Topic: The Impact of Gaming on the Real Economy (Read 454 times)
Good luck with your project!
Thank you very much for participating in the discussion of our economic model. This is an important milestone for us and we truly appreciate all your feedback, thoughts and reactions.
We realized that we could not fully convey the essence of our idea. That's why we decided to create an MVP that will include
- basic game mode (Farm Mode)
- one mini game
- the structure of smart contracts, which currently includes several game mechanics and our 1:1 ratio
- control token
And launch it on the testnet so that those interested can get acquainted with our concept directly
We will be back here and would love to hear feedback from the community!
* * *** ******* * *
** ** * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * *** * ***
We realized that we could not fully convey the essence of our idea. That's why we decided to create an MVP that will include
- basic game mode (Farm Mode)
- one mini game
- the structure of smart contracts, which currently includes several game mechanics and our 1:1 ratio
- control token
And launch it on the testnet so that those interested can get acquainted with our concept directly
We will be back here and would love to hear feedback from the community!
* * *** ******* * *
** ** * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * *** * ***
It looks like an excellent idea with a twist from the traditional gaming platforms offering a play-to-earn methodology. I hope you have a good range of gaming catalogs to entertain the users. Since most of the users have already discussed in-depth knowledge about 1:1 ratio pros and cons, I would like to refer to another marketing gimmick that you guys must follow. Most of the P2E start with something similar, however, after the specific period is passed on they fail to achieve actual earning ratios for the users. The revenue can go down dramatically if they start feeling they are not earning enough in-game currency OR the conversion rate is too low for the time spent on any games.
I have seen a few games where they offer real rakeback on in-game assets. For example, selling rarely-found swords or maybe a modern-day car, etc. (Just an example) for the in-game currency. So this keeps users engaged with games and all of them try to hunt down such rare items with increased levels of game difficulty. I am just giving out review as a gamer who would want such feature.
I have seen a few games where they offer real rakeback on in-game assets. For example, selling rarely-found swords or maybe a modern-day car, etc. (Just an example) for the in-game currency. So this keeps users engaged with games and all of them try to hunt down such rare items with increased levels of game difficulty. I am just giving out review as a gamer who would want such feature.
Thanks for your feedback! What you are suggesting is a good idea. Great idea! And this is how we see it. It's not exactly what you're talking about, but it's very similar. In any case, the result for the player is the same
Our “liquidity pool” (1:1 ratio) ensures the growth of one economy at the expense of the depreciation of another. And vice versa. While the value of in-game assets remains unchanged in the in-game economy (something like the absence of inflation and deflation). So you can, by timing the moment (or creating this moment yourself), acquire rare and expensive in-game assets for cheap
This is one of our many financial plots embedded in the financial matrix of the project
It looks like an excellent idea with a twist from the traditional gaming platforms offering a play-to-earn methodology. I hope you have a good range of gaming catalogs to entertain the users. Since most of the users have already discussed in-depth knowledge about 1:1 ratio pros and cons, I would like to refer to another marketing gimmick that you guys must follow. Most of the P2E start with something similar, however, after the specific period is passed on they fail to achieve actual earning ratios for the users. The revenue can go down dramatically if they start feeling they are not earning enough in-game currency OR the conversion rate is too low for the time spent on any games.
I have seen a few games where they offer real rakeback on in-game assets. For example, selling rarely-found swords or maybe a modern-day car, etc. (Just an example) for the in-game currency. So this keeps users engaged with games and all of them try to hunt down such rare items with increased levels of game difficulty. I am just giving out review as a gamer who would want such feature.
I have seen a few games where they offer real rakeback on in-game assets. For example, selling rarely-found swords or maybe a modern-day car, etc. (Just an example) for the in-game currency. So this keeps users engaged with games and all of them try to hunt down such rare items with increased levels of game difficulty. I am just giving out review as a gamer who would want such feature.
After the huge decrease of value most of the NFT ecosystem suffered I believe it will take literal years before the mainstream public could be willing to give it a try, a lot of people probably lost a lot of money buying "land" and "properties" in those metaverses and games.
It was the crypto whales who were heavily investing in expensive NFTs, not the people outside of crypto most of the time, and these whales could easily sustain huge losses from NFTs. For them it was just entertainment and a gamble to get even more rich, which some did by dumping their NFTs at the top of the bubble.
The general public was never interested in them, gaming communities were very vocal that they will not tolerate NFTs in the games that they play, so large gaming studios quickly dropped their plans to make quick money on the hype, realizing that such integration would only backfire.
You are mostly right. Thought there was an aspect about the NFT bubble which you did not mention: YouTubers and Influencers. Clearly traditional videogame companies had to backpedal because of the reaction of the gaming community, however, there were very big influencers which came up with their own NFT projects and they tried to sell them to their own followers and audience, for them to make a profit out of it.
One if the most notorious cases in the Influencer drama landscape is the alledged scam pulled off by Logan Paul and some NTF shit-token he wanted people to buy. Like him, there were dozens who tried the same, even in this Spanish speaking community.
Obviously, those followers never were into Cryptocurrency or token but a good percentage of them got convinced to buy in...
What if we go the opposite way? Let it not be the game (or its developers or owners) who offer the gaming community NFTs (and yes, we agree, no one in this case will protect the gaming community from cloning). And let the gaming community decide when their asset (unique skin and skill) will be converted into NFT. Additionally motivating them to do this by increasing the opportunity in the game for their in-game asset?
This way the community will not receive stupid skillless shit JPEG images, but a consciously formed investment
This way the community will not receive stupid skillless shit JPEG images, but a consciously formed investment
That's a better approach than most NFTs for sure, but the buyer of the NFT still has to trust the game maker themselves.
In other words, imagine I pay $500 for a super-duper magic sword, and then... the game makes 50,000 more of these swords just like mine and my investment is worthless.
Any NFT is basically a contract, and contracts always have "fine print" which end-users never read and companies exploit. That's why NFTs have such a bad reputation.
When you are buying an NFT, you are basically buying a legal battle, and those aren't very popular
.Take a look at what we did with the Haypenny Promise to try to mitigate this problem with digital currency. The key here is that every single asset is treated exactly the same. And Haypenny's contract is very simple, very hard to game, and has a company (Haypenny) with a vested interest in making sure nobody screws over users.
Using raw NFTs means it's still the "wild west" and people can get ripped off really easily.
After the huge decrease of value most of the NFT ecosystem suffered I believe it will take literal years before the mainstream public could be willing to give it a try, a lot of people probably lost a lot of money buying "land" and "properties" in those metaverses and games.
It was the crypto whales who were heavily investing in expensive NFTs, not the people outside of crypto most of the time, and these whales could easily sustain huge losses from NFTs. For them it was just entertainment and a gamble to get even more rich, which some did by dumping their NFTs at the top of the bubble.
The general public was never interested in them, gaming communities were very vocal that they will not tolerate NFTs in the games that they play, so large gaming studios quickly dropped their plans to make quick money on the hype, realizing that such integration would only backfire.
Therefore, we need a different approach to organizing the interaction between the game economy and the real one. Level the chances of the whales with their huge capitals, take care of creating opportunities to play on equal terms with ordinary guys and do not forget about the pleasure of the process
The problem with NFTs is that every one of them has a different contract, so investors never know what they are getting. If I buy an NFT of some digital asset, how do I know the game won't make one million more just like it and make my investment worthless? Even if the contract says you can't do that, there are loopholes in contracts that can be exploited, or maybe the game company will cheat in some other way.
The solution is a system where every single token is treated the same way. That way people can compare the currency in one game to the currency in another game directly.
What if we go the opposite way? Let it not be the game (or its developers or owners) who offer the gaming community NFTs (and yes, we agree, no one in this case will protect the gaming community from cloning). And let the gaming community decide when their asset (unique skin and skill) will be converted into NFT. Additionally motivating them to do this by increasing the opportunity in the game for their in-game asset?
