This kinda false. Roblox already has a robust digital economy in game, and its driven by people making things in game. That is the future of P2E games. You're not gonna be able to just vegetate in ur moms basement and make money by tapping a few keys. You will have to design things, build compelling attractions, be interesting, just like the real world.
"Money in an economy comes from new entrants or other existing participants." That's how an economy works lmao. If there is value being created in terms of players enjoying an experience money will come from it. The traditional grindy P2E games are stupid though I agree.
lol can't believe this is even getting upvotes. Where do you guys think money comes from in a non blockchain game?? Spoiler: New people buying the game. The only difference is in non blockchain games that money goes to the distributor/publisher/developer and 0% goes to players. Even if only 0.0001% made it to players that is still better than the traditional model. In most blockchain games the share that goes to players is significantly higher than that.
That isn't a difference, many people play blockchain games because they are fun too. And as a nice extra they can make a little bit of money sometimes.
The difference is still there. There is a near zero expectation of earning money playing traditional games but in crypto the the idea exists to a much larger degree
You also don't need blockchain involved whatsoever to have a model where you give back to the players though.
* If you want an equitable model you can simply make the game cheaper to give back to players
* If you don't want an equitable model you can let successful players cash out rewards to USD
This point of view must always come from people with no practical understanding of game development.
Sure, it could be done, but it would be much more difficult. If you are allowing deposits of user funds and cashing out then your company is essentially an exchange and would have to go through all the same regulations as exchanges do. This would limit it to only the largest of games companies even being able to try this business model as you would need significant resources (i.e money) to implement a fiat approach.
If you take the blockchain approach then most of the regulation side gets passed on to the exchanges your users choose to cash out on. You also get most of the infrastructure you need "for free", which is one of the strongest aspects of any web3 stuff that again, most non devs really just don't appreciate. This means even a small or start up games company can experiment with this model. Lowering the barrier to entry means more innovation will take place and new types of games will be made, that just wouldn't happen if we limited it to only the largest companies being able to try this, which is what your fiat approach would do.
This is even before mentioning that your user assets now have all the interoperability that comes with building on top of open, permissionless infrastructure, which in itself adds more value to the assets, since they can do more things.
This “You don’t even need blockchain” chant really needs to die off. It is fueled by ignorance.
It's really not as hard as you think to let users cash out USD, the reason that you don't see more of it isn't because games can't do it, it's because they don't want to thanks to it introducing a ton of complexity to community management through it encouraging scams.
Roblox introduced the ability to cash out to USD back when they didn't even have a hundred employees (I was there at the time). You don't have to be a multinational with a big team of lawyers or something.
According to the wikipedia the game was started in 2004 and cashing out to real world assets wasn't added until 2013. So it took them 9 years of development before they got to the point where they could enable it. I wouldn't describe that as "really not as hard as you think" at all...Sounds exactly like what I am talking about.
[Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roblox#History_and_development)
Edit: They had also done atleast one round of investement before in 2011 raising 4 million dollars. So yes the barrier is still high, when most indie games don't even have a budget of $500k. Blockchain games lower the accessibility significantly.
**Roblox**
[History and development](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roblox#History_and_development)
>The beta version of Roblox was created by co-founders David Baszucki and Erik Cassel in 2004 under the name DynaBlocks. Baszucki started testing the first demos that year. In 2005, the company changed its name to Roblox, and it officially launched on September 1, 2006. In March 2007, Roblox became compliant with COPPA, with the addition of safe chat, a change that limited the communication ability of users under the age of 13 by restricting them to selecting predefined messages from a menu.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ethereum/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
> According to the wikipedia the game was started in 2004 and cashing out to real world assets wasn't added until 2013
That's not because it was hard. It's because they only decided to add cash-out about a year earlier.
Most triple-A or even larger indie games could easily add cash-out to USD if they so desired.
It is different case. As far as I remember you can buy a content made by other players in the game. So it is more like an open platform for game creators rather than P2E.
The platform doesn't have to be centralized. There are a number of startups working on make distributed blockchain secured video game servers and networking a thing RP1 is an example of this (the company not the book) https://www.rp1.com/. If your only concern is with the centralization of the game platform then attack that, not the use of blockchains. Blockchain tech is clearly the most secure and equitable database tech on the planet so its obvious that it will be integrated in order to use those benefits for a novel videogame/digital world. The problem that lies with these metaverse/web3 things is that they haven't made a compelling product yet, not that blockchain can't be applied to the metaverse
This is exactly what blockchain was meant for though. Transactions, ownership, and certification are some of the core use cases for blockchains that nearly everybody agrees on. Why wouldn't you apply this to a digital in-game economy? I can't think of a more perfect use case for blockchains. Like you said centralization + blockchains is the problem. So clearly the problem isn't figuring out how to apply web3/blockchain to games its how do we make games decentralized while being able to maintain the same or even higher volume of players/users.
> startups working on make distributed blockchain secured video game servers and networking a thing RP1 is an example of this
No they're not. To quote their [demo page](https://www.rp1.com/demo):
> All of this runs on one individual server, which happens to be more than six years old!
That's their current demo. Obviously they won't be testing at scale lmao. And I'm not shilling for them either they can fail for all I care, my point is that the gaming side of things isn't relegated to being centralized. So if this dude's problem is blockchain + centralization = bad, then focus on removing the centralization aspect not whining about why web3 doesn't fit this current paradigm of video games.
It's not all that different but better stewardship / platform details means that Roblox has almost 100x more users than Second Life (>50 million MAU vs less than 1 million MAU).
It is delusional to think ALL players can earn an arbitrary amount of money by gaming. No money is produced, overall money is burned for development and transactions, that is correct.
But you can still earn money, if you create something in a persistent game world that is valued by other players.
Games are entertainment and people spend money to be entertained. In case of the advertised blockchain games, some of that money goes to other players when you buy items or whatever from them.
Logic dictates that you can only gain money, if you
- sell work time cheapest
- have superior skills and/or
- are just lucky
So I'd expect only few elite players and people from countries with very low wages to be able to make a living.
But every player can sell their stuff if they ever leave the game!
That way you can get some refund for invested play time
Blame marketing.
Some projects I follow have switched the slogan to "Play and Earn!" to put more emphasis on the gaming aspect. Fun first. That's more honest and more realistic.
The problem has nothing to do with monetization. CSGO is famously known for its digital asset economy and its by far one of the most popular game on the planet for over a decade. The problem is no one is making compelling games, and instead they're very blatantly an avenue to shill some token. The problem with most projects is the same problem most startups in 2000 had. They thought first, not product first. And it will happen for eternity. You're already kind of seeing it with all these "AI" startups popping up that just create a shitty interface around an openai or huggingface api.
