GameFi’s Momentum is Gradually Increasing, How Will It Explode Next


2022 is a crucial year for the development and expansion of Play-to Earn games. The brilliance of chain gaming has been created by the influx of capital and users. However, the crypto bear market has severely affected the price of GameFi, leading to a large loss in players. The encryption market has seen a steady decline, especially after the crashes of Terra, FTX and others. However, the momentum for blockchain games’ development has not slowed down, but it is still strong. DappRadar, a data platform that tracks blockchain trends, released its January 2023 report. According to the report data, “blockchain gaming” is still the fastest-growing part of the Web3 industry in January 2023. According to the report data, 839,436, the number of active independent wallets (dUAWs) reached 839.436, and the percentage of the entire industry has increased from 45.2% to 48% in December last year. So can GameFi be described as an opportunity to turn bears to bulls? How will GameFi’s future develop? Active capitalization is a way to encourage blockchain users in the crypto industry. The barriers to capital entry into the crypto industry are low at the moment. With just a few dollars you can interact with any dApp. However, the cost of participating in other activities of a community nature will rise. The more funds an activity requires, then the greater the “prestige” it will have. There are also gas fees, poorly optimized contracts and, in many cases, token swaps/locks. This assumes that you have money on-chain. In developing countries, $5 gas fees will likely be a substantial portion of your salary. There is a huge gaming community that is diverse and includes people from all walks of life, who can enjoy virtual worlds apart from their daily lives. It is a place where people can enjoy art, sports, or just socialize. The barrier to playing games is decreasing. All you need is a smartphone to enjoy a social experience and play games. The vast majority of people don’t have to pay anything for the software. The question for crypto game developers, and the various VCs funding them, is: Who exactly is your product catering? They don’t often buy $60-$80 launch-priced games and prefer to play free-to–play games. The average player does not have the technical knowledge or the patience to learn it. They just want to play their favorite game and connect with their friends via voicechat. They see monetization as the purchase of in-game assets. This allows them to buy skins, in-game items, or make their characters more powerful. To participate, the person must have money on the blockchain. This is not just money that is small, but much more than ordinary players. The person must be interested. Fourth, they must be interested in the game. However, there are very few of them. In crypto games, this is not true. Scarcity is used to increase the value of items, but it does not make them more valuable. It also degrades the experience for gamers by restricting their access to certain areas of the game. Rare items are not awarded to players who have put in a lot of effort and skill. They are instead permanently rewarded to the powerful and wealthy, which is even more rare in the crypto industry. This creates an imbalance between two major players in the crypto game, active players and crypto traders. Traders who make a living from the game extract value from players who aren’t interested in making a living. What happens to players who feel they’re losing at the end? They will give up. They play games for fun. Why would they continue playing if it isn’t fun? This happens when the only players left are the traders, who are playing the game for a living. When conditions are bad, all capital is taken from the traders, who then get out. The problem with crypto games that have rare items is making them available to only players with disposable income. For example, Metaverse Land is a virtual land represented as 1s and 0s on an immutable blockchain. How can it artificially control its scarcity limit? While we don’t advocate that land should be freely available, it is an attempt to rebuild a virtual economic system. However, allowing the cost to be determined by traders and institutions on a market free of charge makes your game unaccessible to all players. A monetary policy that includes inflation is necessary to ensure a balanced experience for all. It is not inflation from VC selling the vested token, but inflation of game design. The price is more or lesser in line with game developers’ intentions. This does not mean that land and items should have a fixed price. Real-world economies have tried price control and failed miserably. However, we believe that there needs to be some intervention so that prices do not go too high. It can be fun to try to recreate the real world through a videogame, but it is not fun when the simulation has negative effects on the virtual experience. Wood, water, and other items should be available to all players without having to “invest” a penny. While our world is finite, the world of video games is not — something that is scarce shouldn’t just be there to create value for VCs.Problems with in-game crypto assetsNow, let’s talk about the problem that plagues all crypto games: in-game assets.Hypothetically a scenario that is likely to happen if (by some miracle) crypto gaming suddenly becomes mainstream overnight.Suppose you have a son. You just bought your son a brand new gaming PC when he was 12. He also enjoyed DEFI GODS, a blockchain-based game. He has been playing with his friends for a few more days and he is happy that he doesn’t make fun of his default skin. Your son