Author: CaptainZ
Source: X, @hiCaptainZ
I’ve been diving into blockchain gaming for about two years now, exploring nearly every game project on the market. From initial excitement to subsequent confusion, and finally the astonishment of seeing full-chain games, it’s been a rollercoaster of experiences. Here, I attempt to summarize my thoughts on the future development of blockchain gaming, hoping to assist VC investors and game builders.
Initially positioned as the application end of the web3 industry, blockchain gaming carried the weight of mass adoption for the sector. However, as evident to all, almost every project was a flash in the pan. Previously, Lao Bai (@Wuhuoqiu) mentioned three directions for the future of blockchain gaming:
1. GameFi at AAA level (games with strong playability, blockchain used solely for token issuance)
2. GameFi at casual game level (games with weaker playability, blockchain used solely for token issuance)
3. Fully on-chain games (game logic written into smart contracts)
I find this categorization insightful and largely agreeable, but I hold different views on the outcomes of these directions.
Let’s start with the first one. The initial craze of blockchain gaming stemmed from projects like Farmer’s World and Spaceships, essentially virtual mining schemes resembling Ponzi financials. The lack of gameplay was criticized, prompting massive VC investments from 2020 to 2022 into traditional studios capable of producing high-quality games. However, even if a game reaches AAA-level playability, does that guarantee breaking through and becoming a successful blockchain game? Not necessarily.
Here, we need to introduce the concepts of “investment-oriented users” and “product-oriented users”. Tracy (@CTracy0803) in her article “Web3 Market Transformation: Building a New Framework Centered on Investment-Oriented Users” first highlighted these distinctions:
– Product-oriented users: Consumers who focus on the product’s usability and features, seeking satisfaction or convenience.
– Investment-oriented users: Users expecting investment returns from the product, focusing not only on user experience but also on economic value and future potential.
Clearly, typical users of Web3 are investment-oriented, akin to strong speculation tendencies. One cannot expect these users to engage sincerely with a AAA game; they lack the time and inclination. Setting high ‘play to earn’ yields could lead to quick collapses. Given the high production costs of AAA games, failing quickly means never recouping costs. It’s evident AAA blockchain games are mismatched for the Web3 community; the logic simply doesn’t align—this is a Product Market Fit (PMF) mismatch. What’s the solution? Focus efforts on traditional gaming communities, shift the customer base from Web3 to Web2. Isn’t strong playability the goal? Isn’t AAA quality the aim? With excellent quality, Web2’s billions of potential users are the target, not the hundreds of thousands in Web3. Even with a very low earnings rate, players will happily engage, grateful for the experience.
Next, let’s discuss the second direction, GameFi at casual game level. Currently, there are two forms: those dependent on social platforms and those independent. An example of the former is Hamster Kombat, while The Beacon exemplifies the latter. Hamster Kombat is a click game based on Telegram Mini, where users open a game link in the Telegram app (essentially an H5 page) and continuously click on Hamster icons to earn points that could later be converted to tokens (although tokens are yet to be issued). The game is exceedingly simple, yet it boasts an enormous player base, with official reports claiming over 150 million players (despite many being bots, the residual volume remains significant). On the other hand, The Beacon, a dungeon crawler incubated by TreasureDAO, offers improved gameplay where players control characters using a keyboard to evade and combat dungeon monsters (a full-stack single-player game studio can produce this in three months). Currently, the game only supports desktop browsers and estimates suggest The Beacon has accumulated only several hundred thousand players.
Neither game has issued tokens yet; participation clearly anticipates some form of airdrop, and one could argue that the token issuance of both games might mark their demise. Although The Beacon offers better playability than Hamster Kombat, Web3 users, predominantly investment-oriented, perceive Hamster Kombat’s reach in mass adoption to far exceed The Beacon’s. Shouldn’t its market value then be higher (considering NOTCOIN)? Therefore, I believe blockchain casual games reliant on social platforms have more promising futures. Why? Because:
– Social platforms are mobile apps, facilitating easier user engagement via smartphones.
– Mobile app participation taps into fragmented idle time.
– Viral marketing and propagation are more feasible leveraging social media.
– Users are more likely to retain on platforms like Telegram channels, Twitter accounts, YouTube channels, etc.
Lastly, let’s discuss fully on-chain games. These games encode game logic into smart contracts, achieving decentralization and trustlessness, akin to DeFi (decentralized finance). Currently in a phase of technical exploration, foundational infrastructures such as game engines are maturing, with several test games already available. While popular last year, interest has since waned. The primary reason for the tepid reception of fully on-chain games is straightforward: the lack of speculative targets. Especially in bullish market contexts, market foci shift swiftly; without profitable attractions, retail investors immediately turn to the most lucrative avenues. Another reason lies in the games themselves—I tried several fully on-chain games and found gameplay too complex, daunting for average users. Remember always that “typical users of Web3 are investment-oriented degen types”; lacking a speculative coin and featuring complex gameplay, users will only keep their distance. Presently, fully on-chain games urgently need a new token distribution (mining) model akin to “liquidity mining” and “rune inscription”.
In conclusion, from the perspective of VCs or blockchain game project developers, my views are as follows:
1. If technically robust, consider first developing decentralized casual games based on a social platform. Why? Fully on-chain games align with the industry’s ‘correct worldview’, being the core narrative. Adding casual gameplay, leveraging social platforms, easily secures traffic. For instance, create a blockchain version of “Hamster Kombat” and promote it as a decentralized game where all actions are blockchain-recorded—appealing and distinct within the TON ecosystem.
2. If operationally capable, consider first developing centralized GameFi mini-games based on a social platform. Preferably TON, supported by market hotspots and Telegram officials. While dozens of mini-games already exist, there’s ample room for optimization/innovation. Telegram’s traffic quality might be subpar, but its volume is substantial, promising strong metrics for future traffic transitions (appealing to retail or VC narratives). Additionally, consider other social platforms like Twitter; didn’t Solana recently announce ‘blinks’ technology for embedding in tweets? Can this be applied to gaming? Is a game plugin based on Twitter possible? Platform specifics matter less than leveraging existing social networks for viral marketing.
3. I don’t recommend investing in/developing large-scale AAA blockchain games for Web3 users—that’s a trap. However, I foresee potential in large-scale AAA blockchain games tailored for Web2 users (a tactical shift downward). These insights are intended to assist VCs and builders alike.