This way the community will not receive stupid skillless shit JPEG images, but a consciously formed investment
Until now, I have not seen a role for cryptocurrencies. From what I understand, the game will accept customers’ money in cryptocurrencies and they can replenish the balance. Then all that will happen is a change in the databases according to the player’s activity, and they are more like gems or currencies found in most currencies, but the only difference is that these gems now It has a value and can be withdrawn, and after the player finishes playing, he will withdraw to his cryptocurrency address. Is this true?
There is already. What about those gaming cryptos? And play to earn games here in cryptos? But, what you said is only light and it already happened before, using a fiat and other similar payment methods. Maybe there is a reason on why they can't display the same cryptos that we have deposited? But anyways, the long wait is finally over because like I said earlier, there is already play-to-earn games that can have this function and many more.However, both of them still has the ability to withdraw crypto from the wallet of our choice. The impact of gaming in the real economy can mostly be positive. As we all know their growth through the years. There is only people who can get addicted with it. This is only their downside.
We cannot say that NFTs or play-to-earn games do not contribute anything to the field of cryptocurrency, especially in these times. Many games that can be considered priests in different parts of the world are obsessed with it because of the technology that we have in this era, to be honest.
Even if the others don't know anything about the crypto trading category but are experienced in the gaming industry, they can still be considered helpful, just like NFT or play-and-earn games. Therefore, they still have a big impact on what I see and observe to this day.
Cryptocurrencies in gaming, especially in play-to-earn models, operate similarly to traditional in-game currencies. The major distinction lies in their tradability and withdrawal capabilities
It's fascinating to see how the gaming industry has embraced cryptocurrencies, creating new opportunities for players. The challenge of displaying deposited cryptos might be rooted in ensuring a seamless gaming experience and regulatory considerations. However, the emergence of play-to-earn games with withdrawal options would be a little problem for regulatory
The intersection of gaming and cryptocurrency opens up new possibilities, attracting enthusiasts from various digital communities. Even those with no prior knowledge of crypto trading can find value in these technologies within the gaming space
Also a huge problem for large gaming companies is that they can lose their old-school audience by introducing cryptocurrencies and NFTs. These guys are used to their games and don't want changes. Companies risk breaking their old ties by refocusing on a new generation of players. And this promises them huge losses. Their infrastructures are simply not configured to work with crypto
happened with epic game store, people labeling it as shit tier game store not because it was truly shit tier but because some people like to follow influencers and shouting the same word over and over again, the thing is that there are also many old school audience that are also influencer keep saying that blockchain integrated and even NFT is a gimmick, while some time its true that it might just be used for some gimmick not to mention the fact that many blockchain based game are just some recycle of failing mobile game and so on, doesn't really mean that the tech itself is not useful, right now many these blockchain game devs are realizing that building game that can be rated AAA requires massive funding, and most developers are just having some small funding about few million dollars of course it won't be sufficient, therefore the devs need to learn to raise some funds first then creating games.We agree with the statement that to launch a AAA game on the blockchain you need a lot of money
And that you first need to convince the investor to finance it. But how to do that? How to convince investors to invest millions in a sector that was not so long ago the site of theft. A sector that is poorly organized from a regulatory point of view. Dangerous sector. What do you need to show an investor to convince him to get into it? Until now, I have not seen a role for cryptocurrencies. From what I understand, the game will accept customers’ money in cryptocurrencies and they can replenish the balance. Then all that will happen is a change in the databases according to the player’s activity, and they are more like gems or currencies found in most currencies, but the only difference is that these gems now It has a value and can be withdrawn, and after the player finishes playing, he will withdraw to his cryptocurrency address. Is this true?