comes to you crying asking for $25 to purchase skin from someone on the marketplace. Because you are purchasing a token that is decentralized and issued by a game creator, you agree to pay bank fees, gas fees, LP fees after you swipe your credit card. Your child now has $25 worth of GOLD. He tried unsuccessfully for hours to purchase skins from the NFT marketplace in-game, but no luck. He asks for more money because the skin’s price has risen by 2x. You want to say no but it’s impossible. So you buy more gold, which is half the price of the dollar. Sellers ask for more so you give your kids more money. Even if the reserve value of the skin doubles you don’t need to worry about how the asset will perform against other assets tomorrow. Volatility in crypto assets is not a good choice for any economy, especially in a crypto world where short-term volatility can be a problem. A currency should not be used as an investment. Instead, it should be treated as a currency with stable prices. Since the 1990s, these prices have been the industry consensus. In 1990, AAA game development was technically more difficult than it is today. Today’s tools, along with the ease of accessing information and assets, make it much easier for video game developers to work. So why is it that games are more expensive? The answer lies in the project’s scope. Video games today are more vibrant, authentic, and larger than ever before. If the games are larger and take longer to develop, then why is AAA PS5 released at the same price as SNES games? Why don’t companies make them account for inflation over the past 30 years? But, it’s been more than three decades since the 90s. How can game developers keep profit margins when a game’s launch price is dependent on anachronistic pricing? They started monetizing in-game content such as microtransactions and DLC (downloadable material), but one failed miserably while the other was the top-selling game every year. Star Wars: Battlefront. Take FIFA as an example. This game relies on loot boxes for better players (which can dramatically change the outcome of matches) and has the worst skill grind. Yet, it still sells thousands of copies a year. Publisher EA hopes to replicate that formula with Star Wars, one of the most popular IPs in history. The short version is that Star Wars: Battlefront was released with its powerful guns and enhancements and characters. It was locked in for 700 hours of grind (or a $20 in-game microtransaction) later. This drove fans and players mad and caused a rift in the market. It works on FIFA. Why doesn’t it work for Star Wars: Battlefront. The answer is that FIFA has the largest player base in the world. People buy the latest consoles just to play FIFA every year. They don’t play any other games. These are the most casual gamers and they don’t know anything about falling for a scheme to capitalize on gambling. Even if you spend $200 on FIFA microtransactions you can’t either sell them on the secondary marketplace to get your (real), money back or transfer them to the next FIFA. An analogy is that gamblers gamble every single year. Star Wars caters to a different kind gamer. It caters to someone who is more passionate about gaming and can play more than one game per year. This player is outspoken about their dislike of unfairness. EA tried to explain to Reddit why Darth Vader must be paid more to play in a game they already own. They were rejected. The game was a failure and the reviews were terrible. Many microtransactions are cosmetic. Games that launch today with “predatory capitalization plans,” such as the Avengers, Gotham Knights, Overwatch 2 and Gotham Knights have all failed. As long as the microtransactions don’t impact balance, there’s nothing wrong in adding microtransactions. Cosmetics are vanity, and vanity is not necessarily a part of core game mechanics. There are many free-to-play games that rely solely on cosmetics to make ends work, such as Fortnite. Crypto developers, possibly influenced both by venture capital and their own greed adopt a hyper-capitalized crypto philosophy and make everything cost money so that they can fill them up with a Ponzi game wallet. You will find items locked up by whitelisted NFT miners, secondary NFTs on market rising to astronomic levels, and people making a lot of money playing video games. If you need more people every day to run your Token and game, then it will eventually collapse. This is what is known as the “Ponzi scheme” in traditional industries. Crypto games must be realistic in terms capitalization and pricing if they are to succeed. “Crypto” was created to give people more economic freedom. It should not be difficult to make a crypto game realistic in terms of pricing and capitalization. The developer can decide whether to release the game for $60-80, or free. However, they need to be aware of predatory capitalization mechanisms if they want to succeed. These are some possible solutions. However, it is important to remember that personal opinions are not always correct. I mean everyone, not just whales with millions of crypto assets. To ensure that all players have equal starting terms, regardless of their financial status. You must also remove technical barriers that are associated with custodial wallets. A player can log in with their wallet without any technical knowledge. It’s as easy as logging in with an email address or Google account. It should also be possible to log in with your own wallet if the game is free. Once the user is done, they can then run it on their own server. You can trade on a secondary market to make items on the blockchain. It is important to reduce friction in the technical aspects of blockchain-related content.
