This feels like a technical approach for a solution to a political problem.
We shouldn’t normalize a solution to a predatory approach that companies have, we should regulate so that the approach can’t be taken by companies on the first place, we should foster competition so that those who do are going to be outcompeted etc.
Wasting even more electricity to compute numbers used in an unstable speculative market with no clear future is IMHO a completely wrong approach to the problem.
There still needs to be some way for the devs to pay the server costs and API costs. What I’m suggesting is a way for the user to sell their processing power to them instead of paying an irritating $2 every month. And while the price of cryptocurrencies vary, they don’t vary fast enough to make mining profits (if you sell the coins as you produce them) unpredictable
I understood what you meant, not sure why you would assume otherwise.
My point is that there is no need to invent new business models. Your proposal is similar to “pay with your data”, a new business model that has negative consequences for the collectivity.
In case of these types of games, a flat rate for the game and potentially a pay-per-use without margin to cover hosting (minimal, can be factored in the initial price) and API calls (gMaps) could be an option.
Or none of this, and they factor in the cost already in the initial purchase.
Either way, to come back to the topic of discussion, asking a one year subscription for a game sold for free (to lure people in) is IMHO predatory behavior with no excuse.
Anyway, tl;dr money already exists and people can pay for that, we don’t need to waste more computing power to find an alternative.
The use of crypto incentives the overall crypto market which causes even more people (or companies) to waste energy for nothing.
This feels like a technical approach for a solution to a political problem. We shouldn’t normalize a solution to a predatory approach that companies have, we should regulate so that the approach can’t be taken by companies on the first place, we should foster competition so that those who do are going to be outcompeted etc.
Wasting even more electricity to compute numbers used in an unstable speculative market with no clear future is IMHO a completely wrong approach to the problem.
There still needs to be some way for the devs to pay the server costs and API costs. What I’m suggesting is a way for the user to sell their processing power to them instead of paying an irritating $2 every month. And while the price of cryptocurrencies vary, they don’t vary fast enough to make mining profits (if you sell the coins as you produce them) unpredictable
I understood what you meant, not sure why you would assume otherwise. My point is that there is no need to invent new business models. Your proposal is similar to “pay with your data”, a new business model that has negative consequences for the collectivity.
In case of these types of games, a flat rate for the game and potentially a pay-per-use without margin to cover hosting (minimal, can be factored in the initial price) and API calls (gMaps) could be an option. Or none of this, and they factor in the cost already in the initial purchase. Either way, to come back to the topic of discussion, asking a one year subscription for a game sold for free (to lure people in) is IMHO predatory behavior with no excuse.
Anyway, tl;dr money already exists and people can pay for that, we don’t need to waste more computing power to find an alternative. The use of crypto incentives the overall crypto market which causes even more people (or companies) to waste energy for nothing.