Month: March 2021

The landscape of digital art is being upended by NFTs, or non-fungible tokens, to the point where it’s difficult not to have heard the term in passing. But what is an NFT? Why are people spending millions of dollars on JPEGs? And could it change how microtransactions in games work?

Just what is a Non-Fungible Token?

First and foremost, NFTs are intrinsically tied to the blockchain–an online ledger that is maintained by thousands of users globally through the process called mining. Transactions on the blockchain aren’t centralized, so it’s difficult (but not impossible) to edit the ledger to make fraudulent transactions. This is the same technology that powers cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin ($BTC), Dogecoin ($DOGE), and Ethereum ($ETH) around the world. NFTs exist on various blockchains, but most being sold are found on the Ethereum blockchain. Unlike the currency, however, they’re non-fungible. That means that one NFT is entirely unique from the rest, unlike the fungible Ethereum, where one coin is identical to all others, thus allowing it to be used as a currency. NFTs, then, are one-of-a-kind in a way, which can explain why they’re being used to verify purchases of digital goods. The goods themselves are specifically unique to the token (an image sold as an NFT can still find its way online for anyone to see) but the token itself is an indicator of the purchase.

So what does an NFT actually give me?

This is where things get a little strange. For example, an artist can choose to mint a piece of digital artwork with an NFT and then sell the token through multiple auction houses. The token itself does not determine who can view the artwork, but rather who holds the rights to it. There’s some grey area here, where the artist can still govern overall ownership and distribution rights, but for the most part, the owner of the NFT is technically the owner of the artwork, even if the image is hosted on Google and available for anyone to right-click and save.

Although not a perfect analogy, you can think of it as someone owning the real Mona Lisa, or a cheap copy made at a novelty gift store. Both feature the same underlying work, but only one is the “real” Mona Lisa. With physical art, there’s more to an original than just being the first of its kind, but with digital art, the difference is almost negligible. A copy of an image, a song, a gif, or anything of that kind can be shared in an unaltered state, diluting the relevance of owning a token to the original.

Wait, why are NFTs valuable then?

Those who see value in NFTs might see the potential to make a profit in the future, as the exclusivity of the token takes on a collector’s status. Others might just want the bragging rights that come with owning the only minted NFT associated with a digital asset, whether it’s accessible to everyone else or not. Although it is technically possible to mint multiple unique NFTs for the same digital asset, it seems most artists aren’t doing this to help preserve the value of the single token that is generated.

Mike Winklemann, an artist known as Beeple, started minting NFTs for his artwork last year, making several sales for thousands of dollars before reaching into the millions. His latest piece, Everydays: The First 5000 Days, was the first NFT sold by Christie’s, a major art auction house. It sold for $69 million, but if you want to save Everdays to your desktop, you can just copy the image tweeted out by Christie’s and do so. Hopefully, that gives you an idea of the difference between purchasing an NFT for an asset, and the asset itself.

Winklemann isn’t alone in the gold rush surrounding NFTs. Musician Steve Aoki sold an NFT to John Legere, the former CEO of T-Mobile, for $888,888.88. The asset was a 36-second music snippet accompanied by a gif, part of which has been shared online. For nearly a million dollars the ownership of the gif will remain on the blockchain as Legere’s, even if the full gif eventually finds its way online and is experienced by millions of other people.

This is definitely finding its way into games, isn’t it?

NFTs aren’t exactly new, and their first big use case was actually in a game. Cryptokitties, which launched in 2017, allows players to purchase NFTs for specific digital cats, which they solely own. These cats can then breed with other digital cat purchases and produce entirely new cats that can then be sold as unique NFTs of their own. This market has generated millions since its inception, with some single cats costing well over a million dollars alone. A curious glance at the website shows that many cheaper cats are simply reskins of the same designs, but the ability to own one for yourself is part of the allure.

