Speaker 1: Hey, I'm Moses with the Bloomberg Crypto Podcast. We're taking
Speaker 1: a little bit of a break to recharge and prep
Speaker 1: for the new year, So this week we're rerunning some
Speaker 1: of the team's best loved episodes. Today, we're reapping one
Speaker 1: of my personal favorites. It's an interview with Mark Venturelli,
Speaker 1: CEO of gaming studio Rogues Noil, and crypto blogger Emily Nicole.
Speaker 1: Mark gives us a philosophical assessment on the role of
Speaker 1: n f t s and gaming and the unintended consequences
Speaker 1: that n f t s could have on gamers, especially
Speaker 1: those from poorer backgrounds. All the best for the new year,
Speaker 1: and we hope you enjoyed this show. Imagine it's October one.
Speaker 1: Crypto prices are rocketing, Celebrities can't stop talking about n
Speaker 1: f t s to other celebrities. There's packed conferences and
Speaker 1: glitzy venues and places like Miami and London attended by
Speaker 1: people wearing T shirts with cartoon monkeys on them. If
Speaker 1: you're an executive at a big gaming studio seeing all
Speaker 1: of this happen, you might might be forgiven for sending
Speaker 1: one of those emails with the subject line like n
Speaker 1: f T strategy question, Mark and several executives of gaming
Speaker 1: companies did indeed send those emails, and some of their
Speaker 1: companies rushed to announce plans about how they were going
Speaker 1: to make blockchain gaming happen. Flash forward about a year
Speaker 1: until right now, October twenties twenty two. Celebrities aren't talking
Speaker 1: about their n f T s, people are trying to
Speaker 1: sell those apes, and gaming studios don't seem quite so
Speaker 1: convinced that they even need an n FT strategy anymore.
Speaker 1: Joining me to discuss this vibe shift our Bloomberg report,
Speaker 1: Emily Nicole. Definitely, the overwhelming reaction to that marketplace was
Speaker 1: not positive from both fans and staff who complained very loudly,
Speaker 1: and game developer Mark Ventarelli. One of the things that
Speaker 1: most concerned me in turn society I think we are,
Speaker 1: it's the depth of imagination, right. I think we're very
Speaker 1: much a literal society. Mark, Emily, Welcome to the show. Mark.
Speaker 1: I'm going to start with you because our listeners know
Speaker 1: who Emily is by now. Please tell us who you
Speaker 1: are and what brings you here today. Thank you, happy
Speaker 1: to be here. My name is Mark Ventorelli and I'm
Speaker 1: the CEO of Roguesdale, which is a game development studio
Speaker 1: here in Brazil, and I've been a professional game designer
Speaker 1: for over fifteen years. Very exciting. As I tell everyone
Speaker 1: at this point, they all know somehow it working the
Speaker 1: video games in the industry is like where I would
Speaker 1: have gone had I not made the decision to be
Speaker 1: a journalist. So it's always a pleasure to get to
Speaker 1: talk about videos. Ha ha. Yeah, don't tell my bosses
Speaker 1: they listen to this podcast. But you are here today
Speaker 1: talking to us because you did a very interesting thing
Speaker 1: a couple of months ago, which is show up on
Speaker 1: a panel virtually at a conference, start to talk about
Speaker 1: one thing and then be like, actually, never mind, we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about n f t s and why
Speaker 1: they're ruining video games. And so perhaps that is a
Speaker 1: strong characterization of your presentation, but you know, I would
Speaker 1: love to get your perspective as a person working in
Speaker 1: the industry on what you have observed in terms of
Speaker 1: this conversation around crypto and gaming, blockchain and gaming, n
Speaker 1: f t s and gaming, and what has happened for
Speaker 1: you in the months after you went some my viral
Speaker 1: for that talk. I think the answer to that question
Speaker 1: also clears up a little bit of a misconception around
Speaker 1: my talk, which is, um, I kind of do change subjects,
Speaker 1: but it is joking. I mean, I'm an entertainer, right,
Speaker 1: I know how to commend people people's attentions, uh, with
Speaker 1: gimmicks and fleshy stuff. That's where we do a lot
Speaker 1: of the game design. But uh. The name of my
Speaker 1: talk originally was uh and still is the future of
Speaker 1: game Design. And in the middle of that talk, I say, actually,
Speaker 1: like I'll change the name. I'll change the title the
Speaker 1: stalk now, and it's going to be why n f
Speaker 1: T S are an imare? And then I start talking
Speaker 1: about that. And then at some point after I give
Speaker 1: enough context about why I think and if he should
Speaker 1: not be part of this future of game design, I
Speaker 1: changed the title back to the future game design, and
Speaker 1: I consuing, and so it was kind of a playful thing,
Speaker 1: but it was all into like a single concise argument.