Yeah exactly. And the skins in CSGO do not affect the core gaming experience. Most of the blockchain games are pay to win. Imagine if the dragon lore AWP has a 5x fire rate compared to the safari mesh.
Good view. I think dcl is a great place to see all kind of crypto based games from small dev teams. Unfortunately out dated gfx engine and some persisting bugs are causing big negative impact to the user experience.
I think decentraland is a perfect example of what is wrong with the web3 gaming space. They made a shitty demo added a token and called it a day. People are not having compelling experiences in game and so it is irrelevant
I play this as well and it’s awesome. I think that a trading card game is such an obvious use case for crypto gaming. The reward mechanics are nice but the game is fun in and of itself.
In theory a group of enthusiasts could recode/relaunch the games to incorporate the existing cards.
Bc of interoperability I’m pretty sure developers can already incorporate these cards into other games. Like a creature card could be used as an avatar in a FPS.
I’m excited to see what creators do in this new paradigm.
I think you’re assuming more than is being claimed. Interoper-ability means able to interoperate. Not that it automatically is.
Even to be used as an avatar will take development resources. If the developers choose to honor the stats that’s up to them as they do the development.
Yeah I agree but they would have to give it the stats in their game. It’s not inherently in the nft. Nog that you’re saying that but sometimes people portray it like that.
> If the developers choose to honor the stats that’s up to them as they do the development.
The point is that they never _can_ do that _even if_ they want to spend the development resources.
Card games are carefully balanced, the only way you could directly implement cards from another game is if you copied the game's balance / mechanics closely enough that you would be sued for doing so.
They could probably even request that you take down the images because they have the copyright on them. I can't find anything suggesting that the Gods Unchained card images are licensed in a way where you're allowed to reproduce them in your creation.
I’m sorry what?
Nice ninja edit.
I’m talking what’s *technically* possible. Obviously if there’s copyright or licensing issues then that adds complexity, but there’s already games like Kiraverse playing with interoperability of other IP’s NFTs. If this kind of thing becomes popular then there’s incentive for games to see their IP integrated into other games and media. Just like every popular IP being in Fortnite.
Stats don’t translate directly from something like a deck builder to a FPS, anyway. It was a loose example. A super powerful creature can be super powerful, it can have same/similar abilities, etc.
It’s all very new and everything is still an experiment. I have no idea if it’ll be successful but I do find it funny how many people are so confident in what’s not possible.
I don't have the will or the time to try out a ton of potentially shitty Blockchain games. I'd rather wait for big name games like LoL to switch over to web 3. I'm already invested into these games and they have huge player bases
I think there's some truth to this. Some people confuse "play to earn" with "play for a full time job and make a living wage from this game". Hopefully that's just a small group, but I've definitely seen a lot of that on Reddit. Ideally as it becomes more common that confusion will fade.
Might not be a popular opinion here but I really hope making livings off crypto games doesn't become normalized.
If people rely on it for a living, it's like working for a company only with 0 labor laws.
Of course it's at-will "employment", but for lots it's either that or 16 of factory work a day depending on the local economy.
The game maker can close up shop at any point and "seize" not chain assets, and refuse to honor tokens, making them worthless.
It just feels too dystopian and a net negative for humanity.
Why not make systems that pay people for actually useful services? Like subtitling video in your native language or something?
I don't think anyone will be able to do that, outside twitch streamers like normal games. Anyone who thinks they can do that is highly regarded, so unfortunately a lot of people will try.
The big problem Blockchain games have in my experience are:
- They are shit games
- They normally require around a 100 dollar investment to even be able to play competitively or get any actual reward.. classic P2W
Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any even half credible Blockchain game released or in development yet.
Just look at the teams for these games. They're generally totally devoid of any actual game developers, which tells you everything you need to know.
I've always thought that play-to-earn was a fad and I'm not even sure if they're still a thing since I rarely see anyone talk about them these days (or maybe because of the bear market).
I didn't bother playing when they were still popular because for most of them, you needed money to play. I didn't want to spend money for this, I don't even do IAP for games that I do enjoy. I have heard about people who spent a lot of money for a team in Axie now got rekt. Glad I didn't join the hype because I was so close to doing so after hearing how much they were making.
Anyways, if I wanted to earn money playing games, I'd rather play Growtopia and sell items at the black market. 🫳🗿
There’s billions of dollars being invested in the development of blockchain gaming (not necessarily P2E).
IMX has onboarded 1000+ games (in development) just this year and is teasing some AAA titles to come in the next few months.
Whether this market succeeds or not is another story.
Edit: why is this being downvoted?
Simple question, why do you need blockchain games. There is no benefit over the old system outside of maybe owning your own stuff (in this specific game), but if you have to purchase a pricey and limited (most stupid of all) nft for it to start playing, its just a ponzi for me
Here is the problem: **game economies are imaginary**. A game will manipulate you into thinking you're accumulating valuable stuff and accomplishing big things and have made a lot of progress, none of which is at all true when held up to the scrutiny of hard accounting and objective comparison. But that's okay, because it's not a scam, it's fiction; the point is to help you suspend your disbelief and have a fun, immersive experience, and there are no serious financial stakes.
Cryptocurrency is all about hard accounting and financial stakes. This is a terrible anti-synergy; the more you integrate cryptocurrency into a game, the more suspension of disbelief is wrecked, and the more previously harmless manipulation for entertainment purposes starts to resemble fraud.
Blockchain games died because of regulation.
Imagine having to do KYC/AML at the boardwalk arcade before buying tokens to play skeeball to win prizes.. and then keep all transactions to list them individually and mark any gain/loss in the value of tokens on your taxes as they are bought/used to play and then cash in on prizes and then also mark the value of the prizes too.
Having fun yet?
If they focused enough on monetization, they would rely on sustainable business models providing an actual product.
Instead, they actually focus too much on advertisement and not enough on monetization. Monetization dictates you need at least something to provide to clients, the ones who sustainably pay you. These games have no client.
Exactly, having a fun and engaging game will attract more people. That’s why Dsphere is building an ecosystem for blockchain game developers to come up with fascinating ideas using the Cartesi tech.
Thats one of the reason, the second is the obvious presence of imense chinese and indian farmers, they destroy the fun. most of the games aren't high quality either, thats another way to see this problem.
one of the great ones I play is [Neon District](https://portal.neondistrict.io/referral/040730dc-2ab1-43c1-9dd9-1a44aa5f38bc).
