Topic: How do we want our p2e games? (Read 343 times)

I think one big reason for the failure of Play-to-earn platforms or the industry is that they are more focused on making a profit in the initial stage than providing a good platform for people to play the provided games and maybe make a few bucks while playing them. You can't ask your users to start paying you money right after they join the platform, at least allow them to play the games and see if they can actually get something out of it and then you can ask them to at least make some contribution and they might be like, "okay, since I'm also earning from it, I don't mind.".

When you ask players to pay hefty fees to start playing a game that they don't even know if it will give them anything in return or not, you are basically scaring them away. Give them some time, make your games engaging so that they like playing them and after some time, they will also be ready to pay you for that.

It is because development means change and trends are like that. They have something that doesn't exist before, hence they are on trend because people are still excited with them. You know us, we always love it when there is a new thing. It can because we also get bore easily of the same thing that we already had.

There are also people whom like that you said which are only going with the flow just because a new trend is on and they don't want to get left behind thinking people will mock them or what, even though the truth is they don't really have a legit interest with it.

Change can be avoided and not all stuffs are changing or evolving. It can be that they lack on resources to do it or they also think that it will only do more harm than good, so they just leave some things as is.

New trends can be profitable but as long as I'm already doing good on the old thing that I'm doing, I think I will only be contented with it. This is good because being greedy is not also a good thing. The more we want it, the more we also fail and suffer.

If we are poor at decision-making, especially in investing, then we don't need to force ourselves because it could only end in a tragic way. About gaming, old games are still great but new games are no doubt exciting. They might have downsides too though, so it only depends on our choice or preference if which games we like to play.

Not so long ago stumbled upon a cool platform Fairspin, there you can play and earn tokens, which can then staking under a large APY. Try it yourself, it works well ttps://fairspin.cc/SB2024_10Shill

That's interesting when you talk of the P2E evolution and virtual ownership's relevance. A huge flaw in the early games was that they did not provide much ownership to the players. The game-changer in AI data distribution would be the idea behind P2E-based concepts. Heroes of Mavia and Mocaverse are also good steps forward, providing more control and ownership to the players. It could be the giant leap that the industry needs.

It is too early to fully examine how AI and P2E interactions can affect the whole scheme. It can be argued that this collaboration would make gameplay more engaging and worthwhile for players. It's not just a matter of controlling what resources exist in a game. Rewards are bestowed on one who shares in-game content as well. A combination of virtual ownership layers with enhanced game mechanics would have a much bigger potential audience and new life be breathed into the P2E sector.

It will certainly be interesting to see how such developments play out in the future. And whether or not it achieves the many trends many have imagined for P2E, keeping an eye on how AI affects gameplay and ownership models is an important step!



Of course, designing a game that doesn't have loopholes to deter cheaters and abusers is a good thing. But as you point out, it's such a flawed P2E game design. It can be incredibly challenging. Even the best developers can't expect all the benefits from the start. And often players will discover bugs as the game develops. That's why continuous innovation and patches are needed to fix these problems.

The idea of ​​decentralization in P2E games is very interesting. This is because it gives players more control and creates social justice. However, going too fast on a budget can be risky if there are still glitches. A coordinated approach might be to create a strategy based on community feedback and safety considerations. To reduce landfill space while making society completely decentralized.

Your ride NFT idea sounds awesome and will likely attract an audience. But I understand that development is very expensive. Especially if you are Considering the game has no cheating and a solid economic structure, it's still an exciting idea that could take off if done right. Especially with the increasing importance of both P2E and NFTs!

Actually that sounds pretty easy to do really; look into "the upcoming" DMDv4's random numbers, supposedly cannot be front-run etc; for pretty graphics AI these days seems to do wonders so pretty NFTs should not be a problem, the images for https://gladiators.diamonds are supposedly just things some AI churned out for them.

-MarkM-

P2E doesn't need to have a centralized system to prevent abusers and cheaters, make a game that can't be cheated and don't have loopholes and you are not going to get cheaters and abusers to prevent. The reason why most non-crypto games have cheaters and abusers are because people make games with a mindset of playing the game whereas some players do not play the game, they try to find loopholes, so eventually when they find something, it gets patched.