Balancing money and time investment is difficult. Balance of money and time investment is not an easy task. Game developers have been trying for years to achieve this goal. You shouldn’t tilt the scales towards the top 1% to extract as much value as possible. This will only lead to the exclusion of free players who are essentially the whales. A lot of wood is required if a player (or DAO), wants to build a huge structure. They sweep the floors of wood on the market instead of cutting it by hand, which makes the wood more valuable. Players see that wood is scarce and valuable, so they start cutting and selling wood, which is infinite after all – you could say all kinds of arbitrage are being created here.An example of an item as a legitimate investment/speculative vehicle: imagine the Charizard event is coming up, and smart players will stock up on wood, knowing that the Charizard will burn down the forest. The price of lumber will rise when Charizard starts to burn the forest, regardless of how long the developer believes the event should last. Prices will then return back to normal after the event is over. It’s almost like the real world except that there are no charizards or other events with our limited resources.
Currency should be used as a store and not as a vehicle for speculation. If you buy bread for $1 today there is a high chance that it will be $1 tomorrow. While the price of bread may fluctuate over time due to inflation and other factors, it is not always a benefit. Players must be confident that their assets will not drop to zero tomorrow. Assets in a game cannot have the same value as assets in the real world. Just making a packaged stablecoin Token and giving it another name is not only perfunctory and uncreative but also makes controlling the economy and issuing rewards (a fancy word for airdrops) It is more difficult for developers.Therefore, we are not suggesting hard, stablecoins nor volatile tokens. The Olympus Protocol effectively eliminates some APY in favour of range stability. OHM is liquid, decentralized, trades within a specific range, and OHM remains liquid. These things are possible, but developers have the ability to control the emission so developers can benefit and it is easier for them to control rewards as well as control supply. Quantitative easing is a great way to get your money back.
How do you generate income? You create a virtual economy that you can tax as much and issue as many assets you want before the revolution takes place. We suggest a buy and sell tax on certain items in NPC or P2P transactions. The exact amount depends on the item’s rarity and the item itself. This tax could be a source for revenue. The merchandise you create is another source of revenue. You can also create merchandise. You can offer paint to decorate your shop, give away skins and clothing to players, and many other things. You get taxed if the item is first sold from your store to the player. There will be players who want to join this new virtual economy. There is no friction for any player who wants to do this. People will pay below market rates to mint assets if it saves them the trouble of creating self-custodial wallets, then transferring them. In-game ads could also be a way to generate revenue. They can be a great source of income during the later stages of game development, provided they are not intrusive.
Conclusion: One of our minor complaints about crypto games is their repetitive nature and lack of originality. Everyone outside of crypto doesn’t want to play Ancient Crypto Gods Tomb of Satoshi Nakamoto, or Blockchain Games Legend of Vitalik. Please make sure you are presenting your game to the public in a professional manner. We encourage you to do your research before investing.Join us to keep track of news: NewsTags: BlockchainCrypto gamesDAOGameFiNFT


Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *