The Pokemon Company has drawn the ire and attention of many, with a new job posting that is actively seeking employees with experience in uncharted territory for the Pokemon franchise. The hiring page shows that The Pokemon Company International wants to hire staff that has "deep knowledge and understanding of Web 3, [...] blockchain technologies, NFT, and/or metaverse. They also appear to be looking for someone who can "connect the relevance of potential partners or technologies with Pokemon's existing assets", which has fans dramatically split between unease and excitement for what this might mean for the future.

The Pokemon Company isn't the first, and definitely won't be the last, in terms of businesses trying to incorporate elements of the blockchain into the video game industry. Despite harsh criticism in the past, Square Enix is still committed to pushing the idea of NFT games. Regardless, outside of the hiring page, nothing involving NFTs has been announced from The Pokemon Company, for now.

Pokémon company posted a job opening that encompasses Blockchain, NFT’s and Web3 technologies.

Oh no, please no 😨 pic.twitter.com/p0XrH0Eat3

— Pory (@pory_leeks) March 12, 2023

 

[Foxi4]

Thats my sole argument for why placing things that currently require government infrastructure like house deeds on it, yes. The reason I'm so negative on blockchains is that their evangelists seem cultishly devoted to trying to find problems they can fix and never actually think A. does this work in the real world & B. Is this the most efficient way to do things


Until the oracle problem is solved, hopefully with a standardized layout as to how exactly data goes onto the blockchain and the way smart contracts are written and there is a way to maintain a blockchain without intensive power requirements (which seems extremely unlikely just based on how they are designed to scale, the power wasting is a feature not a bug in Satoshi's whitepaper) they have no place in a modern society and shouldn't be humored. I've spent significant time reading the works of Satoshi & Vitalik but somehow pretty much every single one of their ideas, some of which are nearly 15 years old, have not yet come to fruition and are just as fictional as they were before they wrote it. Like I can come up with this super rad idea to distribute food to people using nothing but HTML5 & Adobe Flash Player, but if it still requires some dude picking up the food and handing it someone else, and it also as a side effect for integrity dumps an barrel of oil into the ocean, thats not an idea worth humoring at all. It's fucking magic solutions being presented as the alternative to actual machines.

I’m far from a blockchain evangelist (hence I don’t own anything on the blockchain at present), but I am a blockchain optimist, if that makes sense. I think there’s a lot that can be developed using that framework and I firmly believe that, in time, blockchains will replace traditional banking and other methods of documenting ownership. Full disclosure, I’m not a Bitcoin millionaire of any sort, but I am invested in a crypto company as far as stock investments are concerned - at the time it seemed like a safer bet given the inherent market volatility in this sector. In my opinion everything starts as an idea. Internet proper kicked off in 1983 and we didn’t get to “Web 2.0 “ until the 2000’s when we saw widespread “average Joe” use in the financial and commercial sectors. What kind of activity did we see then? Rampant Wild West. Some would argue it was better back then (me included), but that’s a different conversation. You’re obviously a smart person, so I’d like to leave this conversation in good spirits, I don’t see much of a reason for conflict over a minor disagreement on how we perceive technology.

It'd be cool if gamefreak allowed me to run over cops in pokemon, and have 100 girlfriends, and let me make my own super cool avatar imported in from picrew, while also letting me shoot up steroids with my pikachu to get a super ripped pikachu, and the way I am going to do that is with the power of the blockchain!!! Seriously bro if you don't like pokemon there are thousands of other games you can play, tons of people still have fun with it. (ignoring everything you said could be implemented without a blockchain but that feels like a low blow since you also mentioned it for once)

I don’t know why you’re so resistant to change. Arceus broke away from *many* Pokémon staples and many would argue that it’s their most interesting games in recent years. Like I said, even with the entire blockchain issue set to the side, implementing a persistent world with a real ecology would be fascinating. It would likely lead to establishing an in-game economy, much like in the case of MMO’s, and players would dedicate themselves to certain aspects of it. Could even add guilds to the mix, now that I think about it. Perhaps a group of players would establish a breeding guild dedicated to a specific Pokémon, and they’d become particularly famous in the player base due to their specific Pokémon having stats higher than those of the competition since they’re bred using carefully picked Pokémon parents. That’s interesting to me, and fun, and significantly more innovative than what they’re doing now. Pokémon fans need to decide if they actually want a Pokémon MMO or if they just want to farm together until the end of time. Respectable choice, if boring. I’d personally err on the side of innovation.

