Web3 gaming as it now exists is flawed. Playing games for money has never been successful, and no amount of “X” can make up for its failure. Furthermore, conventional players are wary of nonfungible tokens (NFTs). Big game developers are dunking on pricey apes and are wary of the “lipstick” of NFTs as a means of monetization, in their opinion.
Successful Web3 games have yet to be seen. Additional developers tinkering with more models are required to get there. We need infrastructure that makes it simple for programmers to play around with different approaches to creating Web3 games. That’s why it’s so important to put money into improving the foundation rather than getting caught up in the hoopla surrounding speculation.
The foundation for online gaming on Web 4.0 can be divided into two parts: Both the infrastructure needed before a game is released and after it is released are referred to as “before” and “post” releases, respectively.
Web3 gaming requires technological infrastructure (blockchains, analytics, and toolings) as well as financial infrastructure (marketplaces, launchpads), as well as a third category that spans both types of infrastructure (metaverse platforms, guilds, etc.).
The makers of a video game can choose from a number of different methods and locations for minting the NFTs used in the game. ImmutableX and Klaytn are two examples of gaming-focused blockchains that provide both low gas fees and high throughput.
So that they can have the most freedom and scalability possible, several games are establishing their own blockchains. In addition to Axie Infinity’s Ronin sidechain, DeFi Kingdoms also features an Avalanche-based subnetwork known as DFK Chain. However, it’s not easy to get an independent chain up and running.
Some newer players, like Saga, are responding to this need by making it easier for programmers to release their own chains.
The early development of a Web3 game can be paid for by selling in-game tokens and game assets before the game is finished. We have seen the inflationary token economic paradigm succeed and fail.
As time goes on, only certain tokens and game assets, such as those with equity-like governance and ownership aspects, will be offered for sale. Buyers who are key actors or significant contributors, like media makers, infrastructure builders, and community organizers, will be given preference in project selection.
The infrastructure for Web3 gaming is in a dangerous “chicken-and-egg” situation because growth and engagement are still low because there aren’t enough interesting games.
However, if a handful of Web3 games reach critical mass, the platform will be able to bootstrap and collectively innovate faster thanks to the network effects from identity data.
In the end, metaverse platforms and guilds can help games with money, integrating systems, and making strategic alliances. They are in a good position to take on the role of the big publishers and distributors in traditional gaming, becoming the hubs for Web3 gaming. The main difference is that participants and innovators can have a say in how the system is run through decentralized autonomous groups and have a lot at stake in the system.
The most popular metaverse environments are the Sandbox and Decentraland. But both models require innovators to pay cash upfront to buy land, which leads to a lot of land being sold to speculators who don’t add anything to the ecosystem. Mona is different because it doesn’t charge producers anything at first and only does so when a spot is sold.
However, millions of gamers have joined Web3 gaming guilds like Yield Guild Games and Merit Circle to help support future games, most notably Axie Infinity.
Because of intensifying rivalry, the guilds are working hard to set themselves apart. Snack Club, for example, taps into the 300 million-strong Brazilian esports and gaming lifestyle community Loud. Jambo is making an all-in-one app for Africa that will let people talk on the phone, do decentralized banking, and have fun.
Games have always been an important part of our culture and a testing ground for new ideas. We can consider the Web3 games we’ve seen so far to be a part of that experimental phase. Undeniably, there are a plethora of potential problems to be aware of.
Problems with Web3 game economics arise from the widespread belief that players can and will make money by investing time and effort into these games. Economics doesn’t function that way. So, let’s separate the short-lived excitement of speculation from the more stable and long-lasting excitement of real adoption and retention.
