In rant #1, we considered why a hedge against government-issued currency makes sense. Although worthy and economically coherent (imho), it was nevertheless a little dull.
Games are inherently more fun. After all, fun is what they are designed to provide.
So what’s the point of financializing such experiences? Making games into economic instruments sucks all the fun out, they say.
What is the point of blockchain games, anyhow?
The defensive argument is that behind the scenes, games are already highly financialized experiences. It’s just that players don’t realize this because they don’t understand how games work, how they are marketed, and how all players’ activity is part of the underlining business model.
That stated, a fair counter to this argument is that because such financialization is hidden from players, it doesn’t impact their enjoyment in a way the more transparent nature of blockchain games seems to generate accusations of rapaciousness.
Generally, the more overt the business model, the more people complain.
(There is a related attitude, I think, in terms of a misunderstanding in western countries of how capitalism and market forces work, resulting in an increasing hankering for socialism; at least in its meme form.)
But let’s not be defensive. Let’s make the case for blockchain games, which is conceptually very simple — players enjoy games more when they have ownership of the in-game assets they currently think they have.
On one level then, blockchain is merely solving this misunderstanding; one that’s bedevilled the industry — especially MMORPGs — for decades as players have traded their items through myriad channels contrary to EULAs.
Allowing this to happen in a transparent and open way is not only more secure for traders but also generates high levels of liquidity, improving price discovery.
The poster child for this arguement is EVE Online — the most blockchain adjacent non-blockchain game possible — and one which is finally spawing its own official blockchain game, although this is officially described by developer CCP as a “blockchain game set within the EVE Online universe”.
Of course, other interesting corollaries flow from such an ownership model beyond item trading, notably encouraging a more co-operative relationship between players and developers, and wider economical opportunities, especially around user-generated content.
But the heart of the matter is how blockchain transfers power from developers to players.
It seems an antithetical thing to say, given the complaints about NFTs being a developer cash grab, but allowing players to own their assets means developers have to upend all their previous assumptions about control and actually build experiences in which players have true agency.
And I think that means more significant and — yes — more fun experiences too.
This Substack is sponsored by Hiro Capital: investing in the future of gaming
Calendar
Wreck League box rarity reveal — 25th August
Hunters On-Chain chest mint on Magic Eden — 28th August
Wreck League box open and game launch — 14th September]
Zeedz launches its public alpha — 5th October
Listen to all your podcasts in Fountain and get paid in Bitcoin
Totally agree with the premise. @Aqua.xyz, we see players buy a set of assets for a game like Gods Unchained, play them for a couple of months, and then sell them so they can afford to try a new strategy inside the game. They don't "make" money, but they are able to defray the costs of the next cards. This is classic game behavior, going back to the Gamestop glory days. It improves overall game engagement, and is very pro-player, so it would seem to be a winning strategy over time.
Absolutely. In this article I was trying not to get bogged down in any details. But I find it hard to think that the most successful games using blockchain will see incredible KPIs (compared to web2) when it comes to retention and monetization. Of course, most blockchain games won't see this at all or sufficient scale because they're not enjoyable, deep or strong enough wrt liveops.