 

[trillspector]

I’m far from a blockchain evangelist (hence I don’t own anything on the blockchain at present), but I am a blockchain optimist, if that makes sense. I think there’s a lot that can be developed using that framework and I firmly believe that, in time, blockchains will replace traditional banking and other methods of documenting ownership. Full disclosure, I’m not a Bitcoin millionaire of any sort, but I am invested in a crypto company as far as stock investments are concerned - at the time it seemed like a safer bet given the inherent market volatility in this sector. In my opinion everything starts as an idea. Internet proper kicked off in 1983 and we didn’t get to “Web 2.0 “ until the 2000’s when we saw widespread “average Joe” use in the financial and commercial sectors. What kind of activity did we see then? Rampant Wild West. Some would argue it was better back then (me included), but that’s a different conversation. You’re obviously a smart person, so I’d like to leave this conversation in good spirits, I don’t see much of a reason for conflict over a minor disagreement on how we perceive technology.

Politely the conversation left the realm of good spirits when you repeatedly dodged mine & RunePhantom's questions about how you think blockchains work, however i will also agree to drop it, presuming you dont reply with anything else inflammatory. I will just state for others observing that there have been two main parties in this conversation, one who stands to profit off of stocks if the crypto industry works and has a financial incentive to evangelize it and a party that has no financial interest in any blockchain technology.

I don’t know why you’re so resistant to change. Arceus broke away from *many* Pokémon staples and many would argue that it’s their most interesting games in recent years. Like I said, even with the entire blockchain issue set to the side, implementing a persistent world with a real ecology would be fascinating. It would likely lead to establishing an in-game economy, much like in the case of MMO’s, and players would dedicate themselves to certain aspects of it. Could even add guilds to the mix, now that I think about it. Perhaps a group of players would establish a breeding guild dedicated to a specific Pokémon, and they’d become particularly famous in the player base due to their specific Pokémon having stats higher than those of the competition since they’re bred using carefully picked Pokémon parents. That’s interesting to me, and fun, and significantly more innovative than what they’re doing now. Pokémon fans need to decide if they actually want a Pokémon MMO or if they just want to farm together until the end of time. Respectable choice, if boring. I’d personally err on the side of innovation.

Im not resistant to change but i think it is boring for people to just sitting around proposing ideas that could be done with a franchise they clearly don't enjoy instead of making their own thing. I think those ideas could be fun but they are tainted when there's this undercurrent of "this would be even better if it was done with blockchain" which may i remind you, is what started this whole conversation. Every idea you propose I am taking into account of "this guy thinks blockchains will make video games better" and i think thats silly cuz MTG & Pokemon but blockchain have been made and they turned into horrifically unfun speculative markets.

 

[Foxi4]

Politely the conversation left the realm of good spirits when you repeatedly dodged mine & RunePhantom's questions about how you think blockchains work, however i will also agree to drop it, presuming you dont reply with anything else inflammatory. I will just state for others observing that there have been two main parties in this conversation, one who stands to profit off of stocks if the crypto industry works and has a financial incentive to evangelize it and a party that has no financial interest in any blockchain technology.

