It has gradually become a market consensus that copycat products have no cows, or that copycat products only have calves.
Holding on to the big pie, or expecting the Ethereum ETF to hype for about 3 months is also the right choice for a large position. So if you can't find a strong copycat, should a small position be deployed in blockchain games, or even a large position? A few days ago, someone published a 10,000-word article about the blockchain game platform XAI. I don't pay attention to the public chain of games, but I still have to spend money, so I didn't read the original report. However, a group of people expressed the following opinions based on this report, which can be summarized as follows:
Currently, the playability of blockchain games is insufficient;
It is difficult to attract external players due to lack of playability;
If the playability is not enough and people are attracted by making money, why don’t they play DeFi?
Without external players, the game will not be attractive enough to WEB3 players and will be unsustainable.
The above views cannot be said to be wrong, and may even be very insightful about the current situation, but the logic may not be smooth, and may even be misleading.
Today I will respond to the above questions and analyze the positive flywheel logic of blockchain games in my opinion. In simple terms, it is about how to make participants make a lot of money!
1. Is the playability really insufficient?
real!
If it's not for gold, few people would play Diablo for 5 hours a day. If it's not for airdrops, games like Pirates of the Caribbean, NOT, and Lighthouse are also old-fashioned games. If it's not for making quick money, NYAN and bloodloop, the graphics are so bad that even dogs would hate them.
Of course, the poor playability is compared with traditional web2 games. After all, the traditional industry has a history of 40 years. It takes 3-5 years for large-scale games to develop and take into account all aspects of picture quality, game simulation parameters, and gameplay design to the player's sense of growth.
The WEB3 industry has only been around for a few years, and it’s already pretty good if you can spend 2 years on it. There’s naturally no comparison.
But compared to the last round of Gamefi's Farmer World, Axe, it is a qualitative leap.
If we assume that traditional high-quality games have a full score of 100, what level are the current WEB3 games at? In terms of classification.
As for FPS shooting games, they were not well-formed in the last round of blockchain games. The playability of this round of games may only be 50 points, while games like Fire can already reach 85 points.
PVE, player battle system, in the last round of chain game Ashe was basically a DEFI with 0 playability. Now Dark and Lumi can reach 70 points and 75 points respectively.
Most PVE games involve multi-level and multi-copy gameplay, and are compatible with PVP. The only difference is whether PVP can generate gold income, so the diversity of playability is still OK.
Card games are no different from traditional games in terms of gameplay, except for the need to balance the revenue mechanism between pay-to-win and earn-money, which has led to gameplay blockages.
2. Difficult to attract web2 players?
So is this playability enough to attract web2 players? If it is purely for consumption, I think it would be good to have 1-2 original WEB3 games in this round, but here is the key point, we attract web2 players, if the playability is not bad, to make some money, and then become web3 people, so as to break the circle and bring new traffic to web3. This is not a fantasy, it has been realized in several games, and there are many players we are familiar with, whose identities are still traditional game unions and e-sports teams.
Everyone is saying that new investors in this bull market are blocked from the ETF market, so we expect RWA and blockchain games to break through the circle. In terms of attracting WEB2 players who are eager to make money, the playability may just be "enough"!
In addition, Web2 games come in many categories, each with its own audience. Some people say, "I don't like Diablo, it's too hard-core." That's because you're not the audience for this type of game, but it doesn't mean that the game is not playable. This kind of voice can be excluded.
What's more, there are two more points.
First, many games are still in the testing phase, and the gameplay may be less than 40% unlocked. If all are unlocked, it will be no problem for many games to increase their playability by 50%.
Second, our team has discovered two original WEB3 games. If this type of gameplay can attract people, then sorry, you must come to WEB3. This attracts real consumers. One of the games took 8 years to develop, and we also focused on it.
In summary, if web3 games had not been developed three years ago, they should not be positioned to attract traditional game consumers in this bull market, but should be positioned to attract investment players, which would not only increase the size of their own game OGs, but also introduce fresh water to the cryptocurrency circle. When this point is realized by multiple high-quality games, it will not be too bad compared to the explosion of this round of chain games.
3. If the playability is not enough and people are attracted by making money, why don’t they play DeFi?
This statement makes no sense.
First of all, if this is no longer true, the playability explained above is just enough.
I would like to ask you, who is willing to constantly look for various LP mining pools, constantly generate trading pairs, and constantly look for arbitrage opportunities every day? Why are there so many robots in the DEFI field? In one word: boring!
To be honest with you, I feel annoyed every time I receive an airdrop. I try to receive it as soon as possible and sell it as soon as possible. Later, I hand over the account to the team and let them receive it for me.
Apart from games, what blockchain track can keep a person focused for 5 hours? Oh, by the way, I forgot that there are also friends who speculate in contracts. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Similarly, my porn team looks forward to having lunch and getting off work in the afternoon every day, and my gaming team looks forward to the server opening soon so they can finish their lunch and continue working hard.
Secondly, DEFI has already passed the high-yield stage. Only Uni's V3 mining pool can achieve a monthly return of about 20% for quantitative mining. Although chain games are not doing well in the current market, sometimes the returns can be doubled in a month, and sometimes it is common to get a 30% return in a month, so the returns seem to be incomparable.
In short, many people are still stuck in the stereotype of the last round of chain games, thinking that chain games are just DEFI wrapped in a bad game.
4. Since there are no external players, are all blockchain games short-lived?
This is the focus of this article, and we will also talk about how to make a lot of money in this industry and the principles of making a lot of money.
In this article, I will first analyze the life cycle of blockchain games.
First of all, games have a life cycle, and web2 games also have a life cycle. When a large number of players get tired of playing, Web3 games may be abandoned before they are tired of playing, or even more likely to collapse quickly because of the rapid expansion of economic benefits.
Secondly, we should not expect web3 games to last forever, survive a bull market, or even last for 6 months without crashing, and then have a second game take over. WEB2 games
Finally, without external players, blockchain games are short-lived. I have already overturned this logic before.
First, the current playability is just enough to attract external players who are motivated to make money, whether they are investors in other tracks of web3 or players in web2.
Second, the so-called "not daring to conduct public testing for half a year" and only being able to test for one or two months and then stop for one month, is it because they are afraid of a crash due to continuous testing?
Yes, there is this possibility, but the main reason is not that the internal economic model of the game does not work, but that it has not yet been listed on the major exchanges and has sufficient external liquidity, that is, the secondary market to take over.
Why didn’t they list on a major exchange? On the one hand, they need to produce data to be interested in the exchange. On the other hand, the market is not good now. If they list on a major exchange at this time, all the flywheels will not turn. In addition, many game developers have not yet reached an agreement with the major exchanges. In particular, Binance is too harsh in listing, and it is also a big market crasher.
The above is the complete analysis. As for why blockchain games will make a lot of money, and even create an effect similar to the last bull market where Filecoin mining machines raised hundreds of billions of RMB? And are Diablo, LUMI, SND, etc. likely to become gold digging shovels in blockchain games? Let’s talk about it next time.
