With the popularity of blockchain games and the metaverse, how do internet game practitioners view them?
Just like in our reality, life is actually equivalent to an infinite game.Oral | Chen Hao, Gao Rui, Jeff
Organized by | Richard Lee
As NFT games and the "metaverse" ride the wave of popularity, do practitioners in the traditional gaming industry feel envious? How do they view the current wave of blockchain games and the "metaverse"? To address these questions, Chain Catcher recently interviewed two employees from major gaming companies and an internet gaming entrepreneur to hear their perspectives on NFTs and blockchain games.
From a professional standpoint, both employees from major gaming companies raised doubts about the playability of current blockchain games. At the same time, some interviewees acknowledged that NFTs might provide players with a more open gaming experience. All three interviewees also questioned the sustainability of "Play to Earn" as a business model for games, although one entrepreneur stated, "If viewed as an economic system, it might be feasible."
How are major gaming companies in China currently paying attention to and taking action regarding the hot concept of the "metaverse"? The interviewees provided some answers for readers to consider.
01
Jeff (CEO of a gaming startup)
Product Type: Virtual social mobile game
Crypto Exposure: Played blockchain games
On "Play to Earn": If viewed as a game, it will definitely collapse; if viewed as an economic system, it might be feasible
The concept of "play to earn" is actually similar to creating CryptoKitties—when the top players earn more and more, the supply-demand dynamic becomes increasingly skewed, but demand decreases, and the barriers to entry become higher. At a certain critical point, it is very likely to collapse, just like CryptoKitties did. Because the last player cannot pass it on.
However, the case of Axie Infinity gave me some new insights: one major difference from CryptoKitties is that its ecosystem has become very different. It includes not only gold farming but also various guild organizations and intermediaries facilitating information exchange, with participation from big players.
Someone in the industry told me, "Play to Earn is essentially gamifying many jobs and economic scenarios from real life."
So, if we view it as a "game" in terms of its revenue and future, it certainly has significant issues; it will inevitably lead to a game of hot potato, where the last player has no one to pass it to, causing the entire product to collapse. However, if we view it as an "economic society," then there will always be people working hard to earn this money, and others will buy various luxury goods, pursuing higher status, showing off, etc.
So if it is designed as an economic system, just wrapped in a layer of (game) skin, then it might work. But if it is treated merely as a game, wrapped in a layer of blockchain skin, I believe it definitely will not work. Because if games are done this way, the economic system will ultimately collapse.
The key to sustainability lies in the ecosystem and the infinity of gameplay
If this can be turned into an "infinite game"—endless, where you feel that more and more people are coming in, or its ecosystem and gameplay become richer, including public chains and even some DeFi elements, then it will not lead to cheating.
Just like in real life, life is essentially an infinite game, so most people are still reluctant to cheat openly. Therefore, I think it ultimately depends on how they build this ecosystem and product.
The value and assets within it certainly cannot be limited to game displays or battles; I believe it must have other attributes. For example, when you buy a car in real life, it is not just for show; it also serves a transportation function.
If you speculate on this bag or that car, driving a car worth 100,000 to a billion is possible, but it is definitely not sustainable, so it must provide utility. By providing utility, the drawbacks and negative characteristics of the ecosystem will be diluted.
When the economic system is sufficiently sound, you can have someone buy a bag for millions or a car for tens of millions, and irrational actions will be diluted to an acceptable level for everyone, like a wealthy person having tens of millions in transactions, turnover, and staking every day.
Believing "Play to Earn" is a paradigm shift in the gaming industry
I strongly agree that ("Play to Earn" is a paradigm shift in the gaming industry), but I am not that optimistic. Today, I believe in these matters in the crypto space, but I am not overly optimistic, including NFTs, GameFi, and Play to Earn.
The biggest innovation in blockchain in recent years is actually DEX, but you find that these innovations are still based on the financial sector and trading.
However, I believe that whether in the real world or the metaverse, to attract more users, you need to allow everyone to participate with relatively low barriers, spending only a small amount of time and money. In this world, actually 99% of people are not suitable for trading; most people are not suited for it. So if we can involve most people in building this new economy, web 3.0, and the concept of the metaverse, I think NFTs and GameFi, along with many other things, are very valuable. But currently, in the short term, I remain pessimistic, though I believe in the long term.
The company will definitely experiment in the blockchain gaming field, but not in the near future
I believe we will (experiment in the NFT and blockchain field), but the timing may not be that fast. In the foreseeable one or two years, it should not happen. I believe strongly, but I am not overly optimistic.