I didn’t dodge any questions - you just refused to accept the answers given. You have a scroll wheel, just scroll up. Of course I stand to profit from crypto’s success - it’s why I disclose as much in the first place. Are you under the impression that Pokémon NFT’s would be powered by Bitcoin (I own a rather insignificant amount of shares of a Bitcoin miner in my portfolio. I own shares in lots of companies - that’s one of them)? They wouldn’t, but alright - suit yourself, I suppose. I didn’t post anything inflammatory - all I’ve said that could be construed as such is that I consider you to be an intelligent person (you come across as one) who can come to a reasonable conclusion based on information given to you. I believe that this trust is not misplaced, but I will say that asking questions you already know the answer to is purposefully obtuse.

 

[trillspector]

Are you under the impression that Pokémon NFT’s would be powered by Bitcoin? They wouldn’t, but alright - suit yourself, I suppose.

See this is where you insult my intelligence while playing coy "Don’t imply to me what I do and do not know - I haven’t done so to you." and that the ilk. I understand quite a lot about how blockchains work, I have been keeping an eye on the space since 2011. I do know that historically if one blockchain goes up in perceived value all the other major players do as well, as has been the case since at least the ICO boom of 2017, so yes pokemon NFT's would likely make other crypto companies listed on stock exchanges go up based on the prior precedent. The fact of how correlated the different markets values are is found both in bearish and bullish due diligence on investing anywhere near the crypto space, so i presume you know that as well.

On the topic of dodging questions, when I did scroll up and when I asked point blank how we ensure coherency of deeds on a blockchain you repeatedly stated "I will let you figure that out, cmon your smart" which is a textbook dodge.

 

[Foxi4]

Im not resistant to change but i think it is boring for people to just sitting around proposing ideas that could be done with a franchise they clearly don't enjoy instead of making their own thing. I think those ideas could be fun but they are tainted when there's this undercurrent of "this would be even better if it was done with blockchain" which may i remind you, is what started this whole conversation. Every idea you propose I am taking into account of "this guy thinks blockchains will make video games better" and i think thats silly cuz MTG & Pokemon but blockchain have been made and they turned into horrifically unfun speculative markets.

Why would you assume I don’t enjoy Pokémon? I’ve played the games since Red and Blue were brand new, champ. Everybody and their dog agrees they’re becoming progressively stale by the minute, and Gamefreak’s answer to that is always to introduce new Pokémon, which at this point made the franchise unsustainable. I know this because the entire roster isn’t even available in the modern games.

 

[trillspector]

Why would you assume I don’t enjoy Pokémon? I’ve played the games since Red and Blue were brand new, champ. Everybody and their dog agrees they’re becoming progressively stale by the minute, and Gamefreak’s answer to that is always to introduce new Pokémon, which at this point made the franchise unsustainable. I know this because the entire roster isn’t even available in the modern games.

I didnt say you didnt prior enjoy Pokemon, I said you don't enjoy the current state of it which is true. Many apologies if that wasn't clear but I do believe that being "obtuse" is going around both ways in this conversation. I also don't personally care for them, but I just didnt play them, I didnt sit around writing fan fiction as to why it would be good to integrate unregulated securities into them, I just played other games.

 

[Foxi4]

See this is where you insult my intelligence while playing coy "Don’t imply to me what I do and do not know - I haven’t done so to you." and that the ilk. I understand quite a lot about how blockchains work, I have been keeping an eye on the space since 2011. I do know that historically if one blockchain goes up in perceived value all the other major players do as well, as has been the case since at least the ICO boom of 2017, so yes pokemon NFT's would likely make other crypto companies listed on stock exchanges go up based on the prior precedent. The fact of how correlated the different markets values are is found both in bearish and bullish due diligence on investing anywhere near the crypto space, so i presume you know that as well.

On the topic of dodging questions, when I did scroll up and when I asked point blank how we ensure coherency of deeds on a blockchain you repeatedly stated "I will let you figure that out, cmon your smart" which is a textbook dodge.

