Pixelmon, an NFT gaming project that sold $71.4 million worth of NFT tokens earlier this month, has been accused of taking its buyers by surprise. The project’s substandard art and use of development funds to purchase blue-chip NFTs sparked a backlash against Pixelmon creator Martin van Blerk. We have prepared the details for Kriptokoin.com readers.
All it takes for a ticket on the Pixelmon hype train…
“I have 3 Ethereums and a dream – where do I print?” Many people who bought Pixelmon on February 7 must have considered this when they handed over $9,000 worth of Ethereum to a team of developers led by an unproven, pseudonymous founder. Active on social media for just three months, the NFT token project promised a AAA open-world adventure game inspired by the low-resolution pixel art style like Minecraft and gameplay akin to the game’s immersive “catch-it-all” Pokemon experience.
Pixlemon team members have apparently “worked for the likes of Activision and Disney”, according to project founder Martin van Blerk, who currently posts online under the pseudonym “Syber”. While concrete details surrounding the game’s development were sparse, it apparently didn’t matter instead of what everyone thought the game could be. All it takes for a ticket on the NFT token hype train is the promise of something big, and van Blerk seemed to know this very well as he worked to promote Pixelmon back to the February mint. By the time Pixelmon NFTs are set to launch, the project’s Twitter page has garnered over 200,000 followers.
All Pixelmon NFTs were sold out within an hour of the mint’s release, and the vast majority of buyers are at the start of the Dutch auction, a testament to the project’s FOMO-inducing marketing efforts. 3 Ethereum, the price of which was knocked out. But Pixelmon has been able to hide its glaring red flags with hype for so long. Enthusiastics began to realize that Pixelmon might not be the kind of project they thought it was.
Aside from the fact that the Pixelmon name was taken from a long-running Minecraft mod, most of the project developers did not reveal their identities. Concerns about the Pixelmon roadmap started to surface later. NFT token prices slumped at around 1 Ethereum on the secondary market while holders await the unveiling of the art, which was originally scheduled for February 16.
After several delays, the world finally saw a Pixelmon NFT token last Friday, and to say its holders are disappointed might be the most understatement of the year. Instead of the vibrant, artfully crafted creatures featured in Pixelmon teasers on Twitter, they were greeted with repetitive, low-effort NFT tokens that looked nothing like the art on the project’s website.
Pixelmon #2799/ Source: Pixelmon Van Blerk on Twitter on December 23, “Pixelmon is the next blue chip. This is financial advice. Don’t do your own research,” he jokingly shared. For those who have watched the value of Pixelmon NFTs plummet by over 88% since then, van Blerk’s words can unfortunately be considered a new layer of sincerity.
What went wrong with NFT token project and Pixelmon crashed hard?
The biggest complaint of disgruntled Pixelmon holders is the art of the NFT collection. The difference between the promotional images of the project and what was actually delivered is staggering. NFTs are repetitive with no notable difference between most Pixelmons in the collection. Many also cite character designs and numerous rendering issues. Some NFTs show creatures in the wrong direction, partially buried in the ground, or even completely absent from the screenshot when the artwork is revealed. Meanwhile Pixelmon has since fixed the rendering issue.
Incorrectly displayed Pixelmon NFT (Source: zachxbt) Pixelmon founder Martin van Blerk acknowledged the Pixelmon description was ‘unacceptable’ and previewed how NFTs will look in-game ( after its final release) explained that it did not reflect it. However, the problems with Pixelmon art go far beyond its questionable quality. Following the disclosure, a group of Internet detectives discovered that most Pixelmon NFTs were based on unity art from pre-existing libraries. According to an NFT enthusiast who posted on Twitter under the name NFTherder, van Blerk purchased stock models from MeshTint Studio and converted them into voxel assets to achieve the uniform pixel art aesthetic.
Van Blerk, not content with just re-covering existing art, has recruited other artists through Upwork without saying that their art will be used in an NFT token project. Artist ‘Malbers Animations’ has been paid on Discord to create variations of 3D dragon models for use in the Pixelmon NFT collection. The artists admitted that they only finished the work the day before the Pixelmon art was revealed.
In response to criticism of Pixelmon’s art, van Blerk took to Twitter to alleviate the fear, uncertainty, and doubt surrounding the project and raised funds from the Pixelmon team’s sale of NFTs. He claimed from the very beginning that he planned to use it to create better models and characters. “They are not the models we intend to use in the real game,” van Blerk said. He also said that the art from Pixelmon NFTs was created before the project received additional funding. However, the fact that Malbers Animation agreed to finish some of the art for the NFTs the day before it was revealed casts doubt on van Blerk’s defense.
5081