02
Gao Rui (Employee of a top three gaming company in China)
- Position: Technical
- Crypto Exposure: Follows blockchain but is skeptical about the value support of crypto
The premium of blockchain games lacks actual support, and the bubble is significant
I have not deeply explored some NFT games; based on my understanding, it is still a form of selling a unique token. It is currently hard to say how playable it (Axie Infinity) is, but at least its premium is very high. I find it hard to imagine that this is due to the quality of the game, the artistic investment, or the good entertainment experience it brings to players, which leads to this income. From my perspective, blockchain games still have a significant bubble.
I think my relatively pessimistic view on NFTs should be a concern for the mainstream group currently making games: first, policy; second, monotonous gameplay; third, the underlying (value) of NFTs lacks support.
Current blockchain games may not be called "games"
Games are an entertainment service industry, and they essentially need to provide some entertainment and service. If you play this game just to make money, then it may not be called a "game." You could even say these people are working for the game company.
Axie became popular, and I believe we will see countless games created based on this concept. You say your virtual products have value in your game, and he says his has value in his game; in the end, it just gets infinitely diluted.
Like traditional boosting services and scarce resource studios, they also evolve with the changes in games. For example, two years ago, boosting for LOL or Dota was the hottest, but in the past two years, it may have shifted to Honor of Kings, right?
Because it sells scarcity and uniqueness. But the concepts of scarcity and uniqueness, apart from NFTs, require more work, and the difficulty is no less than creating a traditional blockbuster mobile game.
Currently, the policy risks for attempting blockchain games in the domestic industry are high, especially for major companies
Not just recently; as far as I know, when CryptoKitties came out, many major companies wanted to create some blockchain trading or even NFT-based gameplay, and many major companies must have researched it. However, from then until now, the regulatory intensity from the state regarding blockchain-related industries has been consistent. I personally feel that the likelihood of major domestic companies investing is low unless the risks in this area decrease.
For overseas registered companies or teams with overseas study backgrounds, I think the likelihood of them doing this is quite high.
Currently, major domestic companies are more focused on technical reserves regarding the "metaverse"
The fundamental value of the "metaverse" is essentially related to the front-end experience that game developers can provide. Its core is still similar to traditional game planning and art, while AI, NFTs, blockchain, engines, cloud computing, and 5G are just components.
Currently, major companies are mostly laying the groundwork and making technical reserves. For example, some are working on cloud gaming, some on edge computing, and some are integrating operational resources to develop VR games. Although the trend is significant and everyone discusses it, I currently feel that no major company is willing to produce a complete product.
In the future, if some smaller companies or startups come up with a viable product, major companies may be more willing to use their reserved engines and previous experiences to replicate or optimize this model, achieving a technological and scale advantage, rather than actively creating these things themselves.
03
Chen Hao (Employee of a top five gaming company in China)
Position: Operations
Crypto Exposure: Has experience in cryptocurrency investment
Users fundamentally do not want to play that game; they fundamentally want to obtain that token
I learned about the concept of blockchain through the stock market, and later I gradually got into cryptocurrencies. After the development of blockchain, the concept of "blockchain games" emerged, and since I work in gaming, I have a general understanding of it.
The high income of Axie Infinity mainly comes from the appreciation of its corresponding virtual currency in the secondary market, rather than from the game itself.
At this stage, blockchain games are actually very simple; I would not play such games at all; they are too low-quality. Users fundamentally do not want to play that game; they fundamentally want to obtain that token. This game has formed a small ecosystem, and this token has gained recognition from everyone in that ecosystem, and the game is relatively interesting, so people can play in it.
Recognizing that blockchain can enhance social and openness in games
Players in the virtual world have three main needs: social interaction, openness, and gaming experience. Currently, in normal mobile games, Tencent's (players) can only play with Tencent users, and NetEase's (players) can only play with NetEase users. The limitations of servers are the same. Virtual world players place great importance on this aspect of (openness).
Currently, internal discussions in the company are focused on building the "metaverse": VR, AR, and cloud gaming
At our company level, we rarely talk about blockchain games; we are currently discussing more about cloud gaming and VR gaming.
We often talk about the metaverse, but it is still more of a conceptual thing. Because we believe that AR and VR must be involved to relate to the "metaverse."
Our company has been paying attention to AR and VR for a long time. Because we always believe that for the gaming industry to undergo a major disruption, there must be changes in smart devices and terminals, such as from computers to mobile phones, including the gaming consoles we used to play. Now that mobile phones are so advanced, we believe the next generation of terminals will be wearable smart devices like VR and AR, so we are still laying out in this area, exploring how to combine VR with gaming and offline scenarios.
- At the request of the interviewees, Chen Hao and Gao Rui are pseudonyms.
Worth a look: Coinbase insider trading suspicions
How the world's largest crypto fund a16z was formed?
Fortune cover story: DeFi is taking over Wall Street
SushiSwap token sale proposal raises community doubts, may become a classic case of DeFi governance