I’m not insulting your intelligence, I’m explaining what kind of company I’m invested in exactly, and how it has very little to do with the subject. Can you rephrase your question so that I can answer it - give me an actual example? The only question that comes to mind that I didn’t deign to answer directly was your (admittedly silly) question about RSA - I chose to lead you on to the answer instead because I knew you already knew it. As a single individual with no special access or the world’s computational power and 25000 years to spare I wouldn’t be able to break encryption at that level. I can, however, write an e-mail. There isn’t a hacker on the planet that would attempt a breach like you’re describing - hackers attack vulnerabilities. In the case of any corporation or agency, the obvious vulnerability (in the absence of known server vulnerabilities or exploits, which is a matter of timing before a patch is released and knowledge of the exploit in advance), that vulnerability is the human in front of the keyboard. The advantage of the blockchain is the removal of that human. It’s not a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination for the reasons you listed and more, but that was “my answer” - you know this, right?

 

[Dyhr]

Lol, use of nfts can transcend platform support. That's not an argument. It's a benefit nfc doesn't promise.

Like I said before, Pokemon are already NFT as far as you know. Don't come at me sideways with your uninformed shit.

They really can't, lol. NFTs have one specific purpose, and it's reinventing the wheel, but techbro style: grossly inefficient, grossly insecure, and pointless.

 

[Foxi4]

I didnt say you didnt prior enjoy Pokemon, I said you don't enjoy the current state of it which is true. Many apologies if that wasn't clear but I do believe that being "obtuse" is going around both ways in this conversation. I also don't personally care for them, but I just didnt play them, I didnt sit around writing fan fiction as to why it would be good to integrate unregulated securities into them, I just played other games.

I can’t help but think of ways I’d improve things I like - it’s a character trait. I’m sure you do the same. Sometimes you eat a burger and you think to yourself it’d taste better with a different sauce - that’s me and Pokémon. I see no harm in it - consumers should criticise products they consume and offer suggestions, we all have ideas.

 

[trillspector]

you know this, right?

Can you quit with this smartass shit man. I have gotten my answers on the deeds finally from you but you did dodge for multiple pages. We both can go "scroll up" in your own words. You were dodging. Thats a fact anyone can observe. On the topic of phishing I am bewildered you think smart contracts aren't vulnerable to phishing. Like it happens all the time. There have even been cases of people getting illegitimate data onto blockchains with significantly less then the 51% required to do it normally. So yeah you did dodge my computational math question, and no I don't think it's silly since your rebutall's work on the logic that there are literally zero exploits in current blockchains or the people who operate them and thats just factually incorrect.

I can’t help but think of ways I’d improve things I like - it’s a character trait. I’m sure you do the same. Sometimes you eat a burger and you think to yourself it’d taste better with a different sauce - that’s me and Pokémon. I see no harm in it - consumers should criticise products they consume and offer suggestions, we all have ideas.

How do you always say it, oh right yeah "I think that's boring." Go out and create something man, make music, write poems, code an indie game.

 

[Foxi4]

Can you quit with this smartass shit man. I have gotten my answers on the deeds finally from you but you did dodge for multiple pages. We both can go "scroll up" in your own words. You were dodging. Thats a fact anyone can observe. On the topic of phishing I am bewildered you think smart contracts aren't vulnerable to phishing. Like it happens all the time. There have even been cases of people getting illegitimate data onto blockchains with significantly less then the 51% required to do it normally. So yeah you did dodge my computational math question, and no I don't think it's silly since your rebutall's work on the logic that there are literally zero exploits in current blockchains or the people who operate them and thats just factually incorrect.

You’re right, anyone can scroll up, but I don’t think the result would quite align with what you expect to a casual reader - in my estimation I’ve been rather forthcoming, if cheeky (I gave you this exact answer, multiple times. I even posted an article as a bit of a stronger suggestion, fully expecting you to catch on. Took a few pages, which is why I interpreted it as being purposefully obtuse - you knew this answer long before I typed it out for you, so why ask?). I didn’t say that smart contracts aren’t vulnerable to phishing, you said that - just now, by neglecting the context, the context being the existence of a third-party (which is what we were discussing). I also didn’t say that there are no ways to exploit the current system - I’ve stated multiple times that fraud will always exist, as will hacking and phishing. Where we disagree is in regards to scale. You’re suggesting that the blockchain would be attacked in order to affect a singular anonymised transaction, when in reality those “huge scale” 51% attacks are attacks against the chain itself.