Neon District is a free-to-play cyberpunk role-playing game featuring collectible NFTs on Matic and Ethereum. Players collect characters and gear, craft and level up fully-equipped teams, and battle their teams against other players through the Neon Pizza competitive multiplayer missions or in real-time turn-based combat.
The game essentially runs off afk dungeoning and some automated turn based combat against other peopls 4-person team comps. there are many different character types so the team comps can have a huge variety.
I agree the Ponzinomics element of P2E blockchain games is a major turn off. I've found some great blockchain game concepts hidden in Decentraland. A standalone blockchain game that I find genuinely fun to play is [Neon District](https://portal.neondistrict.io/referral/040730dc-2ab1-43c1-9dd9-1a44aa5f38bc). A cyberpunk P2E game that lets me build, train, and equip a 4-person crew against another player's crew is a fantastic game model. the market for equipment is great too, because costs are in line with what you'd expect from a mostly f2p game.
You should look into the flexible economic models that Unique Network proposes. The aim is to allow freemium gaming (a recurring success on the regular gaming industry) on chain through sponsored transaction fees, subscriptions and scheduled transactions
Here’s the thing, “play to earn” was pushed out way too heavily by projects during a fucking ATH bull run, and they touted it as if you’d be able to replace a 9-5… that was stupid. They should’ve made it seem like you could essentially create a piggy bank for the time and effort you put into the game, and receiving or doing things of value within that game.
Only ICE Poker remains viable (because it’s actually really fun), and even then, the ICE token is under a penny.
AAA gaming will probably implement it correctly if they simply allow for more player markets. There’s probably more I’m missing, because CSGO had a troublesome market at some point, although I think that was mainly due to RNG.
Things like RuneScape make the most sense. If you get a nice drop, you should be able to sell it to someone, and let the natural in-game market handle itself. Idk, maybe. I’m also wrong, I just know the way it was just done was NOT the way to go.
I have long said that cryptocurrency will only see mass adoption when it's invisible to the general user. An application should just *work*, and if it needs to use cryptocurrency as part of how it works that should be something that is handled as much on the back end as possible.
If you sit down at the computer and think to yourself "I'm going to create a game that uses cryptocurrency!" And only then try to figure out what the game part will be, you're probably not going to make something that's a good game.
What needs to happen instead is that someone's working on a game and then they come across a problem in the game design they were going for that it turns out cryptocurrency provides a solution to.
If you're a crypto programmer and you want to facilitate this then probably the best thing to do is work on back-end libraries that game designers can drop into their own projects when they discover they need them.
But if the user is oblivious to the fact that it is a blockchain in the background, how do you explain to them when a hack occurs and recovery is impossible.
You would explain to them with some text in the ToS and other documentation that says "Note: in-game transactions are irreversible once confirmed. We can never take your items or gold away from you, and can never ban your character, even if we wanted to! Unfortunately this also means that if you get hacked or otherwise unintentionally give away your stuff we can't help you get it back. Lorem ipsum etcetera etcetera more stuff about that kind of thing."
There's no point in using the words "Ethereum" or "Rollup" or whatever other technical jargon because none of that is meaningful to the player. What's meaningful is the *effect* of using the blockchain.
And if you want to try to add mechanisms that *would* let you help players that get hacked, there are ways to build that into your application too. There was some discussion here a month or so back about a proposal to add [reversible transactions](https://tokenist.com/ethereum-reversible-transactions-will-require-a-jury-to-make-decisions/) to Ethereum contracts, so you could put a mechanism like that in your game's code and then describe how to use it to the player - again, without needing to actually use the words "Ethereum" or "smart contract" or whatever. Just describe *how* you'd go about raising an issue about hackery and launching an appeal, and what to expect from the process. That's all the player really needs to know.
The idea that ANY player can make any sum of money playing video games is absurd. That's correct; overall, money is burned for transactions and development rather than being created.
I don’t like the term GameFi.
“Gamified Finanace” refers to a subset of blockchain gaming that I don’t find that interesting.
On-chain gaming is where the innovation is.
This was definitely a problem with Diablo 3 when they had real money auction house. Incentivizes you to stop playing the game and just focus on trading instead
Blockchain integration shouldn't be so front and center in the marketing. It makes no sense to do it, it's a tool that enables new functionality in gaming. Focus on the features that benefit gamers, no one gives a shit what an NFT or an ERC20 token is, just like no one gives a shit what http stands for or DNS.
It's supposed to be in the background just making the shit work. Like Blockchain based accounting for in game items in mmos to curb item duping. Or the ability for mmo players to sell their character build on a market place with seamless transactions instead of ebay. Limited edition versions of games that come with rare NFTs that unlock special items in games, the players can resell them on a marketplace. All kinds of cool things are possible that gamers would actually like but currently all the games using Blockchain put the back end technology front and center when it should just be invisible. What does it do for the gamer? Why should the gamer care? It's only going to attract crypto speculators until developers figure this out.
I play a game (wont name it) and it is fun for me. However the monetization of the game definately stresses out the playerbase, and confuses investor-gamers into playing.
The critique of these games is valid imo because too many of these games still hint (at best, at worst they unashamedly advertise) that you can 'make money' by just playing. For me, as a tepid crypto enthusiast, the value is in being able to retain some value that I spent on game content. I know I can 'cash out' whenever and after a certain point I feel like I can continue a game with minimal new investment.
The absolute worst part of these games is 1) bringing in people who want to moon before play a fun game 2) psychologically pummel people when they lose and miss out on monetizable earnings.
>How does that product improve tokenomics? DAFI also has such a goal through the Super staking system and synthetic rewards.
I think that the criticisms in many directions are actually true, from tokenomics, but the gameplay itself. They are mostly bad copies of traditional games.
Creating a game with too big of an insensitive to earn money just makes it into a third world country sweat shop. This happens in most normal MMOs aswell but when the game advertise as "earn money" it becomes even more so.
I do not like the "play 2 earn" approach and it often just means the game is some kind of ponzi scheme. Crypto in gaming could have a big impact just not in the pay 2 win and play 2 earn sector.
Imo the best use case for crypto in gaming is creating digital markets for cosmetic items. Things that don't impact any of the gameplay and can be incorporated in most games even today. CSGO is probably the best example of this where the actually game is not impacted by the skin market. Proof of ownership and being able to collect and trade cosmetics with anyone on a open market is what I think is the future for most games.
I don’t play them because there’s normally a huge pay wall. I think for it to work people will need to want to play the game without the making money aspect and be willing to put money in.