Speaker 1: And to ask your question about like the motivation, I
Speaker 1: think it is impossible to discuss the future of game design,
Speaker 1: the future entertainment, and in many ways the future of
Speaker 1: humanity right without addressing current friends and technology, without talking
Speaker 1: about the blockchain specifically, but also an f d S
Speaker 1: even more specifically. But I felt like I had a
Speaker 1: unique point of view being a game designer and also
Speaker 1: being someone who not only I have working I have
Speaker 1: been working on the entertainment industry for my entire life.
Speaker 1: I also am very much technology enthusiasts. I have been
Speaker 1: into the blockchain and studying into figuring out how to
Speaker 1: use it and trying to do stuff with it for many,
Speaker 1: many years, and I felt like I had a unique
Speaker 1: point of view to contribute to the overall conversation about
Speaker 1: gaming plus blockchain, and that's why I felt need to
Speaker 1: do the talk. As for what changed after the talk,
Speaker 1: got a lot more Twitter phones. So you're saying it's working.
Speaker 1: What you're saying, well, it wasn't my goal right overall,
Speaker 1: I felt like the goal that I had going into
Speaker 1: this event, um, we accomplished that. And when I say we,
Speaker 1: I say not only me, but student everybody who helped
Speaker 1: me make the talk, also the everybody who on the
Speaker 1: side of being developers in Brazil specifically agree with my positions. Uh.
Speaker 1: There was a big movement still is to boycott events
Speaker 1: like Big Festival, which is our equivalence to the game
Speaker 1: developers conference. It's like the biggest bill my conference in Brazil.
Speaker 1: We have right now to bloycott it because he had
Speaker 1: crypto sponsors, or because he had crypto gaming, And I
Speaker 1: said no, like, this is not a crypto event. This
Speaker 1: is a game development event. Like if you boycotted because
Speaker 1: we don't agree with things that are there, like we're
Speaker 1: not doing ourselves any favors we used to be there
Speaker 1: and to say our piece, not to put two final
Speaker 1: points on it. You know you. Emily also interviewed you
Speaker 1: for a follow up story that I'm gonna ask her
Speaker 1: about very shortly, and your quotes in that story, you know,
Speaker 1: just if I may read a piece of it is
Speaker 1: essentially characterizing the idea of n f T s and
Speaker 1: video games as a gimmicky technology that provides nothing of
Speaker 1: value besides and make money quick scheme. What I would
Speaker 1: love to get your perspective on is why, as a
Speaker 1: person who makes games, do you not think there's any
Speaker 1: value in this particular technology, contrary to what other people
Speaker 1: who also make games are trying to argue. If I
Speaker 1: had to choose a few core things, I feel like
Speaker 1: it is about what games are for in society, because
Speaker 1: I try and bring a lot about this, like what
Speaker 1: value do we actually offer to society as artists, as entertainers,
Speaker 1: as media creators involved in making video games. I feel
Speaker 1: like to these days, the players, not only video game
Speaker 1: players and young people, but especially young people, the the
Speaker 1: gen z uh, they feel hopeless, they feel powerless, right.
Speaker 1: It's a generation that looks at all the issues and
Speaker 1: all the problems that they have ahead of them, and
Speaker 1: they don't feel like they have what it takes to
Speaker 1: take them on. And I think the video games, among many, many,
Speaker 1: many other things, is a place where you can be powerful,
Speaker 1: where your actions can be meaningful, where you can be
Speaker 1: the hero right, where you can have a power fantasy
Speaker 1: to control fantasy, where you can feel like you're in control.
Speaker 1: You're important, you matter, your actions matter, your decisions matter.
Speaker 1: And this is all relates to your concept, which is
Speaker 1: very important game design technically, which is meaning right, Um,
Speaker 1: And what I think that everything that has been done
Speaker 1: in the space and it was always the intention to
Speaker 1: do that, right, Like, it's not a surprise that and
Speaker 1: if these are doing to bring economic factors into gaming
Speaker 1: in a way that brings the one thing that really
Speaker 1: don't want to from the real world into games or
Speaker 1: any other kind of entertainment, which is oppression. So when
Speaker 1: you bring economic uh, real world economics into game design,
Speaker 1: what you do and again I'm simplifying this very much.
Speaker 1: I go into into this more in depth in My Dog,
Speaker 1: But what effectively what you're doing is you're bringing oppression
Speaker 1: into these into these spaces, right, which you're supposed to
Speaker 1: be fantasy spaces, spaces of imagination, spaces of empowerment, spaces
Speaker 1: spaces of meaning. Right, Like I suddenly you are oppressed
Speaker 1: in the VIG game. You no longer can win. But
Speaker 1: I think that's the thing about one of the things
Speaker 1: about classic games and classic game design is you always
Speaker 1: can win. It's always possible to win. Right. The moments
Speaker 1: where you feel like it's no longer possible to win
Speaker 1: is the moment where the game is no longer relevant,
Speaker 1: like I don't want to play anymore. It's not it's
Speaker 1: not possible to win. And that's not true too many
Speaker 1: real word uh interactions, right, is not always possible to win,
Speaker 1: and and that that's what oppression is. And when you
Speaker 1: bring this into games, you destroy the possibility of winning.
Speaker 1: You say, you know the phrase that you use there
Speaker 1: which I find is very interesting, is kind of like
Speaker 1: in classic or classical game design, because the idea of
Speaker 1: pay to win was certainly not invented by crypto people.
Speaker 1: You know that that is the casualization of mobile gaming,
Speaker 1: the idea of loop boxes, the idea of gotcha, the
Speaker 1: whole notion of sure, you can get to level five,
Speaker 1: but if you want to get to level fifty, it's
Speaker 1: gonna cost you either tens of thousands of hours of
Speaker 1: your life or hundreds of dollars. Um has been extremely
Speaker 1: prevalent in in games for a long time, you know,
Speaker 1: like from in app purchase to d l c s too.
Speaker 1: Like you buy a hero, you know, forget just kind
Speaker 1: of the economics of consumables, but the the actual mechanical
Speaker 1: pricing of if you really want the sword and this
Speaker 1: sort is the thing that you're gonna need to you know,
Speaker 1: be the hero, it's gonna cost you money. So those
Speaker 1: those elements aren't crypto specific what you're describing, but they are,
Speaker 1: in your argument, even more profound in a crypto context. Yes,
Speaker 1: I think so, either equivalent or worse. We'll be right
Speaker 1: back with more from Bloomberg reporters Emily Nicole and video
Speaker 1: game developer Mark Ventarelli. Emily, I'm gonna go to you
Speaker 1: to just, you know, sort of zoom out a little bit,
Speaker 1: because you started reporting on the intersection of crypto and
Speaker 1: gaming when various executives at other studios, particularly the larger ones,
Speaker 1: thought it was a good idea, and you know, you
Speaker 1: had various folks who you will name, be like, yeah,
Speaker 1: what we actually need to do is design an n
Speaker 1: FT exchange thing where players can monetize, and they made
Speaker 1: you know, it's They took all of the arguments that
Speaker 1: Mark is making that are negative and thrown them into
Speaker 1: things and like, here the reasons why these are good
Speaker 1: for our players? Who were some of those folks, and
Speaker 1: what's the status of those projects right now? I think
Speaker 1: one of the easiest and the largest publishers to point
Speaker 1: to on that front is the French publisher Ubisoft, which
Speaker 1: makes the very very very popular game franchise Assassin's Creed.
Speaker 1: Because they started their kind of I guess you call
Speaker 1: them web three n f T experiments last year and
Speaker 1: they came out with a marketplace that was specifically for
Speaker 1: one of their games, um and it was released to
Speaker 1: the public pretty early. Did have all the usual markers
Speaker 1: of like this is a beta test, etcetera. But you know,
Speaker 1: anybody can access to Anybody could buy the n f
Speaker 1: t s if they were things like swords and guns
Speaker 1: and um and various outfits and things that you could
Speaker 1: play in this game. But after a few months of
Speaker 1: being active, pretty much nobody was buying them. The prices
Speaker 1: were pretty low, and within you know, by April this year,
Speaker 1: the whole thing was shut down and it was no
Speaker 1: longer active. And if you hear Upisoft talk about that
Speaker 1: project now, the conversation very much goes like, well, this
Speaker 1: was early research. We were thinking about Web three, we
Speaker 1: were thinking about how we could do this, and we're
Speaker 1: exploring things. And just because we shut it down doesn't
Speaker 1: mean we're not thinking about Web three anymore. We're not
Speaker 1: doing things on blockchain. But definitely, the overwhelming reaction to
Speaker 1: that marketplace was not positive, from both fans and staff,
Speaker 1: who complained very loudly externally and internally about the fact
Speaker 1: that uposoft was doing something with npt s. Mark I
Speaker 1: have a question for you about It's it's based on,
Speaker 1: you know, the cleon phrase like great artists steal. Is
Speaker 1: there anything about the arguments that proponents of n f
Speaker 1: T S, etcetera making about blockchain about you know this,
Speaker 1: this theoretical future in which more of your fun in
Speaker 1: game things are interoperable. Are any of those as concepts
Speaker 1: separate from the you know what folks like to call
Speaker 1: the to economics or the economics of these tokens interesting
Speaker 1: to game developers? Honestly, Um, there isn't, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: anything in that space that works separately from toconomics. That's
Speaker 1: actually the one question that if you ask people are
Speaker 1: proposing these kinds of systems usually breaks them, like like
Speaker 1: if it's okay, but besides the economics, besides the economic factor,
Speaker 1: besides all these things, what are you proposing here? And
Speaker 1: it's usually like said everything you'll just new again, like
Speaker 1: the things about, for example, interpreterability, like this is not
Speaker 1: in itself a new idea. Uh, at large scale is
Speaker 1: a terrible idea. I see people talking about the metaverse,
Speaker 1: for example, as if well, like you can get an
Speaker 1: item from game acts and then you can use it
Speaker 1: on the game. Why that that sounds fun and it
Speaker 1: could be fun if it is designed with intent. But
Speaker 1: the idea of the metaverse and the there's an idea
Speaker 1: of interpretability that people would have on the dog free space.
Speaker 1: It's to make it ubiquitous. Right. When you do that,
Speaker 1: this is actually a nightmare. You're just from moving designers
Speaker 1: the ability to create meaning. Like a talk about this
Speaker 1: in my talk as well. Like there's a thing game
Speaker 1: design called the magic circle, which is a way that
Speaker 1: game designers we can imbute things with meaning. Right. So
Speaker 1: here in Brazil, we play a lot of soccer on
Speaker 1: the streets, right, and then we use flip flops to
Speaker 1: mark where the goal is. Right, So we're just taking
Speaker 1: flip flops and saying, hey, this is the goal. They
Speaker 1: are no longer flip flops inside of this magic circle
Speaker 1: that we're defining here. So that is one of the
Speaker 1: poor verbs of game designers to imbue with meaning, right. Uh.
Speaker 1: And when you try to create these ubiquitous interpretability rising games,
Speaker 1: but what you're actually doing is you're creating these like
Speaker 1: a ooze of everything is the same thing as the
Speaker 1: like token token ization in terms of cultural terms, right,
Speaker 1: it's the end goal these these people, right, they actually
Speaker 1: want to destroy art, like, uh, is the same thing
Speaker 1: like if you see like Fortnite, for example, like you
Speaker 1: really like Spider Man. Well, you can be Spiderman Fortnite
Speaker 1: and then you can like shoot an a K for
Speaker 1: a seven at Naruto or something like that. Right when
Speaker 1: you're doing that, it's no longer the Spider Man. Right.
Speaker 1: If you like Peter Parker, if you like Miles Morause,
Speaker 1: like if you like these kinds of characters, and that's
Speaker 1: why you like Peer Parker, and that's why I like
Speaker 1: Spider Man. Sorry, uh, that person there, that character there
Speaker 1: is just the brand. It's just a token. It's not
Speaker 1: Miles Morause. It's just Spider Man, the token, right, it is.
Speaker 1: It's it's not there's no death to it. There's no
Speaker 1: real meaning to it. It's empty. It's soulless. And what
Speaker 1: you actually achieve if you try to do a large
Speaker 1: scale interoperability between games is that you destroy this meaning.
Speaker 1: You just try that. You destroy arts to start expression,
Speaker 1: you strike character, you destroy subjectivity, like, uh, you're just
Speaker 1: everything becomes literal. And that's one of the things that
Speaker 1: most concerned me in current society. I think we are
Speaker 1: it's the death of imagination, right, I think we're very
Speaker 1: much a literal society. Like the current rise of like
Speaker 1: alt rights and stuff like that is very much connected
Speaker 1: to people being very literal as a spons to an
Speaker 1: overload of our of our senses, of our ability to
Speaker 1: interpret this overload of information coming at us, right, the
Speaker 1: swarm of information coming at us, and to make everything
Speaker 1: just literal. That is extremely dangerous, not only to video
Speaker 1: game an artistic expression in general and entertainment, but for
Speaker 1: us as a society. I love a podcast that is
Speaker 1: both existential and spicy at the same time. So I
Speaker 1: think we are. I think we're gonna end it there.
Speaker 1: Thank you both, Emily, Thank you very much, Mark Brigada.
Speaker 1: It was a pleasure having you both on the show.
Speaker 1: You can find more of Emily Nicole's reporting on the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Terminal on Bloomberg dot com or follow her on Twitter.
Speaker 1: She's at Emily J. Nicole. On the next episode of
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Crypto, there's nothing straightforward about a crypto bankruptcy, and
Speaker 1: in finance, where there's complexity, there's gonna be someone ready
Speaker 1: to make money from the chaos. On this next episode,
Speaker 1: you'll hear from one of the people who's finding opportunities
Speaker 1: in the crypto distress. This is Bloomberg Crypto, a daily
Speaker 1: podcast from Bloomberg and I Heart Radio. For more shows
Speaker 1: from I Heart Radio, visit the I Heart Radio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Send us
Speaker 1: your comments, questions, or suggestions for the show to Crypto
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot net or find us on Twitter. We're
Speaker 1: at Crypto. The supervising producer of Bloomberg Crypto is Vicky Verglina.
Speaker 1: Our senior producer is Janet Babin. Our producer is Mohammed Faruk.
Speaker 1: Associate producer is Moses on the Desto wonder At is
Speaker 1: our engineer. Original music by Leo Sidran. I'm Stacy Maria Ishmael.
Speaker 1: We'll be back tomorrow two