How do you always say it, oh right yeah "I think that's boring." Go out and create something man, make music, write poems, code an indie game.

…I’m a video game critic. I write reviews. For this site. What do you expect me to do, it’s part of the job description. As far as creating things is concerned, I certainly dabble, not sure why this became a conversation about me and my hobbies all of a sudden. Like I said earlier, we have a fundamental disagreement here, which is totally fine. I don’t want to have a silly internet fight, so don’t misunderstand mild irritation for rudeness - I certainly don’t mean to insult you, but I’m also unwilling to do your thinking for you. You’re obviously smart and you know a fair bit about IT, as do I. If you’re going to ask me questions I know you know the answers to, I’m going to have my pound of flesh too and mess around a bit - all is fair in love and war. That’s me telling you to rein in the indignation a little bit and have a polite discussion where we don’t have to sling mud at each other for no reason whatsoever. It’s Pokémon, no need to get hostile.

 

[trillspector]

You’re right, anyone can scroll up, but I don’t think the result would quite align with what you expect to a casual reader - in my estimation I’ve been rather forthcoming, if cheeky. I didn’t say that smart contracts aren’t vulnerable to phishing, you said that - just now, by neglecting the context, the context being the existence of a third-party (which is what we were discussing). I also didn’t say that there are no ways to exploit the current system - I’ve stated multiple times that fraud will always exist, as will hacking and phishing. Where we disagree is in regards to scale. You’re suggesting that the blockchain would be attacked in order to affect a singular anonymised transaction, when in reality those “huge scale” 51% attacks are attacks against the chain itself.

There are significantly more ways to exploit a blockchain then a 51% attack, third parties are required to use blockchains, this doesnt address much of what i said. Since we both agree that blockchains are not immune to attacks anymore then other security its back to math time buddy this hostility isnt about pokemon its about blockchain tech and you know that

 

[Dyhr]

That’s me telling you to rein in the indignation a little bit and have a polite discussion where we don’t have to sling mud at each other for no reason whatsoever. It’s Pokémon, no need to get hostile.

Professional pro-tip: if you're a forum moderator, administrator, janitor, whatever, and you're involved in a discussion, and it gets "heated", you call on another moderator to issue warnings. Recuse yourself immediately.

This is a flagrant abuse of power and conflict of interest. You should not be using or invoking your moderator powers whatsoever in situations like this.

 

[tabzer]

They really can't, lol. NFTs have one specific purpose, and it's reinventing the wheel, but techbro style: grossly inefficient, grossly insecure, and pointless.

It is a fact that NFC usage is dependent on the systems having specialized hardware support. NFT requires internet access. This is a direct comparison that your,"lol, my buzzwords say you're wrong" doesn't reconcile.

 

[Foxi4]

There are significantly more ways to exploit a blockchain then a 51% attack, third parties are required to use blockchains, this doesnt address much of what i said. Since we both agree that blockchains are not immune to attacks anymore then other security its back to math time buddy this hostility isnt about pokemon its about blockchain tech and you know that

I wouldn’t say “required”, they’re facilitators, but they’re not “required”, in the same way as the banking system is not “required” to exchange currency. Please, let’s not bog this thread down even more than we already have - most people hear the sound of a flashbang in their heads when two nerds argue about numbers. What I will say is that I can see a legitimate use case for blockchain technology in Pokémon, or something similar enough to it instead of the blockchain. I’d much rather discuss that, since it’s ultimately a thread about Pokémon. I’m happy to shake on that and I’m sorry if I came across as trying to insult you - that wasn’t my intention. Again, you’re an intelligent person, and I don’t consider myself to be dull either. I don’t see the utility in asking each other questions and giving each other answers that we both know, don’t you think that’s a bit of a waste of our time?

 

[Dyhr]

It is a fact that NFC usage is dependent on the systems having specialized hardware support. NFT requires internet access. This is a direct comparison that your,"lol, my buzzwords say you're wrong" doesn't reconcile.

Name one "buzzword" I used. I'll wait.
Internet access is... hey, three pieces of specialized hardware support. What nonsense are you on about here? You need a modem to connect to the second piece of specialized hardware. Which needs... a third specialized set, to give it internet.

Device > modem > device/wire giving modem internet.

NFC devices, like Amiibos, are actually a very real and tangible concept. NFTs are an idiotic techbro reimplementation of hyperlinks and nothing else.

 

[Foxi4]

Professional pro-tip: if you're a forum moderator, administrator, janitor, whatever, and you're involved in a discussion, and it gets "heated", you call on another moderator to issue warnings. Recuse yourself immediately.

This is a flagrant abuse of power and conflict of interest. You should not be using or invoking your moderator powers whatsoever in situations like this.

…what?

@trillspector, do you feel threatened? Is this Taken? Do you think that I have a particular set of skills?

I think you might be worried about imaginary threats, @Dyhr. We’re having a discussion, not a fist fight.

 

[tabzer]

Name one "buzzword" I used. I'll wait.
Internet access is... hey, three pieces of specialized hardware support. What nonsense are you on about here? You need a modem to connect to the second piece of specialized hardware. Which needs... a third specialized set, to give it internet.

Device > modem > device/wire giving modem internet.

NFC devices, like Amiibos, are actually a very real and tangible concept. NFTs are an idiotic techbro reimplementation of hyperlinks and nothing else.

You are really making the argument that NFCs are more accessible than the internet. Get outta here "techbro".

 

[Dyhr]

…what?

@trillspector, do you feel threatened? Is this Taken? Do you think that I have a particular set of skills?

I think you might be worried about imaginary threats, @Dyhr. We’re having a discussion, not a fist fight.

"Taken"? Is what "taken"? What is "taken"?
You're having a "discussion" that you felt so cornered and threatened in that you had to flex your moderator powers by "advising someone to cool down". I literally quoted you doing that.

Post automatically merged: Mar 15, 2023

You are really making the argument that NFCs are more accessible than the internet. Get outta here "techbro".

Good thing NFTs aren't "DER INTURNUTZ" then, techie.

 

[Foxi4]

You are really making the argument that NFCs are more accessible than the internet. Get outta here "techbro".

Well, in theory both are designed with scarcity in mind, but individual Amiibos are certainly more available than individual NFT’s (since there’s only one unique NFT, but multiple identical figures on the market), so he’s got you there, but only on a technicality. In my opinion the NFT versus NFC argument is moot since the figures are just storage for data. There’s nothing holding anyone back from merging them and making each figure store unique data (besides pirates, of course). “Physical NFT’s” are on the market already. They suck, mind, but they exist. The latest implementation that comes to mind would by DC’s NFT-powered collectible cards.

"Taken"? Is what "taken"? What is "taken"?
You're having a "discussion" that you felt so cornered and threatened in that you had to flex your moderator powers by "advising someone to cool down". I literally quoted you doing that.

I didn’t “flex my moderator powers”, that’s ridiculous. Everybody has the right to expect respect in a discussion, and ask someone to simmer down a little if they think their interlocutor is taking things too seriously. If you’re so concerned, report the post - you know where the button is. I very much doubt @trillspector felt threatened in any way because that’s a bizarre read of the statement quoted. If I wanted to threaten someone with a warn, I can just warn them, solely at my discretion - I don’t have to be “cute” about it.

Oh, and Taken is a movie. There’s a famous scene in it - perfectly applicable here, actually. Joke’s kind of wasted if you haven’t seen it.