So, if you want to make a p2e game, then make it so that it can't be abused and cheated, and make it decentralized after that. If there are problems, then a V2 will or could happen but try to make sure there aren't any mistakes. I always wanted to do a horse racing NFT game p2e, people race their horses against each other, awesome idea but so hard to do and very expensive to get made.

Never have a rule you cannot enforce.

Any sufficiently advanced bot is indistinguishable from whatever it is designed to be indistinguishable from.

Plus humans are anyway cybermathematicologically speaking bots - Organic Peripherals - nanotech/biotech naturally occurring bots, basically.

So bothering to try to rule out bots is a fool's errand, a waste of processor and development effort.

The question then becomes is there any game at all at which organically-implemented bots such as humans could potentially somehow outplay inorganically implemented bots?

Maybe team them up, organic peripherals aided by inorganic tools such as bots?


-MarkM-

There are real life games which has abusers and cheaters which gets banned, so centralized p2e games could work, meaning there will be a team who try to ban all the cheaters and try to cover the loopholes with a patch and keep trying to make the game as abuse free as possible. Doesn't mean there won't be people with 100 phones using a farming machine to make the most out of the game, you have to consider them as customers, but if they are using each phone legit way to make money, then they invested enough to deserve to make more money anyways.

As long as all players play by the same rules and nobody gets advantage by doing something against the games rules, then I am fine with a game and centralized game can make sure this could happen.

This is just one of the major disadvantage of it, on a daily basis it attract cheaters and people that uses bot to milk the system, but another disadvantage of it is like what happened in the case of hamster, where the developers cheated the players that was the main drivers of the project and give bigger rewards to people that wasn't deserving, so that line of actions has really drive a whole lot of people away from the game and more people will be leaving it completely because in as much as most of the players are cheat, the developers are also a cheat, and when the developers are not truthful with their words, it will definitely drive not only the cheaters out of the game, but it will definitely drive the genuine players out of the game entirely, because nothing is as painful as wasted effort.

 So I believe that Time is coming when they will begging people to be a partaker of the play too earn game, but they wouldn't because they will start seeing it as a waste of time and effort if it continues like this.

The potential at stake needs to be tangible by people, not only the heads of the project or the investors, you are right. Though, p2e sometimes (most of the time) just follows the meta of milking everything to the brim, and the product itself isn't that good.

I believe this is live .though the airdrop wasn't juicy cos I farmed it for over a year and got peanuts. But the bright side is that, carv has the highest apr on bitgets poolx. You could farm there..

with the presence of P2E to provide convenience to players with crypto currency, there are indeed many trends at the moment, it is necessary to look in that direction by developing the potential that we can to enter it, with the intelligence that we have, the most important thing is that we can understand all of this, that's the most important thing.

When you build something good, you do not have to be part of the trend, you can be what you are and as long as you have a good product then people will like it. Marketing matters too, because if you have a huge marketing budget then you are going to make a lot of money very quickly, but if you do not have a marketing budget then you need to have a superb product, so people who play it will market it for you.

Axie didn't spend as much money on marketing at first as many believe, they didn't spend a lot, and they just made people play a game they like and make money, which in return meant people market it for them and it grew. So I believe if you can make a game that everyone wants to play, then the rest will come naturally.

We have to selects the space that will favour us and not follow the public. The trends always involves multitudes, we just have to determined and follow price actions. Although it's difficult but it do comes with more opportunities.

The space is wide enough and we should be learning the basis of the market. P2E games are everywhere in crypto sector but not everyone values them because mostly are airdrops. Cryptocurrency have two phase, we have the free side where you ought not to spend zero amount to achieve your goal, making profits but this process do take time and one must have anticipated in different projects. We have the other one that's not free, it requires money to get more money. We just have to abide by principles and ensure to be following up back to back projects that has good prominent road maps.