If that makes you think about the possibility of NFTs to merge with cosmetic microtransactions in games like Fortnite, Overwatch, or Dota 2, I think it’s safe to bet that there is at least conversation being had over the potential around a system like that. There are already games using NFTs in novel ways, too. The Sandbox is a community-driven creative space that lets users create voxel-based assets or gaming experiences. You could say it’s similar to Roblox, outside of the fact that these gaming experiences all exist on finite virtual land that users can buy using NFTs. The tokens correlate to a piece of land where you can host game creations for other users to visit, with the value of the size and position of the land determined by simple supply and demand.

Mythical Games is planning to use both NFTs and the blockchain in its upcoming PC and console title, Blankos. The studio is designing another game driven by user-generated content, but where items such as cosmetics can be sold in finite numbers. In-game items are transferred to players using NFTs, which can then be resold on a marketplace where the value is determined by the buyers. Think of it as Steam Trading Cards and Valve’s Marketplace, except powered by blockchain transactions for items that come in finite waves.

Can an NFT be minted against anything then? That sounds dangerous

Given that an NFT can be minted for almost anything digital (Twitter’s Jack Dorsey is selling an NFT of the first tweet ever sent, for example) the ease of creating the token has helped give artists the ability to make money via a new platform. But it’s also led to a lot of abuse, which has already started dominating the conversations around NFTs. Artists are finding tokens minted against their art without their consent, letting someone else reap the benefits of a sale without any of the work. It’s also difficult to prevent this right now, given the way in which social media allows digital art of any kind to be shared. NFTs aren’t solving the root problem of copyright online, but they are giving those who would abuse it a lot of freedom to do so.

An official merchandise creator for Among Us recently stumbled upon thousands of NFT sales based on artwork from the game, none of which had been authorized by the studio. This is just a glimpse at the issue thousands of artists are facing, leading to a divide on whether NFTs are the future of digital art collection or a new problem for creators to fight against.

There’s also the environmental impact to consider, which isn’t so much tied to NFTs but rather blockchain technology. Since the blockchain is essentially a ledger maintained by users around the world, requiring computer processing power to authenticate transactions, each one takes up some unit of energy. Combined, studies are showing that the consumption of the overall system is incredibly high, with the Bitcoin blockchain consuming more electricity in a year than the whole of Argentina.

Maintaining the blockchain and facilitating all of the transactions that take place requires incredible amounts of processing power, which incurs large electricity costs. Given that electricity and its generation is still one of the biggest environmental impactors, this has brought the cost of cryptocurrencies to the environment into focus. Microsoft founder Bill Gates has said he’s appalled by the harm that cryptocurrencies present to the environment, but also notes that the push towards greener electricity could mitigate it. “If it’s green electricity and it’s not crowding out other uses, eventually, you know, maybe that’s ok,” Gates told the New York Times.

Ethereum is far more efficient than Bitcoin (one of Ethereum’s founders similarly spoke out against the energy consumption of Bitcoin), which means that it’s using less electricity overall on its blockchain than the most popular cryptocurrency on the market. That still does not make it emission-free, however, and it is no secret that popular tokens like NFTs lead to more transactions, which lead to more energy consumption. This also ties into the scarcity of hardware powerful enough for processing the blockchain, which is a big reason why you might have trouble buying a GPU or power supply for your next PC right now.

So where do NFTs go next?

That is the state of NFTs currently, and it’s bound to grow even more now that it’s reached a point of public consciousness that helped propel Bitcoin a few years ago. It’s difficult to say what the future might hold for NFTs as a tangible collector’s item, but for now it’s a bit of a minefield, where you can either sell art to an entirely new, wealthy audience or have even more work illegally stolen from you. And there is no indication of how those problems might be solved just yet.

GameSpot may get a commission from retail offers.

In a sense, Apex Legends is not the same game that we reviewed back in February 2019–the roster of playable characters has doubled to 16, three full maps are in rotation, and several different modes (including ranked) are included. There’s also a story that’s delivered weekly via map changes and comics that have built the game’s lore. Additional features have been implemented, like clubs for players to join, cross-play support, and limited-time events. On top of all that, seasonal content introduces substantial meta changes, daily/weekly challenges, and rewarding battle passes, transforming Apex Legends into something greater.

