> I would consider that it's less “vehement hatred” rather than “clear understanding of the limitations”.

Check pretty much any articles about NFTs on Kotaku, there's plenty of vehement hatred on there by both the writers and most of the commenters. Here on HN it's a bit more nuanced, sure.

> The problem here is that the person who owns the NFT doesn't own the rights to the assets.

Depends on the NFT project. But it doesn't grant copyright by default, correct.

"Indeed, it seems like the NFT space is bifurcating into two camps: projects where creators control the IP and Creative Commons projects, or CC0s, as folks are calling them...The big CC0 projects are CrypToadz, NounsDAO and Vine co-founder Dom Hoffman’s Blitmap. These projects are the most open, with no rights reserved to anyone. Bored Apes offers a more limited set of rights, only to the holder of the Ape, who can profit from the art and make derivatives."[1]

This isn't mentioned out of ignorance or possibly intentionally by most anti-NFT articles, including all of Kotaku's articles and from what I've heard (haven't sat down to watch it yet, but I intend to) the Line Goes Up documentary, so understandably most people not following these things just assume no one but the creator has the copyright, like with most other products. But the NFT space has evolved differently.

> This is like Gravatar except that it costs hundreds of dollars, and it actually doesn't give the companies a financial incentive to include support for it unless they start selling NFTs.

I already said why they might have a financial incentive and you're skipping over that again: marketing. Companies do all sorts of shit and spend tens of millions of dollars for the sake of marketing, and eventually (not yet, eventually) there could come a time where it makes sense from a marketing perspective, even if the company doesn't mint NFTs themselves.

I don't know when that will be the case, it could be 10-20 years out for all I know. And again I don't see there ever being the case where all games support all (or even any) of these projects, but some games supporting some projects I definitely see (and already see on a much smaller scale).

I would also agree that right now the starting price for most NFTs are ridiculous. There are cheap or free NFTs out there (I've gotten a couple to support some friends of mine for around $20-30. Considering I can easily spend that much on lunch, that's not super crazy to me), but they're unlikely to be projects that will get incorporated into these various things. Like Clone X might eventually be used in several games, and I could have gotten one at 2.5 ETH (almost $7.5k at the time, which is insane). And yet now, a month later, if I did happen to buy one then I could sell it for a minimum of 14 ETH or ~$43k, which is even more insane.

Almost all of that is speculation and that should calm down over the next 5-ish years once a lot of novelty wears off and as people get a better feel for what these can realistically offer. In the meantime there's definitely a greater fool effect going on, where people are buying expecting to sell to a greater fool at a higher price later.

Hopefully the projects that do become mainstream and integrated into all of these things end up with more reasonable price tags, at least for the common items (maybe some rares will be stupid expensive still). Considering way back in 2007 there's a World of Warcraft character that sold for $10,000[2], which is also something I would consider nuts, and farming WoW virtual gold to sell to people used to be a valid full-time profession for hundreds of thousands of people in some countries[3], I don't really forsee a future where there won't be any NFTs with crazy price tags to them.

[1]: https://thedefiant.io/bored-apes-yacht-club-cryptopunks-copy...

[2]: https://www.engadget.com/2007-09-17-wow-character-sells-for-...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_farming