Author: CaptainZ Source: X, @hiCaptainZ
I’ve been researching the track of blockchain games for almost two years, almost seeing all the game projects on the market, from the initial excitement to the subsequent confusion, and then to the surprise of seeing full-chain games, full of ups and downs. Here, I try to summarize my thoughts on the future development of blockchain games, hoping to be helpful for VC investment and game builders.
Once regarded as the application end of the web3 industry, blockchain games carried the heavy responsibility of industry mass adoption. However, as everyone can see, almost all projects have faded away. Previously, ABCED’s Lao Bai (@Wuhuoqiu) mentioned that there are three directions for the future of blockchain games:
GameFi at the level of 3A (games with strong playability, blockchain is only used for token issuance)
GameFi at the level of casual games (games with relatively weak playability, blockchain is only used for token issuance)
Full-chain games (game logic written into smart contracts)
I deeply agree with this proposition, but I have a different view on the development results.
Let’s start with the first one. The initial craze for blockchain games began with projects like Farmer World and Spaceships, which were essentially virtual mining Ponzi schemes with no playability. However, it was believed that the lack of playability in the games led to various VC investments in traditional studios capable of producing high-quality games from 2020 to 2022. So, will reaching the level of 3A playability in games break through and become a successful blockchain game? Not necessarily.
First, the concept of “investment type users” and “product type users” needs to be introduced. Tracy (@CTracy0803) in the article “Web3 Marketing Transformation: Building a New Framework Centered on Investment-Type Users” first mentioned these two concepts:
Product type users: Refers to consumers who are concerned with the product’s usage experience and functionality, expecting satisfaction or convenience from the product.
Investment type users: Refers to a group of users who expect investment returns from the product. Their focus on the product lies not only in the usage experience, but also in the economic value and future development potential of the product.
Obviously, the typical users of Web3 are investment type users, or in other words, degens with a strong gambling mentality. You cannot expect such user groups to play a 3A game honestly, they don’t have the time or mood for it. If you set the play-to-earn yield too high, it will quickly collapse. The production cost of 3A games is quite high, so if it collapses too quickly, the cost cannot be recovered.
Putting 3A blockchain games into the Web3 circle is obviously not suitable, the logic does not hold, this is called PMF mismatch. What to do? Actually, you can go to the traditional game circle, just change the target customer group from Web3 to Web2. Isn’t it highly playable? Isn’t it AAA level? As long as the quality is excellent, the tens of billions of potential users in Web2 are the target, why focus on the hundreds of thousands of potential users in Web3? And even if you set a very low yield, players will still be eager to play and grateful.
Now, onto the second point, casual game level GameFi. Currently, there are two forms: those relying on social platforms and those not relying on social platforms. The former’s typical example is Hamster Kombat, while the latter’s example is The Beacon. Hamster Kombat is a click game based on the Telegram mini-program, where users simply open the game link in their Telegram app and continuously click on the Hamster avatar to earn points, which can later be exchanged for tokens (although tokens have not yet been issued). The game is extremely simple, but the number of participants is also extremely high, with the official announcement last week stating that the number of players has exceeded 150 million (although we know there are many bots, the remaining volume is still huge). The Beacon, on the other hand, is a dungeon adventure game incubated by TreasureDAO. The game’s playability has been improved, with players using the keyboard to control the character to evade and kill various monsters in the dungeon (a full-stack single-player game studio can create it in three months). Currently, the game only supports running on a computer browser and not on mobile. It is estimated that the cumulative number of players for Beacon is only a few hundred thousand.
Currently, both games have not yet issued tokens, and the reason people participate is clearly for some kind of “airdrop” expectation. Even the issuance of tokens for these two games will be their death knell. Although Beacon’s playability is higher than Hamster’s, Web3 users are primarily investment type users, and they even believe that Hamster’s mass adoption is far higher than Beacon’s, so shouldn’t its market value be higher (refer to NOTCOIN)? Therefore, I believe that blockchain games based on social platform casual games have better prospects for development because:
Social platforms are mobile apps, making it easier for users to participate using their phones.
Participating through a mobile app makes it easier to use fragmented idle time.
It is easier to conduct viral marketing and dissemination based on social media.
Users are more likely to retain their presence in their own hands (Telegram channels, Twitter accounts, YouTube channels, etc.).
Finally, let’s talk about full-chain games. Full-chain games write game logic into smart contracts to achieve decentralization and trustlessness, similar to DeFi (decentralized finance). It is still in the technical exploration stage, but the game engine and other infrastructure have begun to be improved, and several test mini-games have also appeared. It was popular for a while last year, but it has now fallen silent. I think the reason full-chain games have not taken off is simple: they lack speculation targets. Especially in the context of a bull market, market hotspots change quickly. If a track has no speculative targets, no money-making effect, retail investors’ attention will immediately be attracted to the most bullish track in the market. Of course, there is another reason: I tried several full-chain games and found that the gameplay is too complicated, making it difficult for ordinary users to get started. Always remember that “the typical users of Web3 are investment type users, such degens”. If there is no coin to speculate on and the gameplay is too complex, users will keep their distance. Currently, full-chain games urgently need a new token distribution (mining) model similar to “liquidity mining” and “rune forging”.
In summary, from the perspective of VC or blockchain game projects, my views are as follows:
1. If the technology is strong, consider a decentralized full-chain casual game based on a social platform. Why? Full-chain games decentralize the game, conforming to the industry’s “worldview correctness”, which is the most core narrative. Adding casual games on top of that, leveraging social platforms, makes it easy to obtain traffic. For example, create a blockchain version of “Hamster Kombat” and promote it as a decentralized game where all game actions are recorded on the chain. Isn’t that very sexy and full of buffs? This will immediately distance it from other projects in the TON ecosystem.
2. If the operational capability is strong, consider a centralized GameFi small game based on a social platform. TON is the first choice, as the market hotspot and the official support from Telegram are relatively strong. Although there are already dozens of small games, there is still room for optimization/innovation. Telegram’s traffic is quite poor, but there is a large volume, the data on the books will look good, and it will be convenient for future traffic transformation (telling stories to retail investors or VCs). Furthermore, consider other social platforms, such as Twitter. Didn’t Solana just announce that it can embed blinks technology into tweets? Can this be used in games? Can a game plugin based on Twitter be created? The key is not a specific platform, but to leverage existing social networks for viral marketing.
3. I do not recommend investing/making large 3A blockchain games targeting Web3 users, this is a pit. However, I am optimistic about large 3A blockchain games targeting Web2 users (a form of lowering the attack). I hope the above thoughts are helpful for VCs and builders.