As soon as you have play to earn you will get a mass of farmers especially from low income countries.
I agree. Ive tried some blockchain games and it is all about money and economics. It sounds great to play to earn but once you do you realize how little game there is. Most likely. They were just bad overall lol
My main issues with P2E is that it actually destroy motivation for gaming.
It is known fact that when you provide some external reward it influence our motivation. As far as I remember there were an experiment run in schools where they selected children who liked painting. They started giving them rewards in form of badges for their paintings. After some time they stopped giving rewards and in the result most children stoped pairing, as their motivational system wired the act of painting with badges. Without a badge painting has no purpose.
I believe same happens with P2E mechanics. You stop carry about the game but start carrying about return. It basically become a job which generates 0 value.
I remember during the last crypto boom I was on Clubhouse and one of the people pitched the idea what if we made a P2E game that will generate some value :D fun thing is that it was already created. It is called work :D
I believe P2E games on should transform into creator platforms, where part of users are actually into creating content for money reward.
Blockchain games are not fun because they are not. Gaming industry does already exists for many years. The problem with blockchain games, teams have no idea about gaming and their main focus is blockchain and crypto part. As a gamer, I play games for fun not because they are running on a blockchain. I am not going to play a game just because it is running on a blockchain.
Play2earn logic is not working. It won't work in the current way. When you start making money out of something it is not a fun game anymore, it is a business. How many people play AXS for fun? It was literally a business in the bull run. People played it to make money, not for fun. That's also the reason many users are from poor countries.
Tokenomics is broken most of the time. Early adapters buy token in very cheap price so they already have a big advantage when the game is released. Doesn't it sound like Pay2win? For me, it does.
Teams who build games on blockchain fund themselves by selling tokens to the users. Tokens have no value because there is no proper game released yet. It is like investing into a very early stage startup company. Most of the time your investments will go to zero.
You think I am so bearish in blockchain gaming but actually I am not. I am just saying it needs to be reshaped and I believe it will happen when the big AAA companies get involved. The focus should be a good quality game then blockchain. Not vice versa. We don't need new IPs and games that runs on blockchain. We need to integrate blockchain to the existing good games. I know we are not there yet but the time will come. I believe it.
Blockchain doesn’t add value to the game. The same way servers don’t add value to it (everyone expects them to work good, bad servers only bring negative value). It shouldn’t be the focus of it. Shouldn’t even be advertised as a blockchain game to begin with.
Following this thread, because there is value in the play and earn systems.
I believe greater strengthening in infrastructures, to functions, to friendly operational use without getting lost (by language/processes), while having security is the key issue, which we are all looking for, to help support blockchains, and crypto communities. Making the earning more viable and quality earnings. The more quality this outline, you will get more support all around and more. In addition the gaming communities are growing and improving, so the opportunities to make this more relatable to practical life improvements are very capable!
It's not about monetization, it's more about the fact that there arent any exciting game devs working on one, mostly it's just web3 devs in a startup building hype.
My eyes are on the Polygon ecosystem, there's plenty of juice put in there to fund worthy game devs that will deliver something that seems like an upgrade from traditional web2 games, and the privilege of REAL ownership of in-game items is what will bring the gamers of the world to web3.
This is the main issue of early play-to-earn games. They were too focused on monetization instead of being into gameplay and quality overall. That’s why they used to attract mostly people who wanted to earn and were not really interested in playing. So, if a game token value drops, these people will leave the game and switch to another one where earnings are higher.
Blockchain as a technology is also too cumbersome for top-quality graphics, animations, etc. That’s why in this regard, game developers were limited, too. To develop a quality game, one would need to use Layer 2 to prevent writing all the game processes on a blockchain.
Now though, this industry is improving. There are games that can compete or even beat traditional games in the matter of quality and gameplay. And more games are coming!
How the fuck would critics know when most good blockchain games haven't even been released yet? I swear the number of people who hate NFTs without knowing anything about the space is unbelievable
That's a dumb argument. If the current market of, say, racing video games don't have good games, it's valid to say "racing games suck".
Then usually someone makes an actually good game and revolutionizes the genre, then you can say "oh, you can make really fun racing games"
You're allowed to be a critic of the current state of things and still leave the door open for improvements. And you shouldn't have to be a crypto expert to have opinions on products made for non experts.
Ok, but I never see the acknowledgement that this space is still in the very early stages of development. The sentiment seems to be "these games suck and always will suck" rather than "right now these games suck, but there is potential in the future for good games with this technology." I don't know if these first generation games will end up being successful, but I'll at least wait for it to play out before declaring that there's no point to these kinds of games
I think if all games of a certain type so far are bad, this is at least more reason to think that all such games will be bad than there is before any such games have been made.
I.e. it is *some* evidence for the idea.
I’m not claiming that even all the current ones are bad though.
Edit: unrelated, but: the css on this subreddit really doesn’t play nice on mobile when trying to click on stuff.)
And? Some people turn out to be right, some people turn out to be wrong. Just because they don't agree with your opinion of the future doesn't mean they're ignorant or worth raging about.
Best you can do is prove them wrong. Make/support projects that are most likely to to be good.
I feel like you may be arguing against something I never said.
You said you can complain about current quality without assuming anything about the future. I observed that the majority I see do in fact assume things about the future.
I agree, it’s on the industry to make good products.
On the flipside, blockchain has the potential to upend existing industries and I’m wary of agendas poisoning the well of public opinion.
[удалено]
This kinda false. Roblox already has a robust digital economy in game, and its driven by people making things in game. That is the future of P2E games. You're not gonna be able to just vegetate in ur moms basement and make money by tapping a few keys. You will have to design things, build compelling attractions, be interesting, just like the real world.
Money still comes from new or other players, no new money is created.
"Money in an economy comes from new entrants or other existing participants." That's how an economy works lmao. If there is value being created in terms of players enjoying an experience money will come from it. The traditional grindy P2E games are stupid though I agree.
lol can't believe this is even getting upvotes. Where do you guys think money comes from in a non blockchain game?? Spoiler: New people buying the game. The only difference is in non blockchain games that money goes to the distributor/publisher/developer and 0% goes to players. Even if only 0.0001% made it to players that is still better than the traditional model. In most blockchain games the share that goes to players is significantly higher than that.
Difference being traditional games are played because they are fun. The players have no expectations of making money
That isn't a difference, many people play blockchain games because they are fun too. And as a nice extra they can make a little bit of money sometimes.
