Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Technology

Paramount Won't Stop Making Star Trek NFTs (theverge.com) 93

Posted by msmash from the pushing-the-limits dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: Paramount is launching its NFT marketplace / metaverse / annoying marketing stunt that fans are already angry about with Star Trek non-fungible tokens (or NFTs.) The company partnered with Recur to create a platform called Paramount.xyz, which it says will "bring Paramount's beloved entertainment entities, brands and characters to the metaverse." Paramount is aping what's worked for big NFT projects in the past; the Star Trek NFTs will depict "algorithmically-generated starships" and can be purchased at the low, low price of $250 per pack. Packs, by the way, contain a single ship -- which only has around an 11 percent chance of looking like the Enterprise. You can (but absolutely should not) guarantee that you'll get a cool ship by buying the "Admiral pack" instead of the "Captain pack," but you can only get those if you've shelled out for a Recur pass -- another NFT that costs at least $290.

The ships are stored in what Paramount is calling "Star Trek Continuum," which is what the company describes as "an experiential hub that will house this first and all future seasons of Star Trek NFTs." Those "future seasons" will involve collecting crewmates and doing vague, unspecified missions according to Paramount's roadmap. In terms of what that "metaverse" or those experiences will actually look like, Paramount's press release has a lot of words that basically add up to a hand wave: "Recur and Paramount are building a roadmap of in-real-life utility over the course of this multi-year partnership and Continuum holders will get access to exclusive perks, events and content expanding on the utility of the NFTs digitally and in-real-life."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Paramount Won't Stop Making Star Trek NFTs More

Paramount Won't Stop Making Star Trek NFTs

Comments Filter:

  • Lego dimensions (Score:3)

    by Improv ( 2467 ) <pgunn01@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 06, 2022 @04:25PM (#62423424) Homepage Journal

    This seems to have some similarities to the "we will bleed your wallet for improvements to our games" that Lego Dimensions took; guessing their dream is that they can just keep printing money forever in this form.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by torkus ( 1133985 )

      Oh...you should see what the Star Trek Fleet Command is like for squeezing dollars out of people. The small p2p players spend easily 10-20x what a AAA title game costs. The whales are into 6 figures and I wouldn't be surprised if a few are closing in on 7.

      I feel like the entire Star Trek franchise (where money is supposed to no longer have purpose lol) is being monetized to death.

      p.s. the game is horribly buggy and ... really just not that good.

    • the most confusing part of this story to me is that there is backlash. my personal dislike for Discovery et al, and those who champion it while throwing shade at old trekkies, this seems like something that should be right up their alley.

  • Can someone translate that into English for me?

    • Re: Translation available? (Score:5, Informative)

      by i_ate_god ( 899684 ) on Wednesday April 06, 2022 @04:29PM (#62423450)

      Scam

    • NFT = Industrialization of scam bubbles (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stooo ( 2202012 ) on Wednesday April 06, 2022 @04:36PM (#62423478) Homepage

      NFT = Industrialization of scam bubble pyramids.

    • Re:Translation available? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Wednesday April 06, 2022 @05:34PM (#62423690)

      So not only will they not stop making redundant Star Trek movies and series, slowly killing off a franchise that used to be loved, they're going to double down and try to sell a bunch of pictures of apes, er... starships.

      Or in other words, they may or may not be money left on the table, but they're sure as damn hell going to try and grab a bunch of it. If NFTs turn out to be a dud, then it's not a big loss if they take off then this helps their profits. It's exactly the same as micro transactions, advertising inside of paid products, etc; just more ways to get some money.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Slowly killing off? It's practically a licence to print money these days.

        I think what you mean is that some people who claim to like the older series like TNG and TOS, don't like the new ones. Paramount doesn't care, they were unlikely to subscribe to Paramount+ or buy the merchandise anyway. Plus, they are a vocal minority, and only serve to give fans of the new shows something to argue about on Twitter.

        • No, I'm just tired of rehashing the same thing to print cash. Star Wars should have finished after 3 movies, Marvel should have finished 6 movies ago, Spiderman, well, that's just dumb... And another Harry Potter movie without Harry Potter. Stop it, the stories are done, tie it up, leave on a high note rather than turn the audience against you.

          What we need are ORIGINAL ideas.

  • There's a ton of money to be made (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday April 06, 2022 @04:29PM (#62423444)
    preying on the mentally ill with legalized ponzi schemes. This is what happens when you stop regulating your economy. It's going to get worse before it gets better, and there's probably going to be a market crash + recession thanks to this crap.

    Really looking forward to losing my job over pictures of spaceships and apes.

    • Two words: regulatory capture

      The mortgage backed security ponzi scheme was backed by a government-chartered near-monopoly that has an absurd market share in underwriting mortgages.

      Even still. Now. I refinanced a few years back and wouldn't you know it...a few months later a certain mortgage company had acquired my loan.

