think that will happen.
2 -
I mean you can still like them. McDonald's did an nft yet people still eat there, Coca-Cola did an not yet people still drink their products, even Texas Chainsae Massacre did nfts yet I still like their movies. I'm not trying to condone nfts but at this point you can't really do much about them.
2 -
Yikes
0 -
there are ways to enjoy things without supporting the owners, generally that's the best route
1 -
Ew.
1 -
I can almost guarantee some of the products you use are made with slave labor overseas but I bet that won't stop you using them.
The only people mad about NFTs are the people not making any money off them
2 -
"this thing bad so other thing not bad"
5 -
I don't disagree with you on the child labor part, it sucks and I hope those children can have a better life but yea I'm still gonna wear what they made.
0 -
Save the trees, don't buy NFTs
4 -
Exactly, there are plenty of people I don't like that have made things that I enjoy.
0 -
The Crypt TV skins can be gotten with Iridescent Shards, so that's how I'll get them.
1 -
"I can almost guarantee some of the products you use are made with slave labour".
Yea and I'd be happy to stop using those as well, the thing is I'm willing to stop using those but NFT idiots are always going to peddle their scams regardless of the issues with it, so what is your point here? "Other people do bad things so I'll do bad things" how morally corrupt of you.
"The only people mad about NFTs are the people not making any money off them"
Have to laugh at this argument, the people that don't like NFTs are the ones that DONT want to make money off them. NFTs are a LITERAL scam, you can sell the rights to any song, any png anything you create without having this incredibly expensive emission overhead that NFTs do.
5 -
They also generate significantly higher emissions, and are a luxury, not a necessity.
If video games are acceptable because they provide a use, then for your viewpoint to be consistent, NFTs should also be acceptable, for they too provide a use and at a lower cost.
How do you weigh the cost to benefit ratio for luxury items/services?
1 -
Yes because significantly more people play video games what silly argument is this?
As electric cars become more widely adopted and petrol / gasoline cars fall, electric cars will hit a point where they emit more than petrol cars but it's still better, if the hundreds of millions of people that play video games were selling / buying and minting NFTs they would be substantially higher in usage than video games, what a ridiculous and hollow argument.
9 -
Well as I said earlier, one game (a mere120 hours playtime) of Minecraft is roughly equivalent to putting 3 vehicles on the road, however we are talking about the supposed environmental impact of the gaming industry vs the NFT industry, therefore the only important data point is the total CO2 emissions, which are significantly higher for the gaming industry.
There are over 2.5 billion gamers globally. In the US alone, it’s estimated that gamers and their luxury products consume 34 terawatt-hours of energy per year, equivalent to around 5 million cars on the road.
Can you really justify that?
The value/bad faith argument just seems like a cop out to me. I thought the concern was the environmental impact? Video games are a luxury and the value of luxury items/services are subjective. I could see the value argument holding some kind of weight if playing Minecraft was a necessity, but it’s just a video game.
1 -
So you’re saying that basing an argument about total CO2 emissions on total CO2 emissions is silly?
That’s an interesting take.
0 -
I'm really curious where you're pulling your numbers from. 120 hours of MC = 3 vehicles? A PC is ~1 kilowatt at the absolute most and many people don't have computers anywhere near that powerful (nor are they under 100% load even if they are). So, 120kwh for playing locally. Most servers only have a few cores of a CPU dedicated to them, if they're even online all the time, and then you need to split the load between everyone playing on it (and account for low CPU utilisation if everyone's offline etc.)
And yes, you can indeed justify that. There is value gained from it, which is the enjoyment of the people involved. You can denigrate anything by pointing out that it's an unnecessary luxury; that's a total cop-out. If you took games away, then the environment might be better, but the human experience would be worse. Sure, it's subjective but that doesn't mean it's invalid, it's objective to state that people are getting enjoyment from this. Plus the economic effects etc.
NFTs don't add anything. They're literally an inherently inefficient pyramid scheme that offer literally nothing new, nor the ability to make anything new that we couldn't do beforehand. It's taking every form of art in existence and then saying "what if we added a layer that does nothing but consume extra electricity so we can pretend that these things are scarce and sell them one by one, and require further energy for every future transaction that would otherwise not be used".
They're inherently just waste except for the scammers behind them.
4 -
I don't think anyone else has said total CO2 emissions, only relative CO2 emissions. Ergo, they're saying "basing an argument about relative CO2 emissions on total CO2 emissions is silly", which it is. Because the only argument that applies there is "why are we worrying about this thing since it's still small", which inevitably runs into "people are trying to make it common so we'd rather nip it in the bud now".
2 -
Far more goes into the equation than merely the cost to run the game locally on a computer, but that is an important factor too. Computer games don’t just puff out of thin air as I’m sure you’re aware :)
Alright. So you’re willing to overlook the supposed environmental damage so long as the damaging factors provide entertainment. That’s fair enough. I wouldn’t exactly call you a crusader for environmental causes if you’re willing to overlook 600,000,000 kg CO2 emissions from just one video game, all because people get enjoyment out of it, which is why I find it interesting that you seem to be so opposed to NFTs, which while providing less value, also generate significantly less emissions.
Could it be that you just don’t like NFTs? There’s no need to use the environment as a Trojan horse to justify your likes/dislikes. I see many people here doing that and it’s disingenuous.
NFTs provide entertainment to many people too, and whether you like them or not, they do provide value. This is why it’s subjective. When it comes to this topic, you value your values more than the values of others, and that’s human nature for many people and I won’t hold it against you, but your argument is not consistent with an argument of environmental concern, but more so “the ends justify the means.”
1 -
My argument does not concern hypotheticals. I find it ironic that my real-world numbers based argument of total CO2 emissions in a discussion regarding CO2 emissions is being framed as “silly” and “hollow,” yet the nonsensical hypothetical fantasy of “but if every gamer made their own NFTs it would be even worse” is somehow being framed as valid.
I’m sensing some straw clutching.
0 -
I was actually looking forward to new skins from them but now they can keep them.
1 -
NFTs are literally just an overly complicated way to say "you totally own this digital asset", except in no way preventing them from being copied endlessly. They're an expensive, wasteful scam.
They do not provide anything novel and if they were all removed from the world immediately, we would lose out on absolutely zero content. Nothing they're used for needs them. Ergo, they're 100% waste, completely without value, unless you really think the ability to fleece gullible morons out of money is somehow a valuable contribution.
7 -
From what i know NFT is stupid thing to buy, since you can just right click. But why the hate/cancel?
1 -
NFTs are just tools for money laundering and tax evasion. Rich people buying abstract art which looks like it was made by a preschooler is the exact same thing, the medium has switched to digital however. Don't ever expect to get rich off this if you're not part of the "club".
3 -
Long story short, it's bad for the environment and only the greediest of companies associate with them.
5 -
Eh.
The whole thing screams money-laundering to me.
Also the concept is ######### stupid.
9