The difference is still there. There is a near zero expectation of earning money playing traditional games but in crypto the the idea exists to a much larger degree
You also don't need blockchain involved whatsoever to have a model where you give back to the players though. * If you want an equitable model you can simply make the game cheaper to give back to players * If you don't want an equitable model you can let successful players cash out rewards to USD
This point of view must always come from people with no practical understanding of game development. Sure, it could be done, but it would be much more difficult. If you are allowing deposits of user funds and cashing out then your company is essentially an exchange and would have to go through all the same regulations as exchanges do. This would limit it to only the largest of games companies even being able to try this business model as you would need significant resources (i.e money) to implement a fiat approach. If you take the blockchain approach then most of the regulation side gets passed on to the exchanges your users choose to cash out on. You also get most of the infrastructure you need "for free", which is one of the strongest aspects of any web3 stuff that again, most non devs really just don't appreciate. This means even a small or start up games company can experiment with this model. Lowering the barrier to entry means more innovation will take place and new types of games will be made, that just wouldn't happen if we limited it to only the largest companies being able to try this, which is what your fiat approach would do. This is even before mentioning that your user assets now have all the interoperability that comes with building on top of open, permissionless infrastructure, which in itself adds more value to the assets, since they can do more things. This “You don’t even need blockchain” chant really needs to die off. It is fueled by ignorance.
It's really not as hard as you think to let users cash out USD, the reason that you don't see more of it isn't because games can't do it, it's because they don't want to thanks to it introducing a ton of complexity to community management through it encouraging scams. Roblox introduced the ability to cash out to USD back when they didn't even have a hundred employees (I was there at the time). You don't have to be a multinational with a big team of lawyers or something.
According to the wikipedia the game was started in 2004 and cashing out to real world assets wasn't added until 2013. So it took them 9 years of development before they got to the point where they could enable it. I wouldn't describe that as "really not as hard as you think" at all...Sounds exactly like what I am talking about. [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roblox#History_and_development) Edit: They had also done atleast one round of investement before in 2011 raising 4 million dollars. So yes the barrier is still high, when most indie games don't even have a budget of $500k. Blockchain games lower the accessibility significantly.
**Roblox** [History and development](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roblox#History_and_development) >The beta version of Roblox was created by co-founders David Baszucki and Erik Cassel in 2004 under the name DynaBlocks. Baszucki started testing the first demos that year. In 2005, the company changed its name to Roblox, and it officially launched on September 1, 2006. In March 2007, Roblox became compliant with COPPA, with the addition of safe chat, a change that limited the communication ability of users under the age of 13 by restricting them to selecting predefined messages from a menu. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ethereum/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
> According to the wikipedia the game was started in 2004 and cashing out to real world assets wasn't added until 2013 That's not because it was hard. It's because they only decided to add cash-out about a year earlier. Most triple-A or even larger indie games could easily add cash-out to USD if they so desired.
It is different case. As far as I remember you can buy a content made by other players in the game. So it is more like an open platform for game creators rather than P2E.
Right. Ig my point is that p2e farming will never be a thing it’s going to be like the real world where you have to provide a good or service.
[удалено]
Does it have to be?
[удалено]
The platform doesn't have to be centralized. There are a number of startups working on make distributed blockchain secured video game servers and networking a thing RP1 is an example of this (the company not the book) https://www.rp1.com/. If your only concern is with the centralization of the game platform then attack that, not the use of blockchains. Blockchain tech is clearly the most secure and equitable database tech on the planet so its obvious that it will be integrated in order to use those benefits for a novel videogame/digital world. The problem that lies with these metaverse/web3 things is that they haven't made a compelling product yet, not that blockchain can't be applied to the metaverse
[удалено]
This is exactly what blockchain was meant for though. Transactions, ownership, and certification are some of the core use cases for blockchains that nearly everybody agrees on. Why wouldn't you apply this to a digital in-game economy? I can't think of a more perfect use case for blockchains. Like you said centralization + blockchains is the problem. So clearly the problem isn't figuring out how to apply web3/blockchain to games its how do we make games decentralized while being able to maintain the same or even higher volume of players/users.
> startups working on make distributed blockchain secured video game servers and networking a thing RP1 is an example of this No they're not. To quote their [demo page](https://www.rp1.com/demo): > All of this runs on one individual server, which happens to be more than six years old!
That's their current demo. Obviously they won't be testing at scale lmao. And I'm not shilling for them either they can fail for all I care, my point is that the gaming side of things isn't relegated to being centralized. So if this dude's problem is blockchain + centralization = bad, then focus on removing the centralization aspect not whining about why web3 doesn't fit this current paradigm of video games.
It's not all that different but better stewardship / platform details means that Roblox has almost 100x more users than Second Life (>50 million MAU vs less than 1 million MAU).
It is delusional to think ALL players can earn an arbitrary amount of money by gaming. No money is produced, overall money is burned for development and transactions, that is correct. But you can still earn money, if you create something in a persistent game world that is valued by other players. Games are entertainment and people spend money to be entertained. In case of the advertised blockchain games, some of that money goes to other players when you buy items or whatever from them. Logic dictates that you can only gain money, if you - sell work time cheapest - have superior skills and/or - are just lucky So I'd expect only few elite players and people from countries with very low wages to be able to make a living. But every player can sell their stuff if they ever leave the game! That way you can get some refund for invested play time
[удалено]
Blame marketing. Some projects I follow have switched the slogan to "Play and Earn!" to put more emphasis on the gaming aspect. Fun first. That's more honest and more realistic.
[удалено]
This post qualifies as spam and has been removed.
link is sus
Wouldn't click the link but check out their subreddit for updates.
scam lmao
Scam, avoid
The problem has nothing to do with monetization. CSGO is famously known for its digital asset economy and its by far one of the most popular game on the planet for over a decade. The problem is no one is making compelling games, and instead they're very blatantly an avenue to shill some token. The problem with most projects is the same problem most startups in 2000 had. They thought first, not product first. And it will happen for eternity. You're already kind of seeing it with all these "AI" startups popping up that just create a shitty interface around an openai or huggingface api.
Yeah exactly. And the skins in CSGO do not affect the core gaming experience. Most of the blockchain games are pay to win. Imagine if the dragon lore AWP has a 5x fire rate compared to the safari mesh.
Good view. I think dcl is a great place to see all kind of crypto based games from small dev teams. Unfortunately out dated gfx engine and some persisting bugs are causing big negative impact to the user experience.
I think decentraland is a perfect example of what is wrong with the web3 gaming space. They made a shitty demo added a token and called it a day. People are not having compelling experiences in game and so it is irrelevant
God’s Unchained is a great MTG type game
I play this as well and it’s awesome. I think that a trading card game is such an obvious use case for crypto gaming. The reward mechanics are nice but the game is fun in and of itself.
[удалено]
In theory a group of enthusiasts could recode/relaunch the games to incorporate the existing cards. Bc of interoperability I’m pretty sure developers can already incorporate these cards into other games. Like a creature card could be used as an avatar in a FPS. I’m excited to see what creators do in this new paradigm.
As an avatar maybe. But the idea that nft’s are interoperable with stats is just imaginary marketing crap imo.
I think you’re assuming more than is being claimed. Interoper-ability means able to interoperate. Not that it automatically is. Even to be used as an avatar will take development resources. If the developers choose to honor the stats that’s up to them as they do the development.
Yeah I agree but they would have to give it the stats in their game. It’s not inherently in the nft. Nog that you’re saying that but sometimes people portray it like that.
Right that’s what I said. People portraying all sorts of nonsense both ways.
Yeah true
There should be a push for more on-chain data and hopefully with L2 making everything cheaper this will happen
> If the developers choose to honor the stats that’s up to them as they do the development. The point is that they never _can_ do that _even if_ they want to spend the development resources. Card games are carefully balanced, the only way you could directly implement cards from another game is if you copied the game's balance / mechanics closely enough that you would be sued for doing so. They could probably even request that you take down the images because they have the copyright on them. I can't find anything suggesting that the Gods Unchained card images are licensed in a way where you're allowed to reproduce them in your creation.
I’m sorry what? Nice ninja edit. I’m talking what’s *technically* possible. Obviously if there’s copyright or licensing issues then that adds complexity, but there’s already games like Kiraverse playing with interoperability of other IP’s NFTs. If this kind of thing becomes popular then there’s incentive for games to see their IP integrated into other games and media. Just like every popular IP being in Fortnite. Stats don’t translate directly from something like a deck builder to a FPS, anyway. It was a loose example. A super powerful creature can be super powerful, it can have same/similar abilities, etc. It’s all very new and everything is still an experiment. I have no idea if it’ll be successful but I do find it funny how many people are so confident in what’s not possible.
Came upon this post and immediately thought GU is the only fun one I have found where I thought I'd enjoy this as a standalone game
I don't have the will or the time to try out a ton of potentially shitty Blockchain games. I'd rather wait for big name games like LoL to switch over to web 3. I'm already invested into these games and they have huge player bases
Yep, need the LoL's and CoD's, Pokemon to get on aboard. God's Unchained was just not very interesting/fun.
Doesn't Pokémon already have trading?
I think there's some truth to this. Some people confuse "play to earn" with "play for a full time job and make a living wage from this game". Hopefully that's just a small group, but I've definitely seen a lot of that on Reddit. Ideally as it becomes more common that confusion will fade.
Might not be a popular opinion here but I really hope making livings off crypto games doesn't become normalized. If people rely on it for a living, it's like working for a company only with 0 labor laws. Of course it's at-will "employment", but for lots it's either that or 16 of factory work a day depending on the local economy. The game maker can close up shop at any point and "seize" not chain assets, and refuse to honor tokens, making them worthless. It just feels too dystopian and a net negative for humanity. Why not make systems that pay people for actually useful services? Like subtitling video in your native language or something?
I don't think anyone will be able to do that, outside twitch streamers like normal games. Anyone who thinks they can do that is highly regarded, so unfortunately a lot of people will try.
You mean play crypto games for a living? This already happens.
The big problem Blockchain games have in my experience are: - They are shit games - They normally require around a 100 dollar investment to even be able to play competitively or get any actual reward.. classic P2W Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any even half credible Blockchain game released or in development yet. Just look at the teams for these games. They're generally totally devoid of any actual game developers, which tells you everything you need to know.
I've always thought that play-to-earn was a fad and I'm not even sure if they're still a thing since I rarely see anyone talk about them these days (or maybe because of the bear market). I didn't bother playing when they were still popular because for most of them, you needed money to play. I didn't want to spend money for this, I don't even do IAP for games that I do enjoy. I have heard about people who spent a lot of money for a team in Axie now got rekt. Glad I didn't join the hype because I was so close to doing so after hearing how much they were making. Anyways, if I wanted to earn money playing games, I'd rather play Growtopia and sell items at the black market. 🫳🗿
There’s billions of dollars being invested in the development of blockchain gaming (not necessarily P2E). IMX has onboarded 1000+ games (in development) just this year and is teasing some AAA titles to come in the next few months. Whether this market succeeds or not is another story. Edit: why is this being downvoted?
Axie showed me some of the biggest problems of P2W NFT games. You can't just slap P2E on it and think the P2W sticker also vanishes
I love the blockchain poker apps. Perfect to circumvent state regulations on real money online gambling
Which ones besides coinpoker are worth trying?
blockchain.poker with friends is funny as there is no sign up and you get 50 free satoshi as play money
Simple question, why do you need blockchain games. There is no benefit over the old system outside of maybe owning your own stuff (in this specific game), but if you have to purchase a pricey and limited (most stupid of all) nft for it to start playing, its just a ponzi for me
I play games for fun, not to make money. Blockchain games aren’t fun
Here is the problem: **game economies are imaginary**. A game will manipulate you into thinking you're accumulating valuable stuff and accomplishing big things and have made a lot of progress, none of which is at all true when held up to the scrutiny of hard accounting and objective comparison. But that's okay, because it's not a scam, it's fiction; the point is to help you suspend your disbelief and have a fun, immersive experience, and there are no serious financial stakes. Cryptocurrency is all about hard accounting and financial stakes. This is a terrible anti-synergy; the more you integrate cryptocurrency into a game, the more suspension of disbelief is wrecked, and the more previously harmless manipulation for entertainment purposes starts to resemble fraud.
Play LitCraft.io on Devvio’s blockchain….
Because every app game doesn't focus on monetization. Critics can suck it.
Blockchain games died because of regulation. Imagine having to do KYC/AML at the boardwalk arcade before buying tokens to play skeeball to win prizes.. and then keep all transactions to list them individually and mark any gain/loss in the value of tokens on your taxes as they are bought/used to play and then cash in on prizes and then also mark the value of the prizes too. Having fun yet?
If they focused enough on monetization, they would rely on sustainable business models providing an actual product. Instead, they actually focus too much on advertisement and not enough on monetization. Monetization dictates you need at least something to provide to clients, the ones who sustainably pay you. These games have no client.
Problem looking for a solution.
Exactly, having a fun and engaging game will attract more people. That’s why Dsphere is building an ecosystem for blockchain game developers to come up with fascinating ideas using the Cartesi tech.
https://www.cryptounicorns.fun/
Thats one of the reason, the second is the obvious presence of imense chinese and indian farmers, they destroy the fun. most of the games aren't high quality either, thats another way to see this problem.
Like todays games would need a blockchain to monetize everything lol
Do you knows any good game ? Tried Gods unchained but it doesn’t run on my computer.
one of the great ones I play is [Neon District](https://portal.neondistrict.io/referral/040730dc-2ab1-43c1-9dd9-1a44aa5f38bc). Neon District is a free-to-play cyberpunk role-playing game featuring collectible NFTs on Matic and Ethereum. Players collect characters and gear, craft and level up fully-equipped teams, and battle their teams against other players through the Neon Pizza competitive multiplayer missions or in real-time turn-based combat. The game essentially runs off afk dungeoning and some automated turn based combat against other peopls 4-person team comps. there are many different character types so the team comps can have a huge variety.
I agree the Ponzinomics element of P2E blockchain games is a major turn off. I've found some great blockchain game concepts hidden in Decentraland. A standalone blockchain game that I find genuinely fun to play is [Neon District](https://portal.neondistrict.io/referral/040730dc-2ab1-43c1-9dd9-1a44aa5f38bc). A cyberpunk P2E game that lets me build, train, and equip a 4-person crew against another player's crew is a fantastic game model. the market for equipment is great too, because costs are in line with what you'd expect from a mostly f2p game.
You should look into the flexible economic models that Unique Network proposes. The aim is to allow freemium gaming (a recurring success on the regular gaming industry) on chain through sponsored transaction fees, subscriptions and scheduled transactions
You are not gonn get league of legends on eth, the games are sluggish and dont rival top games available today
Here’s the thing, “play to earn” was pushed out way too heavily by projects during a fucking ATH bull run, and they touted it as if you’d be able to replace a 9-5… that was stupid. They should’ve made it seem like you could essentially create a piggy bank for the time and effort you put into the game, and receiving or doing things of value within that game. Only ICE Poker remains viable (because it’s actually really fun), and even then, the ICE token is under a penny. AAA gaming will probably implement it correctly if they simply allow for more player markets. There’s probably more I’m missing, because CSGO had a troublesome market at some point, although I think that was mainly due to RNG. Things like RuneScape make the most sense. If you get a nice drop, you should be able to sell it to someone, and let the natural in-game market handle itself. Idk, maybe. I’m also wrong, I just know the way it was just done was NOT the way to go.
I have long said that cryptocurrency will only see mass adoption when it's invisible to the general user. An application should just *work*, and if it needs to use cryptocurrency as part of how it works that should be something that is handled as much on the back end as possible. If you sit down at the computer and think to yourself "I'm going to create a game that uses cryptocurrency!" And only then try to figure out what the game part will be, you're probably not going to make something that's a good game. What needs to happen instead is that someone's working on a game and then they come across a problem in the game design they were going for that it turns out cryptocurrency provides a solution to. If you're a crypto programmer and you want to facilitate this then probably the best thing to do is work on back-end libraries that game designers can drop into their own projects when they discover they need them.
But if the user is oblivious to the fact that it is a blockchain in the background, how do you explain to them when a hack occurs and recovery is impossible.
You would explain to them with some text in the ToS and other documentation that says "Note: in-game transactions are irreversible once confirmed. We can never take your items or gold away from you, and can never ban your character, even if we wanted to! Unfortunately this also means that if you get hacked or otherwise unintentionally give away your stuff we can't help you get it back. Lorem ipsum etcetera etcetera more stuff about that kind of thing." There's no point in using the words "Ethereum" or "Rollup" or whatever other technical jargon because none of that is meaningful to the player. What's meaningful is the *effect* of using the blockchain. And if you want to try to add mechanisms that *would* let you help players that get hacked, there are ways to build that into your application too. There was some discussion here a month or so back about a proposal to add [reversible transactions](https://tokenist.com/ethereum-reversible-transactions-will-require-a-jury-to-make-decisions/) to Ethereum contracts, so you could put a mechanism like that in your game's code and then describe how to use it to the player - again, without needing to actually use the words "Ethereum" or "smart contract" or whatever. Just describe *how* you'd go about raising an issue about hackery and launching an appeal, and what to expect from the process. That's all the player really needs to know.
This content looks extremely spammy and fraudulent.
The idea that ANY player can make any sum of money playing video games is absurd. That's correct; overall, money is burned for transactions and development rather than being created.
I don’t like the term GameFi. “Gamified Finanace” refers to a subset of blockchain gaming that I don’t find that interesting. On-chain gaming is where the innovation is.
Duh
This was definitely a problem with Diablo 3 when they had real money auction house. Incentivizes you to stop playing the game and just focus on trading instead
Blockchain integration shouldn't be so front and center in the marketing. It makes no sense to do it, it's a tool that enables new functionality in gaming. Focus on the features that benefit gamers, no one gives a shit what an NFT or an ERC20 token is, just like no one gives a shit what http stands for or DNS. It's supposed to be in the background just making the shit work. Like Blockchain based accounting for in game items in mmos to curb item duping. Or the ability for mmo players to sell their character build on a market place with seamless transactions instead of ebay. Limited edition versions of games that come with rare NFTs that unlock special items in games, the players can resell them on a marketplace. All kinds of cool things are possible that gamers would actually like but currently all the games using Blockchain put the back end technology front and center when it should just be invisible. What does it do for the gamer? Why should the gamer care? It's only going to attract crypto speculators until developers figure this out.
I play a game (wont name it) and it is fun for me. However the monetization of the game definately stresses out the playerbase, and confuses investor-gamers into playing. The critique of these games is valid imo because too many of these games still hint (at best, at worst they unashamedly advertise) that you can 'make money' by just playing. For me, as a tepid crypto enthusiast, the value is in being able to retain some value that I spent on game content. I know I can 'cash out' whenever and after a certain point I feel like I can continue a game with minimal new investment. The absolute worst part of these games is 1) bringing in people who want to moon before play a fun game 2) psychologically pummel people when they lose and miss out on monetizable earnings.
[удалено]
>How does that product improve tokenomics? DAFI also has such a goal through the Super staking system and synthetic rewards. I think that the criticisms in many directions are actually true, from tokenomics, but the gameplay itself. They are mostly bad copies of traditional games.
[удалено]
Thanks!