There is already. What about those gaming cryptos? And play to earn games here in cryptos? But, what you said is only light and it already happened before, using a fiat and other similar payment methods. Maybe there is a reason on why they can't display the same cryptos that we have deposited? But anyways, the long wait is finally over because like I said earlier, there is already play-to-earn games that can have this function and many more.However, both of them still has the ability to withdraw crypto from the wallet of our choice. The impact of gaming in the real economy can mostly be positive. As we all know their growth through the years. There is only people who can get addicted with it. This is only their downside.
We cannot say that NFTs or play-to-earn games do not contribute anything to the field of cryptocurrency, especially in these times. Many games that can be considered priests in different parts of the world are obsessed with it because of the technology that we have in this era, to be honest.
Even if the others don't know anything about the crypto trading category but are experienced in the gaming industry, they can still be considered helpful, just like NFT or play-and-earn games. Therefore, they still have a big impact on what I see and observe to this day.
Also a huge problem for large gaming companies is that they can lose their old-school audience by introducing cryptocurrencies and NFTs. These guys are used to their games and don't want changes. Companies risk breaking their old ties by refocusing on a new generation of players. And this promises them huge losses. Their infrastructures are simply not configured to work with crypto
happened with epic game store, people labeling it as shit tier game store not because it was truly shit tier but because some people like to follow influencers and shouting the same word over and over again, the thing is that there are also many old school audience that are also influencer keep saying that blockchain integrated and even NFT is a gimmick, while some time its true that it might just be used for some gimmick not to mention the fact that many blockchain based game are just some recycle of failing mobile game and so on, doesn't really mean that the tech itself is not useful, right now many these blockchain game devs are realizing that building game that can be rated AAA requires massive funding, and most developers are just having some small funding about few million dollars of course it won't be sufficient, therefore the devs need to learn to raise some funds first then creating games. After the huge decrease of value most of the NFT ecosystem suffered I believe it will take literal years before the mainstream public could be willing to give it a try, a lot of people probably lost a lot of money buying "land" and "properties" in those metaverses and games.
It was the crypto whales who were heavily investing in expensive NFTs, not the people outside of crypto most of the time, and these whales could easily sustain huge losses from NFTs. For them it was just entertainment and a gamble to get even more rich, which some did by dumping their NFTs at the top of the bubble.
The general public was never interested in them, gaming communities were very vocal that they will not tolerate NFTs in the games that they play, so large gaming studios quickly dropped their plans to make quick money on the hype, realizing that such integration would only backfire.
Therefore, we need a different approach to organizing the interaction between the game economy and the real one. Level the chances of the whales with their huge capitals, take care of creating opportunities to play on equal terms with ordinary guys and do not forget about the pleasure of the process
The problem with NFTs is that every one of them has a different contract, so investors never know what they are getting. If I buy an NFT of some digital asset, how do I know the game won't make one million more just like it and make my investment worthless? Even if the contract says you can't do that, there are loopholes in contracts that can be exploited, or maybe the game company will cheat in some other way.
The solution is a system where every single token is treated the same way. That way people can compare the currency in one game to the currency in another game directly.
After the huge decrease of value most of the NFT ecosystem suffered I believe it will take literal years before the mainstream public could be willing to give it a try, a lot of people probably lost a lot of money buying "land" and "properties" in those metaverses and games.
It was the crypto whales who were heavily investing in expensive NFTs, not the people outside of crypto most of the time, and these whales could easily sustain huge losses from NFTs. For them it was just entertainment and a gamble to get even more rich, which some did by dumping their NFTs at the top of the bubble.
The general public was never interested in them, gaming communities were very vocal that they will not tolerate NFTs in the games that they play, so large gaming studios quickly dropped their plans to make quick money on the hype, realizing that such integration would only backfire.