When we do speak about development then new trends would really be having that non stop when it comes to changes. People will really be always go with the flow on whatever trend that we would really be able to face on. Changes and other possible progress is something that cant be avoided or something that inevitable. People or investors would really be be just go along with the tide and as long it would really be that beneficial
or something that could give out that profit or whatever advantage it would be then it is really just that depending on you on  the time or moment that you've seen  these things.
It will really be just that there are people who are really that wont really be able to do wise decisions on making out some investment.

Game developments in comparing into those previous years are really that having that significant huge changes or innovations. It is really that good to have those developments
because it will really be giving out that new user experience on which we didnt able to experience in the past. Future is really that something that we dont know.

The problem with P2E is that it never stays P2E. At some point when the game becomes way more popular than it was expected to become, the devs get greedy and turn the game into P2W with P2E being a smaller, insignificant part of it.

The gaming industry continues to progress with the presence of P2E, although it has started to decline again over time, but from what I see, attracting players in crypto may not be the place to gain their trust and that is something to think about, but not sure for the future depending on those who use it.

Quite a few active threads here lately have been about "airdrops"...

Players responding in such threads seem often to be annoyed at how "airdrops" have been going lately.

Maybe it is time to look for some positive contributions from the players...

How many of them, I wonder, have put much thought into how they would or could conduct an "airdrop"?

For example if you did land a big one, got a bit of a "warchest" with which to start launching "airdrops" yourself?

For example I have just been chatting with someone who is apparently the "number one employee" of one of the Galactic Milieu's "Galactic Repo Corps".

It has been his "job", apparently for some years now, initially to use the "cash crop" of the seven planets his Corp "repossessed" to pay back the original operation's "startup loans" and then, having some time ago now accomplished that task, to continue operating his Corp's planets, continuing to deliver their "cash crop" of DEUterium to a General Mining Corp depot and piling up the loot GMC pays for such cargo.

( See the "Deuterium price per thousand units" link on the Digitalis Assets statistics page. )

Lately he has had his Corp delivering 140 deathstars full of DEUterium, which is 140 times one million units per deathstar minus the small amount of DEUterium that class of ships (having gravitics) burns as fuel for the journey.

Thus, almost 20k GMC scrip per such delivery lately.

Normally what almost all large scale players have been doing is basically "saving up" hoping to accumulate enough loot to be able to pay off the startup loans of a Repo Corp that is despairing of ever being able to "catch up" to the interest rate on the "startup loan(s)" they took over from the original operation that they "repossessed".

The idea being to take over another Repo Corp basically, by buying the debt it isn't looking like it is going to able to pay off by itself.

This chap though was curious as to whether his Corp could benefit from bringing in more players, basically as some kind of employees of his Corp.

Ah, thought I, maybe all those "airdrop" critics on BitCoinTalk can come up with good ways a player with a warchest to work with could benefit other players while also, and thereby, benefiting his own Corp... ?

-MarkM-

very true, moreover these P2E game aren't sustainable to begin with, it's as if, the entire game is created and have EOL date.
basically once the game is dominated by farmers, that's exactly when the economy will start crumble and everything will go to near zero.
P2E was never a good concept to begin with, don't know why some people are so fixated with the idea of P2E, for me, just waste of time really.
but I guess for some people who have leisure free time and have nothing to do, it's still worth it, but I won't spend all my energy just for pennies.

I allow bots, not just because cybermathematicologically humans are bots - we call them Organic Peripherals - but also because play to earn with bots allows non-player-character (NPC) development to be encouraged/rewarded just like any other characters.

Servers can thus out-source artificial intelligence by having their (and other peoples' corporations' entities' etc) "non-player" antagonists, monsters, etc run via the same interfaces (APIs, Appliation Program Interfaces, in the CoffeeMUD case a human-readable API) that other characters use.

Making a game interesting and enjoyable and even profitable is a burden that must rest upon the players as well as developers.

If your characters are bigoted or prejudiced against bots they can in-game treat it like any other "organised crime" problem, cannot a bunch of sensible citizens come up with any way to combat such problems? Remember by allowing bots we equally allow concerned citizens to deploy their own national defense forces or whatever of bots of their own, its not like only the "criminal element" gets such tools...

-MarkM-