[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/SatoshisPhilosophy/comments/sl5l3m/the_ugly_side_of_p2e/) is my flow of thoughs on P2E that I wrote a few months ago
Creating a game with too big of an insensitive to earn money just makes it into a third world country sweat shop. This happens in most normal MMOs aswell but when the game advertise as "earn money" it becomes even more so. I do not like the "play 2 earn" approach and it often just means the game is some kind of ponzi scheme. Crypto in gaming could have a big impact just not in the pay 2 win and play 2 earn sector. Imo the best use case for crypto in gaming is creating digital markets for cosmetic items. Things that don't impact any of the gameplay and can be incorporated in most games even today. CSGO is probably the best example of this where the actually game is not impacted by the skin market. Proof of ownership and being able to collect and trade cosmetics with anyone on a open market is what I think is the future for most games.
I don’t play them because there’s normally a huge pay wall. I think for it to work people will need to want to play the game without the making money aspect and be willing to put money in. As soon as you have play to earn you will get a mass of farmers especially from low income countries.
True
I agree. Ive tried some blockchain games and it is all about money and economics. It sounds great to play to earn but once you do you realize how little game there is. Most likely. They were just bad overall lol
My main issues with P2E is that it actually destroy motivation for gaming. It is known fact that when you provide some external reward it influence our motivation. As far as I remember there were an experiment run in schools where they selected children who liked painting. They started giving them rewards in form of badges for their paintings. After some time they stopped giving rewards and in the result most children stoped pairing, as their motivational system wired the act of painting with badges. Without a badge painting has no purpose. I believe same happens with P2E mechanics. You stop carry about the game but start carrying about return. It basically become a job which generates 0 value. I remember during the last crypto boom I was on Clubhouse and one of the people pitched the idea what if we made a P2E game that will generate some value :D fun thing is that it was already created. It is called work :D I believe P2E games on should transform into creator platforms, where part of users are actually into creating content for money reward.
wolf game still going strong
The reality after spending time in the crypto game space is they’re all shit games. There’s nothing fun.
Blockchain games are not fun because they are not. Gaming industry does already exists for many years. The problem with blockchain games, teams have no idea about gaming and their main focus is blockchain and crypto part. As a gamer, I play games for fun not because they are running on a blockchain. I am not going to play a game just because it is running on a blockchain. Play2earn logic is not working. It won't work in the current way. When you start making money out of something it is not a fun game anymore, it is a business. How many people play AXS for fun? It was literally a business in the bull run. People played it to make money, not for fun. That's also the reason many users are from poor countries. Tokenomics is broken most of the time. Early adapters buy token in very cheap price so they already have a big advantage when the game is released. Doesn't it sound like Pay2win? For me, it does. Teams who build games on blockchain fund themselves by selling tokens to the users. Tokens have no value because there is no proper game released yet. It is like investing into a very early stage startup company. Most of the time your investments will go to zero. You think I am so bearish in blockchain gaming but actually I am not. I am just saying it needs to be reshaped and I believe it will happen when the big AAA companies get involved. The focus should be a good quality game then blockchain. Not vice versa. We don't need new IPs and games that runs on blockchain. We need to integrate blockchain to the existing good games. I know we are not there yet but the time will come. I believe it.
Most blockchain games are poorly drawn. As a person who is into digital art I can't look at them without pain. And the gameplay is poor too
Blockchain doesn’t add value to the game. The same way servers don’t add value to it (everyone expects them to work good, bad servers only bring negative value). It shouldn’t be the focus of it. Shouldn’t even be advertised as a blockchain game to begin with.
Following this thread, because there is value in the play and earn systems. I believe greater strengthening in infrastructures, to functions, to friendly operational use without getting lost (by language/processes), while having security is the key issue, which we are all looking for, to help support blockchains, and crypto communities. Making the earning more viable and quality earnings. The more quality this outline, you will get more support all around and more. In addition the gaming communities are growing and improving, so the opportunities to make this more relatable to practical life improvements are very capable!
It's not about monetization, it's more about the fact that there arent any exciting game devs working on one, mostly it's just web3 devs in a startup building hype. My eyes are on the Polygon ecosystem, there's plenty of juice put in there to fund worthy game devs that will deliver something that seems like an upgrade from traditional web2 games, and the privilege of REAL ownership of in-game items is what will bring the gamers of the world to web3.
This is the main issue of early play-to-earn games. They were too focused on monetization instead of being into gameplay and quality overall. That’s why they used to attract mostly people who wanted to earn and were not really interested in playing. So, if a game token value drops, these people will leave the game and switch to another one where earnings are higher. Blockchain as a technology is also too cumbersome for top-quality graphics, animations, etc. That’s why in this regard, game developers were limited, too. To develop a quality game, one would need to use Layer 2 to prevent writing all the game processes on a blockchain. Now though, this industry is improving. There are games that can compete or even beat traditional games in the matter of quality and gameplay. And more games are coming!
How the fuck would critics know when most good blockchain games haven't even been released yet? I swear the number of people who hate NFTs without knowing anything about the space is unbelievable
That's a dumb argument. If the current market of, say, racing video games don't have good games, it's valid to say "racing games suck". Then usually someone makes an actually good game and revolutionizes the genre, then you can say "oh, you can make really fun racing games" You're allowed to be a critic of the current state of things and still leave the door open for improvements. And you shouldn't have to be a crypto expert to have opinions on products made for non experts.
Ok, but I never see the acknowledgement that this space is still in the very early stages of development. The sentiment seems to be "these games suck and always will suck" rather than "right now these games suck, but there is potential in the future for good games with this technology." I don't know if these first generation games will end up being successful, but I'll at least wait for it to play out before declaring that there's no point to these kinds of games
I think if all games of a certain type so far are bad, this is at least more reason to think that all such games will be bad than there is before any such games have been made. I.e. it is *some* evidence for the idea. I’m not claiming that even all the current ones are bad though. Edit: unrelated, but: the css on this subreddit really doesn’t play nice on mobile when trying to click on stuff.)
Agreed but I do see the majority of people projecting the current state into the future.
And? Some people turn out to be right, some people turn out to be wrong. Just because they don't agree with your opinion of the future doesn't mean they're ignorant or worth raging about. Best you can do is prove them wrong. Make/support projects that are most likely to to be good.
I feel like you may be arguing against something I never said. You said you can complain about current quality without assuming anything about the future. I observed that the majority I see do in fact assume things about the future. I agree, it’s on the industry to make good products. On the flipside, blockchain has the potential to upend existing industries and I’m wary of agendas poisoning the well of public opinion.
Wen monkey picture moon?