      Why? Neither me, nor my loan, nor the house it payed for cry out in need of government assistance for my swipe at the brass ring of a little ranch and a picket fence.

      But hey, when you've got

    • preying on the mentally ill with legalized ponzi schemes.

      They're selling NFTs. South Park already poked fun at NFTs in their most recent made-for-TV movie. Most people are aware that purchasing an NFTs is equivalent to dumping your money into a black hole. This isn't cryptocurrency where you've got "crypto bros" constantly rambling on about how DeFi is the future of money and that the value of your HODLings is gonna go to the moon (as long as you also recruit more fools into the fold).

      If Paramount manages to sell any of these NFTs at all, it will be to people

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's not technically a ponzi scheme, it's a "bigger fool" scheme. NFTs are a gamble that there will be someone willing to pay even more for the NFT than you did.

    • The latest hardcore Star Trek fans these days are a professionally offended group of woker-than-thou virtual signallers. And I say that as someone who supports most or even almost all of the same shit that they support, too, and who knows full well the history of Star Trek's activist pushing of social norms. But they will gladly hoover this shit right up because STD has what they want, validation. It's an amazing vehicle for selling the usual plastic trash to people who think they're above everyone else. Bu

    • It's going to get worse before it gets better

      Better? Who said anything about getting better?

    • Gene Roddenberry must be rolling in his grave with what they've done to his life's work over the past 13 years.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by torkus ( 1133985 )

      If a bunch of stupid 250 trinkets (virtual or otherwise) crash the economy then we've got bigger issues.

      People buy $1k+ phones yearly that are nearly identical to the one they have. People spend thousands on sneakers, pants, etc. I really don't see how these stupid NFT's are doing anything meaningful besides making you whine a lot.

  • I mean, if you had a printing press for money, wouldn't you run it until the wheels fall off?

    • They did try to ruin Picard with that ghetto piece of garbage Raffi. She doesnâ(TM)t belong on Star Trek.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Osgeld ( 1900440 )

        How can a show named after the biggest character completely forget he is actually IN the damn thing?

        I don't care about rage against the machine chick and a gang of who the fuck cares nobodies

  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by i_ate_god ( 899684 ) on Wednesday April 06, 2022 @04:35PM (#62423474)

    No really, why? Why would anyone buy this? Is there a game? Can my procedurally generated ship fire torpedoes or phasers and blow up a few Klingon Bird of Preys?

    If my ship has a holodeck, can I make my own NFTs of the holograms I create inside it?

    Oh, if I transport someone or something, can I make an NFT of their transporter signal?

    Wtf kind of ferengi shit is this anyways.

    And what ASCII art is Slashdot referring to now?

    • Wtf kind of ferengi shit is this anyways.

      Hey man, that gold ain’t gonna press itself into latinum, now press that buy button.

    • They seem to be trying to imitate the gaming industry.

      the Star Trek NFTs will depict "algorithmically-generated starships" and can be purchased at the low, low price of $250 per pack. Packs, by the way, contain a single ship -- which only has around an 11 percent chance of looking like the Enterprise. You can (but absolutely should not) guarantee that you'll get a cool ship by buying the "Admiral pack" instead of the "Captain pack," but you can only get those if you've shelled out for a Recur pass -- another NFT that costs at least $290.

      That sounds a lot like lootboxes in AAA games.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by torkus ( 1133985 )

      TBH if they made them ship skins you could use in STFC they'd sell oodles of them.

      p.s. don't tell them this as STFC already empties enough wallets.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • that in this case "NFT" stood for Non-Furry Tribbles.

  • Hilarious (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MysteriousPreacher ( 702266 ) on Wednesday April 06, 2022 @04:39PM (#62423492) Journal

    CBS/Paramount drives away the original fan base with Kurtz Trek, appealing to woke weirdos. Now trying NFTs, yet those same weirdos have decided that NFTs are evil. Who is this even for?

  • Sounds like "Gambling all the way down" (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Only a small chance of getting what you want in an NFT. The target URLs of the NFTs exist in an "experimental" platform. And you can never update NFTs to point to a new target URL if the old one ever goes away.

    Isn't online gambling illegal in the United States?

  • April Fools Day was last week!

  • I'll charge $250 for one of my right nut and 290 for one of my left nut.

    If more than two people actually purchase them, only then will I have a problem.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by splutty ( 43475 )

      Just change the angle of the picture by 1 millidegree and you'll have another unique NFT!

      Now collect all 360,000 NFTs to get a full 3D view!

    • Actually, you can. That's the actual point behind NFTs: to convince people there's some sort of NFT gold rush going on. So, you go buy some Ethereum, and it goes *poof* when you mint it into an NFT. This makes Ethereum HODLers very happy, since you've just helped increase the value of their coins.