Therefore, we need a different approach to organizing the interaction between the game economy and the real one. Level the chances of the whales with their huge capitals, take care of creating opportunities to play on equal terms with ordinary guys and do not forget about the pleasure of the process
Also a huge problem for large gaming companies is that they can lose their old-school audience by introducing cryptocurrencies and NFTs. These guys are used to their games and don't want changes. Companies risk breaking their old ties by refocusing on a new generation of players. And this promises them huge losses. Their infrastructures are simply not configured to work with crypto
I guess it would depend on how they did it. If they (say) switched their game's currency to be (say) a Haypenny currency, which was publicly tradable, users wouldn't even notice unless they actually wanted to trade their game currency. For their existing gamers, it would be completely transparent, and Haypenny is fast/cheap enough that you could swap out the code that adds/subtracts/checks your character's coin supply seamlessly with the API.
In fact, you are pointing out to me just how perfect the Haypenny platform is for online games
.After the huge decrease of value most of the NFT ecosystem suffered I believe it will take literal years before the mainstream public could be willing to give it a try, a lot of people probably lost a lot of money buying "land" and "properties" in those metaverses and games.
It was the crypto whales who were heavily investing in expensive NFTs, not the people outside of crypto most of the time, and these whales could easily sustain huge losses from NFTs. For them it was just entertainment and a gamble to get even more rich, which some did by dumping their NFTs at the top of the bubble.
The general public was never interested in them, gaming communities were very vocal that they will not tolerate NFTs in the games that they play, so large gaming studios quickly dropped their plans to make quick money on the hype, realizing that such integration would only backfire.
There are tons of digital assets within games that are worth lots and lots of money. Game currencies often have their own USD exchange rates, at least through informal markets. These currencies get their value from the popularity of the game, not the underlying technology that stores their currency, which is essentially meaningless in that context.
The question is, can you convince game makers to essentially open up their currencies for open trade with other currencies, including USD and whatever else? Game manufacturers would need to be convinced that an externally-traded currency will increase their sales, and/or give them a new revenue stream (e.g. the game launch being the equivalent of an ICO). Of course this all will cross into the same problems* that NFTs have: opaque or complex contracts that leaves investors with no real idea of what they are getting, leading to panic selling and a collapse in price--and no way to compare one game's currency against another because they all have different contracts (for example different currency supplies, different policies on minting more currency, different policies on follow-on currencies with the same game/brand, etc.).
(* Disclaimer: I like to think my company has solved these problems).
Also a huge problem for large gaming companies is that they can lose their old-school audience by introducing cryptocurrencies and NFTs. These guys are used to their games and don't want changes. Companies risk breaking their old ties by refocusing on a new generation of players. And this promises them huge losses. Their infrastructures are simply not configured to work with crypto The question is, can you convince game makers to essentially open up their currencies for open trade with other currencies, including USD and whatever else? Game manufacturers would need to be convinced that an externally-traded currency will increase their sales, and/or give them a new revenue stream (e.g. the game launch being the equivalent of an ICO). Of course this all will cross into the same problems* that NFTs have: opaque or complex contracts that leaves investors with no real idea of what they are getting, leading to panic selling and a collapse in price--and no way to compare one game's currency against another because they all have different contracts (for example different currency supplies, different policies on minting more currency, different policies on follow-on currencies with the same game/brand, etc.).
(* Disclaimer: I like to think my company has solved these problems
).So far none of the blockchain/crypto/nft games has proven to be successful because the gameplay is always garbage, plus gamers have shown zero interest in crypto and in general scoff at it, as evident by the complete failure of major gaming companies like Ubisoft or EA to integrate blockchain technologies in their games.
I believe that one of the biggest mistakes those NFT games committed had more to do with the marketing approach they decided to go for, they decided to make much emphasis into the play-to-earn aspects of the game and they never tried to catch the attention of people who may just be interested to participate in their ecosystem by pure entertainment purposes.
I would say Axie Infinity had the best shot to become an actual massive ecosystem, but that project also committed the same mistake and instead developing and improving their game play and the features in the game, they went all in with the play-to-earn marketing.
The P2E mechanisms of the game could have only been sustainable if they managed a lot of people only interested in having fun to engage, but they did not seem to understand that.
