This is misleading though. He has only come up with the concept of a game and wrote a few lines of words onto a JPG and uploaded it as a tweet which are now worth a tonne.
It's upto the community to turn the words into a game and netted many millions in Ethereum in the interim.
This is a growing phenomenon occuring in NFT gaming where people aren't actually making games and selling them. Just selling the concept of a game.
Stinks to me
Isn't that what's done in everything else, though? Movies, television, books, music, art-- practically everything.
Players and content creators don't need to make money as much money as the founder or creator, but what they make has to be worth their time and effort and allow for them ways to live off the game. As long as we (all of us) get a decent cut, why should we care how much the founder gets from residuals and other streams of income derived from the creation? At the same time, the founder has to realize that he is nothing without the players and content creators. Earnings for all don't need to be equal, but they need to be equitable (as in "genuinely fair").
Someone comes up with a concept which handn't occurred to anyone else before-- or take something everyone knows about and tweak it for an unexpected use-- then it becomes commonplace. That's not as easy we we like to think it is. Movies, sports, fashion, games, industry, science, education, everything else-- much of what we see today came as innovations out of someone's mind.
In the case of Apple, it's even worse: nothing was original. Not when Steve Jobs had hair, not when Steve Jobs was bald, not when Steve Jobs was dead. Apple simply took something useful and made it appealing. That's takes marketing genius, and he had that in spades.
We would be using Microsoft Zune MP3 players had it not been for Apple's iPod.
Heck, this weekend I thought I coined a couple of terms which would be new ("shitstocks" and "FUDslide"), only people beat me to them by years.
When something genuinely original is made or conceived, it deserves to be rewarded. What should not happen is the rest of us ending up with salt from the bag of chips or french fries while the founder ends up owning the industry. The founder owning the thing founded while we get a full meal would be a better situation; a fraction of a cent goes to the founder for every transaction made, but the volume of transactions makes the founder wealthy for life. Anyone interested in more than a full meal can find ways to invest at the company level or as a franchise owner.
(I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm arguing; that's not the intention. I just wanted to make a few points to see if I'm understanding the problem.)
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I get you're point.
But I would ask the question, would you throw down $US1 million for the idea of a home that you will never get or rather the actual home. Now you could argue the point that the home is coming but it relies on you building it yourself. Unless you're a builder and qualified you're probably never going to get yourself the home unless you pay someone else to do it for you.
The idea of the home is worth nothing if it isn't made real. All of us have unrealized ideas, and they are all worth the same thing. It's the realized idea which has worth.
If I had USD 1 million, I wouldn't build the home myself using the ghetto skills I have. I would buy an existing home, or I would pay to have it built to specs. I think any of us would do that if given the options. In each case, it's an idea made real.
What would be amazing is if the home (however I got it) came with something no other home had but other homewoners want. It could be a hydroelectric or geothermal energy source. It could be a gold mine. It could even be the television set with the display tube shot by Elvis Presley in a fit of anger. Then I could find a way to monetize those extras.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta