Is Web3 gaming a false proposition?

Is Web3 gaming a hoax?

Author: Sleep in the Rain

When chatting with a friend about Web3 games, my friend mentioned that Web3 games are a false proposition, including market-expected application directions such as asset on-chain rights confirmation and decentralization. My friend believes that the most important aspect of a game is that it is fun.

Regarding my friend’s point of view, I partially agree and partially disagree. I have not discussed my personal views on Web3 games in detail before, so I took this opportunity to chat more about it.

First, let’s talk about the initial question: How do Web3 game players become losers?

We can consider most current encrypted games and some DeFi protocols as a Ponzi game, attracting liquidity injection through token incentives. In order to prolong their lifespan, they create some application scenarios and destruction scenarios for the tokens or lock the tokens to slow down the release, but they still cannot solve the selling pressure brought by the token release, and ultimately they die.

Eventually, early participants and smart people make money and leave, and Web3 players who hope to play the game become losers.

Therefore, this also raises a question, what does P2E bring to Web3 games?

It brings economic rewards and brings huge attention to Web3 games. But P2E has also excessively financialized Web3 games, seemingly setting the market’s thinking pattern as X-to-Earn. But the fact proves that X-to-Earn will only bring Ponzi, even if people mix other elements such as sports in it. Essentially, X-to-Earn only provides people with a function to demand value from the entire economic system, and a vibrant economic system should be mutual, that is, people will actively exchange goods and services, provide value and obtain value.

So, is Web3 games a false proposition?

Actually, I don’t agree with this view. In my imagination, Web3 games may not be X-to-Earn, but Play-to-X.

Although P2E is not the way out for Web3 games, Web3 still has the opportunity to lead games to the next level, as shown in the figure below. The current game industry is mature enough, and what I expect is not the excessive financialization of the game economic system, but the introduction of a new game mechanism through Web3 technology to bring players a brand new experience. Maybe this is the future road of Web3 games.

For example, Web3 technology may change the existing business model of game companies, allowing them to earn revenue during the game production process without participating in Steam crowdfunding, and provide funding support for future game production. A more intelligent game economy also makes the game itself more open and transparent, without having to worry about unfair game environments caused by centralized black box operations of game publishers/developers. Another aspect is asset ownership and achievement credentials. Asset ownership is more general, although the lifespan of a game is limited, game publishers can extend some tokens representing game assets to other games, or create linkage, thus expanding games similar to the Marvel Universe. This also extends to another advantage represented by Web3 games: composability.

In addition to the above, if game companies need to introduce other types of participants, such as collectors and speculative players, they can introduce Web3 technology to moderately monetize game economy and fun.

These are all good aspects, aren’t they? My expectation for Web3 games has never been to subvert the mature game industry in the past. It only provides a new dimension for games to meet the needs of different players. When most players realize that the ownership of their virtual assets needs to be protected, more game companies will realize the importance of Web3 technology.

Finally, my friend provided many fun games when arguing his point, and he values playability. However, I personally think that although the annual output efficiency of Web2 games in the world is not low, truly fun games are rare, which does not mean that Web3 games cannot make fun games, but means that fun games are valuable in themselves. With more people beginning to pay attention to this field, and with the entry of truly powerful game studios, there will always be Web3 games with playability produced. I am more concerned about how they will take games to a higher dimension through Web3 technology.