      Whether or not your testicle jpg NFTs ultimately sell matters not. The Ethereum investors got what they wanted - a fool buying some Ethereum and permanently removing it from the marketplace.

  • Why, Paramount? (Score:3)

    by az-saguaro ( 1231754 ) on Wednesday April 06, 2022 @05:54PM (#62423772)

    I tend to agree with all of the comments here that the people who get suckered into buying these are fools, more money than brains at their disposal.

    But, the other question is why, Paramount? Aside from "let's get on the bandwagon" and "everyone else is doing it", why would Paramount want to do this?

    Whatever money they might make, it will be peanuts compared to their main revenue streams. Whatever happy few customers they might make on sale of an NFT here and there, won't they just irritate everyone else who might have noticed or care? And to read articles about it, it does seem to be angering many fans and consumers, so what is the value to the company to piss people off for such limited revenue?

    Or, are they so self absorbed to think that there are actually millions of people who will pay for their own virtual star ship?

    Am I missing something?

    • What you're missing is that the anger - what marginal amount there will be - is going to be inconsequential. If annoying ads and Happy Meal tie-ins were a net negative for movie producers or franchises, they wouldn't be industry standard practice.

      Internal office politics and/or dealings with Recur were probably a factor in initiating this as well. Although we can only guess at the specifics.

    • They're completely out of touch with their fan base, that's why. I've been a lifelong fan of Trek (not at the goes to the conventions or does cosplay level, though). What they've been putting out lately is has been bordering on being almost not worth the disk space to pirate.

      It really only holds up if you compare the latest live-action Trek against a screensaver, or whatever passes for the latest spin on the crime drama series (CSI: Who Farted?).

      • Create a whole pile of NFT ships and sell them
      • Retain copyright on all ships
      • Trace which ones increase in value
      • Use design in next Star Trek series
      • ...
      • Profit [fandom.com]! (See rules 2, 3, 9, 10, and pretty much all of them)

  • .xyz (Score:2)

    by antdude ( 79039 )

    I blocked that annoying domain suffix.

  • R.I.P. United Federation of Planets (Score:3)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Wednesday April 06, 2022 @07:04PM (#62423958) Homepage Journal

    Paramount is ran by Ferengi and owns the Federation.

  • Imaginary toys (Score:3)

    by NotEmmanuelGoldstein ( 6423622 ) on Wednesday April 06, 2022 @07:54PM (#62424038)

    ... trade in our secondary marketplace.

    Paramount/Recur are building a stock-market for collectibles they 'manufacture'. One can actually play with Star Wars dolls. Disney artwork can be used as digital wallpapers and avatars. Real corporate stocks represent a portion of the corporation's wealth. Paramount is 'selling' crap specifically so an idiot can resell it to a bigger idiot. The internet has proven that anything can be a collectible. This is a collectible that someone never owns because it doesn't have a physical presence in the way a CD or book or slice of toast does.

    While the promotion starts with the Star Trek franchise, the banner hints NFTs for Nickelodeon property such as Rugrats, are coming. Who is going to buy that? Children aren't allowed to shop online, so Paramount expects adults to give imaginary toys to children or buy imaginary reminders of their own childhood.

    The Bored Ape Yacht Club is making money, again proving anything can be a collectible, so a corporation with massive amounts of artwork, will obviously think they can do the same. Paramount will also own the marketplace, that might be a step too far.

  • NFTs are gross but it's even grosser seeing them taking advantage of something like Star Trek which has always, to me (not a die hard Trekkie but something of a fan), seemed to be basically a post-scarcity economic universe. Not in the same sense as The Culture.

  • Well (Score:2)

    by bn-7bc ( 909819 )
    As a star trak fan, I can't say rhat theses nfts thrill me, but then again Paramount is a business, and if people have disposable income why not they are hopefully adults so should be abke to spend it on what ever they want, and it's kind of Paeamount job to divert as much as this cashflow as possibke to them. While I think NFTs are a scam, I'm no expert and who am I to judge what represents valoe to someone else?
  • This dick pic is an NFT?
  • Just what can you do with a NFT ? What happens if you lose the link to it ?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

      Just what can you do with a NFT ? What happens if you lose the link to it ?

      I'm sure they'd send it back to you. You're the owner after all. It's a monument to someone's stupidity.

  • As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) You buy random packs in hopes of getting something good. Also like random packs of Pokemon cards most are likely junk, but you can buy premium packs of cards which have a higher chance of including a good card. Then if you do get a good card, you sell it to someone else, or hang it around your neck when you go to your next wrestling match. :P
  • I'm old enough to remember the Beanie Babies craze.

    Lot's of people bought and sold those. Some even made some significant money. Most didn't, though.

    It's entertainment. Think of it like gambling. Yeah, you are going to lose some money -- and a very few rare people will win -- but you are having fun.



    Also remember the Pet Rock craze but, there was no reseller market for those and, so, not quite the same thing :-)

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close