And yet, despite these adjustments, the core of Apex Legends remains intact. It’s still a squad-based battle royale that encourages teamwork with an excellent ping system, where you begin each match picking from a roster of hero characters that possess unique abilities in order to fulfill different roles in battle. The core principles that made Apex Legends work so well back when it first launched haven’t changed over two years later.

All of which is to say, Apex Legends is still really fun and worth jumping into if you haven’t yet. And now you’re able to do so on Nintendo Switch. But just because you can play Apex Legends on Switch does not mean you should. This port works, but only in the loosest sense of the term; this is the worst way to play Apex Legends.

To the credit of developer Panic Button (a studio responsible for a dozen Switch ports, including Rocket League, Doom, and Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus), I’m amazed Apex Legends works on Switch at all. This is an online multiplayer game that hosts up to 60 players in a match, each of which take place on some pretty large maps. I’ve only had one crash in my five hours with the port; it was during the character selection process, and the Switch managed to reboot the game fast enough for me to rejoin my squad just as we touched down on the ground. And if I can humble brag for a second, we still went on to win that match.

None of that changes the fact that it feels like the Switch is barely making it work. On Switch, Apex Legends targets 720p resolution while docked and 576p in handheld–numbers that closely resemble the resolutions on baseline Xbox One, which also targets 720p but can fall short. However, it’s not the same, as the Switch port seemingly manages to reach those resolutions only by compromising on graphical detail, draw distance, and the speed at which assets are loaded. So on Switch, you might see a building in the distance, but it won’t have nearly the same level of graphical detail as it would in the other versions of the game. And on top of that, though the Switch port targets 30 frames per second, you can tell that it dips below that.

That’s all a very technical, gobbledygook way of saying that Apex Legends looks muddied on Switch, whether docked or in handheld, especially in comparison to playing it on Xbox One X, PS4 Pro, Xbox Series X|S, PS5, or PC.

Now, on a surface level, this just means the Switch port is less pretty, which has no gameplay ramifications (but still makes me sad). When first turning on the game and looking down at Kings Canyon, I couldn’t help but mutter, “Look how they massacred my boy.” But in a more substantial way, these drawbacks in resolution and frame rate put you at a disadvantage when you’re fighting against someone who’s playing on any other system–because, on Switch, it’s harder to see people from farther away and it’s more difficult to discern individual bullets. In a fast-paced battle royale like Apex Legends, knowledge is power and the ability to make split-second decisions with the information you have can be paramount for success–and that’s just harder to do on Switch, which can lead to frustrating losses when you’re put into a match with Xbox, PlayStation, or PC players.

As an example, let’s look at guns. In Apex Legends, guns that typically pack the most punch are the ones with semi-automatic fire. You’re getting a slower fire rate in exchange for increased firepower, encouraging you to take your time with aiming instead of just squeezing the trigger. This gives you options: If, say, you’re carrying heavy ammo, do you want to use the M600 Spitfire and rush enemies with a flurry of bullets or rely on the 30-30 Repeater where each individual bullet can be charged if you wait a breath between shots. But on Switch, where the frame rate regularly fluctuates below 30fps, it can prove difficult to land shots with something like the 30-30 Repeater that relies on precision, because your image isn’t keeping pace to accurately track their movement and animations, making it more difficult to line up shots. This is less of a problem at close range where pinpoint precision matters less and tracking targets is easier. But at that range, automatic weapons like the Spitfire typically excel over the 30-30.

And granted, as Phil Hornshaw points out in GameSpot’s original Apex Legends review, this game’s meta does naturally skew toward close-range weapons like shotguns, so you’ll probably be regularly fighting up close anyway. But there are situations where a mid- to long-range semi-automatic weapon is preferable. On Switch, where I’m not really afforded that option, it seems like there’s an unfair advantage to anyone else in the match who’s playing on Xbox, PlayStation, or PC.

Thankfully, you can disable cross-play, but that does limit you. The pool of players you’ll be able to match with will be significantly smaller, increasing the likelihood that the game may struggle to connect you to similarly skilled players. This could mean that every so often you’ll either have a longer wait time to get into a game or you’ll quickly get matched up with players who either won’t put up a fulfilling challenge or prove to be too frustratingly good for you to take on. And of course, if your friends are already playing on other platforms, turning off cross-play means you can’t team up with them. So although disabling cross-play is an option, it isn’t a satisfying solution to the overarching problem: that the Switch just isn’t the ideal way to play Apex Legends.

Given the fast-paced nature of Apex Legends’ fights, it can also be a bit of a struggle to play with the Switch’s Joy-Con controllers. Thankfully, I don’t have too much drift on my pair, but the analog sticks still proved to be a frustrating hassle for the game’s competitive demands, especially in handheld mode, which feels like a very unnatural way to play a first-person shooter. Motion control (which is enabled by default) does not help–in fact, it’s worse. You can’t achieve the level of precision you need for a competitive first-person shooter like Apex Legends by using your Switch or controller to move the camera. My enjoyment of the Switch port improved immensely once I started using a proper gamepad/controller (a PowerA Enhanced Wireless Controller in my case).

And on that note, I did have moments of fun playing Apex Legends on Switch. Panic Button has managed to take a game that I love and make it work just well enough on Nintendo’s hybrid console. I don’t want to keep playing it on Switch with its many technical concessions (nor do I want new players to be introduced to Apex Legends this way), but this port is–in its current state–a decent last resort. If your only way to play Apex Legends is on Switch, then you now have that option. Just know that you’re signing up for something less than ideal.

In a sense, Apex Legends is not the same game that we reviewed back in February 2019–the roster of playable characters has doubled to 16, three full maps are in rotation, and several different modes (including ranked) are included. There’s also a story that’s delivered weekly via map changes and comics that have built the game’s lore. Additional features have been implemented, like clubs for players to join, cross-play support, and limited-time events. On top of all that, seasonal content introduces substantial meta changes, daily/weekly challenges, and rewarding battle passes, transforming Apex Legends into something greater.

And yet, despite these adjustments, the core of Apex Legends remains intact. It’s still a squad-based battle royale that encourages teamwork with an excellent ping system, where you begin each match picking from a roster of hero characters that possess unique abilities in order to fulfill different roles in battle. The core principles that made Apex Legends work so well back when it first launched haven’t changed over two years later.

All of which is to say, Apex Legends is still really fun and worth jumping into if you haven’t yet. And now you’re able to do so on Nintendo Switch. But just because you can play Apex Legends on Switch does not mean you should. This port works, but only in the loosest sense of the term; this is the worst way to play Apex Legends.

To the credit of developer Panic Button (a studio responsible for a dozen Switch ports, including Rocket League, Doom, and Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus), I’m amazed Apex Legends works on Switch at all. This is an online multiplayer game that hosts up to 60 players in a match, each of which take place on some pretty large maps. I’ve only had one crash in my five hours with the port; it was during the character selection process, and the Switch managed to reboot the game fast enough for me to rejoin my squad just as we touched down on the ground. And if I can humble brag for a second, we still went on to win that match.

None of that changes the fact that it feels like the Switch is barely making it work. On Switch, Apex Legends targets 720p resolution while docked and 576p in handheld–numbers that closely resemble the resolutions on baseline Xbox One, which also targets 720p but can fall short. However, it’s not the same, as the Switch port seemingly manages to reach those resolutions only by compromising on graphical detail, draw distance, and the speed at which assets are loaded. So on Switch, you might see a building in the distance, but it won’t have nearly the same level of graphical detail as it would in the other versions of the game. And on top of that, though the Switch port targets 30 frames per second, you can tell that it dips below that.

That’s all a very technical, gobbledygook way of saying that Apex Legends looks muddied on Switch, whether docked or in handheld, especially in comparison to playing it on Xbox One X, PS4 Pro, Xbox Series X|S, PS5, or PC.

Now, on a surface level, this just means the Switch port is less pretty, which has no gameplay ramifications (but still makes me sad). When first turning on the game and looking down at Kings Canyon, I couldn’t help but mutter, “Look how they massacred my boy.” But in a more substantial way, these drawbacks in resolution and frame rate put you at a disadvantage when you’re fighting against someone who’s playing on any other system–because, on Switch, it’s harder to see people from farther away and it’s more difficult to discern individual bullets. In a fast-paced battle royale like Apex Legends, knowledge is power and the ability to make split-second decisions with the information you have can be paramount for success–and that’s just harder to do on Switch, which can lead to frustrating losses when you’re put into a match with Xbox, PlayStation, or PC players.

As an example, let’s look at guns. In Apex Legends, guns that typically pack the most punch are the ones with semi-automatic fire. You’re getting a slower fire rate in exchange for increased firepower, encouraging you to take your time with aiming instead of just squeezing the trigger. This gives you options: If, say, you’re carrying heavy ammo, do you want to use the M600 Spitfire and rush enemies with a flurry of bullets or rely on the 30-30 Repeater where each individual bullet can be charged if you wait a breath between shots. But on Switch, where the frame rate regularly fluctuates below 30fps, it can prove difficult to land shots with something like the 30-30 Repeater that relies on precision, because your image isn’t keeping pace to accurately track their movement and animations, making it more difficult to line up shots. This is less of a problem at close range where pinpoint precision matters less and tracking targets is easier. But at that range, automatic weapons like the Spitfire typically excel over the 30-30.

And granted, as Phil Hornshaw points out in GameSpot’s original Apex Legends review, this game’s meta does naturally skew toward close-range weapons like shotguns, so you’ll probably be regularly fighting up close anyway. But there are situations where a mid- to long-range semi-automatic weapon is preferable. On Switch, where I’m not really afforded that option, it seems like there’s an unfair advantage to anyone else in the match who’s playing on Xbox, PlayStation, or PC.

Thankfully, you can disable cross-play, but that does limit you. The pool of players you’ll be able to match with will be significantly smaller, increasing the likelihood that the game may struggle to connect you to similarly skilled players. This could mean that every so often you’ll either have a longer wait time to get into a game or you’ll quickly get matched up with players who either won’t put up a fulfilling challenge or prove to be too frustratingly good for you to take on. And of course, if your friends are already playing on other platforms, turning off cross-play means you can’t team up with them. So although disabling cross-play is an option, it isn’t a satisfying solution to the overarching problem: that the Switch just isn’t the ideal way to play Apex Legends.

Given the fast-paced nature of Apex Legends’ fights, it can also be a bit of a struggle to play with the Switch’s Joy-Con controllers. Thankfully, I don’t have too much drift on my pair, but the analog sticks still proved to be a frustrating hassle for the game’s competitive demands, especially in handheld mode, which feels like a very unnatural way to play a first-person shooter. Motion control (which is enabled by default) does not help–in fact, it’s worse. You can’t achieve the level of precision you need for a competitive first-person shooter like Apex Legends by using your Switch or controller to move the camera. My enjoyment of the Switch port improved immensely once I started using a proper gamepad/controller (a PowerA Enhanced Wireless Controller in my case).

And on that note, I did have moments of fun playing Apex Legends on Switch. Panic Button has managed to take a game that I love and make it work just well enough on Nintendo’s hybrid console. I don’t want to keep playing it on Switch with its many technical concessions (nor do I want new players to be introduced to Apex Legends this way), but this port is–in its current state–a decent last resort. If your only way to play Apex Legends is on Switch, then you now have that option. Just know that you’re signing up for something less than ideal.