a. I agree that making the game successful is not about skins itself. But the idea of a Skin becoming a User Generated Content that finds itself to a Social media Platform disconnected from the game, has so much social equity that it can lead to economic equity as well. And perhaps it may drive the community to feel more engaged with the game as well. I personally feel that this model has never been tried. Feel free to correct.
b. When I speak to gamers in LATAM & SEA, you will be surprised that many average-spending gamers think that if by spending 10-30 USD in games can enable them to possibly extract 30-70 USD, then they would gladly make that expense. And that is where 80% median spends are.
c. One of the things that I have learnt is - It is just harder to implement a model that enables everyone to execute commerce & track it as well. This is how google pay and apple work with games. If Unity had a playbook for P2P, then almost all games would support P2P model today and nor would google/apple complain.
d. While I am building for Mobile Games powered by blockchain, I often struggle to understand the role of decentralisation and where is it necessary. for instance - Minecraft has a Creator verification problem; there are so many duplicate skins. If they implemented private blockchain that proves who has created what skin when, I think that it is a form of decentralisation as well.
a. Why do you think CS-GO market & the game still exists despite a clampdown in 2015 for AML reasons. The skins market was implemented three years after the launch of the game.
b. Roblox Metaverse Fashion report clearly calls out how are youngsters spending inside the Game, and their audience may be the same 13 year olds.
c. Why do games need an open currency powered by Crypto, why can't trading itself be sufficient - Fifa/Albion online auction houses on mobile still exist.
a) CS:GO as a game has a loyal player base and competitive scene. Skins market still exists as players like to show off, and some might just trade. But I think my point is that if there was a game similar to CS:GO with tradable skins, it would be better, but would it be enough to completely take all existing CS players? Probably not
b) Good point, I think the younger demographic (< 18) do spend and will end up growing up with digital assets & trading as a norm. But for now, they do have far less disposable income (they won't be the ones dropping $1000s) and will have a much harder time accessing crypto because most on-ramp requires credit card / KYC.
c) I don't think games need crypto to offer trading - as you point out trading exists, as does illegal RMT. Crypto helps though as a technology because it is decentralised + secure, which private backends aren't.
I have been a Web3 game developer for one year. I agree with your idea.
But I would like to return to the basics.
Can blockchain really innovate gaming?
What blockchain revolutionized is the transparency and security of data. It led to the value of ownership and tradable. From an economic view, the value transactions of producers and consumers should be the most crucial.
Were trading and ownership impossible in Web2?
Is it's new agenda only for Web3?
What is valuable to transact in gaming?
Even before, the only thing worth paying for was other players' time or luck.
What aspect of blockchain could innovate this?
Ownership and tradable were also possible before. Blockchain can purify these values more by bearing more complex UX and individual responsibility in the name of Decentralization. Is this worth it for the general public?
a. I agree that making the game successful is not about skins itself. But the idea of a Skin becoming a User Generated Content that finds itself to a Social media Platform disconnected from the game, has so much social equity that it can lead to economic equity as well. And perhaps it may drive the community to feel more engaged with the game as well. I personally feel that this model has never been tried. Feel free to correct.
b. When I speak to gamers in LATAM & SEA, you will be surprised that many average-spending gamers think that if by spending 10-30 USD in games can enable them to possibly extract 30-70 USD, then they would gladly make that expense. And that is where 80% median spends are.
c. One of the things that I have learnt is - It is just harder to implement a model that enables everyone to execute commerce & track it as well. This is how google pay and apple work with games. If Unity had a playbook for P2P, then almost all games would support P2P model today and nor would google/apple complain.
d. While I am building for Mobile Games powered by blockchain, I often struggle to understand the role of decentralisation and where is it necessary. for instance - Minecraft has a Creator verification problem; there are so many duplicate skins. If they implemented private blockchain that proves who has created what skin when, I think that it is a form of decentralisation as well.
Thx for reading, appreciate it
Derek.
a. Why do you think CS-GO market & the game still exists despite a clampdown in 2015 for AML reasons. The skins market was implemented three years after the launch of the game.
b. Roblox Metaverse Fashion report clearly calls out how are youngsters spending inside the Game, and their audience may be the same 13 year olds.
c. Why do games need an open currency powered by Crypto, why can't trading itself be sufficient - Fifa/Albion online auction houses on mobile still exist.
Hey thanks for reading, sharing my thoughts
a) CS:GO as a game has a loyal player base and competitive scene. Skins market still exists as players like to show off, and some might just trade. But I think my point is that if there was a game similar to CS:GO with tradable skins, it would be better, but would it be enough to completely take all existing CS players? Probably not
b) Good point, I think the younger demographic (< 18) do spend and will end up growing up with digital assets & trading as a norm. But for now, they do have far less disposable income (they won't be the ones dropping $1000s) and will have a much harder time accessing crypto because most on-ramp requires credit card / KYC.
c) I don't think games need crypto to offer trading - as you point out trading exists, as does illegal RMT. Crypto helps though as a technology because it is decentralised + secure, which private backends aren't.
I have been a Web3 game developer for one year. I agree with your idea.
But I would like to return to the basics.
Can blockchain really innovate gaming?
What blockchain revolutionized is the transparency and security of data. It led to the value of ownership and tradable. From an economic view, the value transactions of producers and consumers should be the most crucial.
Were trading and ownership impossible in Web2?
Is it's new agenda only for Web3?
What is valuable to transact in gaming?
Even before, the only thing worth paying for was other players' time or luck.
What aspect of blockchain could innovate this?
Ownership and tradable were also possible before. Blockchain can purify these values more by bearing more complex UX and individual responsibility in the name of Decentralization. Is this worth it for the general public?
I'm still wondering about this.