After the huge decrease of value most of the NFT ecosystem suffered I believe it will take literal years before the mainstream public could be willing to give it a try, a lot of people probably lost a lot of money buying "land" and "properties" in those metaverses and games.
The first P2E projects were more interested in raising money quickly and played on the greed of people to make quick money. Back then it was a new thing and there was no experience or statistics in this field. Now, after a wave of scams and disappointments, the time comes for quality infrastructure. Not only in crypto gaming and entertainment. But also in other areas. We mean DeFi
So far none of the blockchain/crypto/nft games has proven to be successful because the gameplay is always garbage, plus gamers have shown zero interest in crypto and in general scoff at it, as evident by the complete failure of major gaming companies like Ubisoft or EA to integrate blockchain technologies in their games.
I believe that one of the biggest mistakes those NFT games committed had more to do with the marketing approach they decided to go for, they decided to make much emphasis into the play-to-earn aspects of the game and they never tried to catch the attention of people who may just be interested to participate in their ecosystem by pure entertainment purposes.
I would say Axie Infinity had the best shot to become an actual massive ecosystem, but that project also committed the same mistake and instead developing and improving their game play and the features in the game, they went all in with the play-to-earn marketing.
The P2E mechanisms of the game could have only been sustainable if they managed a lot of people only interested in having fun to engage, but they did not seem to understand that.
After the huge decrease of value most of the NFT ecosystem suffered I believe it will take literal years before the mainstream public could be willing to give it a try, a lot of people probably lost a lot of money buying "land" and "properties" in those metaverses and games.
There are tons of digital assets within games that are worth lots and lots of money. Game currencies often have their own USD exchange rates, at least through informal markets. These currencies get their value from the popularity of the game, not the underlying technology that stores their currency, which is essentially meaningless in that context.
The question is, can you convince game makers to essentially open up their currencies for open trade with other currencies, including USD and whatever else? Game manufacturers would need to be convinced that an externally-traded currency will increase their sales, and/or give them a new revenue stream (e.g. the game launch being the equivalent of an ICO). Of course this all will cross into the same problems* that NFTs have: opaque or complex contracts that leaves investors with no real idea of what they are getting, leading to panic selling and a collapse in price--and no way to compare one game's currency against another because they all have different contracts (for example different currency supplies, different policies on minting more currency, different policies on follow-on currencies with the same game/brand, etc.).
(* Disclaimer: I like to think my company has solved these problems).
The question is, can you convince game makers to essentially open up their currencies for open trade with other currencies, including USD and whatever else? Game manufacturers would need to be convinced that an externally-traded currency will increase their sales, and/or give them a new revenue stream (e.g. the game launch being the equivalent of an ICO). Of course this all will cross into the same problems* that NFTs have: opaque or complex contracts that leaves investors with no real idea of what they are getting, leading to panic selling and a collapse in price--and no way to compare one game's currency against another because they all have different contracts (for example different currency supplies, different policies on minting more currency, different policies on follow-on currencies with the same game/brand, etc.).
(* Disclaimer: I like to think my company has solved these problems
).
So far none of the blockchain/crypto/nft games has proven to be successful because the gameplay is always garbage, plus gamers have shown zero interest in crypto and in general scoff at it, as evident by the complete failure of major gaming companies like Ubisoft or EA to integrate blockchain technologies in their games.
thats because the themselves had no idea what they are implementing in the first place and what to use of them, they just try to get in to the train of hypes just because it was fancy word back then NFT is also considered fancy word that many companies are rumoured to integrate it to their game while we all know that there's no real use case for it in their game at all, even if its NFT for the in game item, then it only means they are defeating their own purpose of profitting from game since people could just resell their in game item, thats the thing with big companies failing to integrate blockchain technology to their game because it wasn't necessary in the first place, quite different with the game that are implementing blockchain from the first second they usually have working game with blockchain fully integrated but as you said, so many of them just so shit in creating good gameplay. Jump to: