As long as gaming is only a means to an end, making money, crypto games will never be able to provide an experience that satisfies anybody.
I start with a conclusion to honestly explain the magnitude of what we’re dealing with. As with all internet discourse, it’s nigh impossible to find a genuinely nuanced discussion surrounding Web3 and its implementation in video games. Gamers and I use the term without the “Traditional” prefix because even amongst blockchain die-hards, there’s a consensus that the majority, if not all, of the current Web3 titles fail at offering a worthwhile gaming experience and have many legitimate concerns about the current iteration of blockchain implementation. These go beyond the counter-narrative being pushed that Gamers simply “don’t understand” the concept of true ownership or dO tHeY noT waNT tO mAKe mONey?
They bring up concerns surrounding exploitative monetisation already prevalent and rampant in the gaming industry thanks to the rise of the mobile freemium model.
Concerns surrounding the underwhelming experience on offer.
Concerns about the monopolisation of the space as many of the same investors from web 2.0 flood projects contradict any claim of Web3 being a breakaway from the status quo.
The list goes on and on, including egregious art theft, environmental impact, limitation of blockchain processing and the zero-sum economic models that resulted in the ever-constant shadow of scams looming over every potential project.
And then, on the other side, the unfulfilled potentiality of a decentralised future with each community operating almost as a digital sovereign nation.
However, regardless of which party you identify with, it’s widely accepted with barely any contention that Web3 games have a problem. They’re simply not fit for purpose. But while many may speculate the reason behind it, usually that the games “just aren’t fun enough” or that the experience simply “isn’t unique enough”. Yet, analysing the situation holistically reveals that Web3 games have fundamental flaws.
So, hopefully, with enough context provided, I can explain these flaws and suggest where we can go from here.
Chapter 1 — Web3 Games have a Web3 problem
A recurring theme is that games fail because they’re not fun, but a more foundational argument is that games fail because they’re not games.
First, we must clear up the misconception that all games must be fun. In Captology, we are introduced to the concept of serious games and gamified experiences in simulated or virtual worlds.
I often find that this misconception stems from how we’ve been conditioned to think about games, but that’s nobody’s fault. The logical process usually goes as follows:
A = B
B = C
Therefore, A = C
In English:
Game is a form of Play
Play is Fun
Therefore, Game is Fun
I think you might be hard-pressed to find someone who disagrees with that logic. It’s solid.
I do then suggest that it’s impossible to define what a game is without defining Play. Play is defined as not work. Play is a range of intrinsically motivated activities done for recreational pleasure and enjoyment. Resultingly, everything playful can become a game. Any limitations to what a game is are the limits of the interpreter’s imagination.
Who can stay quiet the longest?
Who can hold their breath the longest?
Who can earn the most money? (This will be useful later).
All of these are games. However, that academic definition doesn’t help us in the real world. We need material definitions to create something worthwhile. Rather than finding the definition of what a game is, we should identify why someone might play a game. We’ll let this simmer for a bit and put this to one side.
1.1 Every good game has a clear game loop
Usually, most Web3 games are built thinking about blockchain mechanics missing the foundational layer of every game, the core game loop. You have no game and no players if you don’t have a good core game loop.
Computer Game loops were developed off the software loop; despite the medium that we’re experiencing the game, the tool remains the same. Some kind of computer system, whether it be a console, a phone or a PC.
That loop is pretty simple:
0 — Create/ Load interface/Open
1 — Read Input
2 — Update/ Provide feedback
3 — Delete
If you’ve ever taken an intro to programming course, you’ll know this as CRUD.
A good core loop will distract the player from this happening behind the scenes, and a great core loop will personalise these steps and immerse the player, distracting them from the fact that they’re interacting with a computer.
One of the best examples I’ve seen of this is Astro’s Playroom on the PS5. I recommend you have a gander if you have never heard of it. Astro’s Playroom is a short adventure that teaches you about the PS5, but because of how it is designed, it never feels like a tutorial. It introduces stakes and a light narrative, making the whole experience fun.
Learning through Play is Fun.
And as the equation goes, Game is Play, so, Learning through Play can be a game.
With the picture forming, let’s build upon it. If a core game loop is the foundation of every game, and a great core loop immerses the player and distracts them from the fact that they’re interacting with a computer, then as long as I do that, wouldn’t my game be fun?
Nope, not at all.
The final part of the equation is Fun. Now Fun is very subjective, so it is not really possible to define Fun apart from through an academic lens. We then need to give up on defining Fun and instead find what is Fun in the game we’re trying to create. Let’s go back a bit.
Earlier, when we ran into the same problem of defining a game, I stated that we should find out why someone might play a game instead. By identifying why someone might play a game, we can identify the different kinds of Gamers and what is Fun to them.
If your game loop revolves around your Gamer, what they consider play and manages to convey that clearly, then your game is fun.
Understanding Game Design is:
Knowing your Gamer
Identifying what Play is to them
Building your core loop around that
The implementation of blockchain should come at the end of this process. It should be a no-brainer; if you have no game, there’s nothing to implement the blockchain into.
But, uh oh! If you agree with everything above, you will find our first flaw.
- If we accept the claim put forward to us by play-2-earn, Play and earn, any offer where the end goal is earning, then you don’t have Play because that’s just Work. By this point, trying to fix the “funness” of the game becomes as helpful as attempting to fix the snapped string of your violin while the Titanic sinks. It would be of more value to explore gamifying work.
Chapter 2 — Degamification by Web3
So what then, indeed someone’s idea of Fun is earning money? I previously said that “Who can earn the most money?” can be a game, and if my Game Design framework is correct, then focusing on those Gamers will ensure that all Web3 games are fun.
Again, nope, not at all.
Looking at how blockchain is implemented in Web3 games, you’ll find that the earning part of P2E doesn’t come from the game itself.
Maybe because 99% of use cases for blockchain have been through crypto and game design is being seen only through crypto-tinted lenses, the usual way to earn is by Speculating. The actual gamified experience is reduced to nothing more than getting in early, hodling and selling off at its peak. This is the second flaw.
- By not making the blockchain an additional mechanic to the actual gameplay, it isn’t part of the game. There is nothing to play.
This is what I consider Degamification. Building around the blockchain, not the Gamer, dissipates any semblance of a game.
So, what does that leave us with? Nothing more than a speculative circus built upon the need for a constant cash injection to keep the ecosystem going, but once that slows down or stops, you have a crash on your hands, ala Axie Infinity. Or, if you want to be all Emperor’s New Clothes about it, you could say you’re making a gambling experience. However, what arises is that Web3 games don’t provide sufficient positive mental stimulation to support that claim.
Chapter 3 — Web3 Games miss 100% of the shots that they take
Let’s take a moment to revisit the group of Gamers whose idea of Fun is making money. That can manifest in several ways, but I’ll look at just two main manifestations.
1. The very act of Play earns money.
This first manifestation assumes that the achievements in-game have some monetary value. Through the act of Play, with Play being the main focus, the player earns. This would mean that the time and skill put into the game will be rewarded with cash. However, most economic models for Web3 games are tied to NFTs and often require no real skill or gameplay effort to earn. Contrarily, the only way to earn is to spend more. The hidden Pay-2-Win element goes against the motivations of such a player. I put this down to a misinterpretation of data from freemium Web2.0 games. Yes, they earn a lot of money, but that money only comes from a small percentage of players, also known as whales. The remaining majority of players spend low, if not at all, and a large portion of revenue doesn’t come from IAP but Reward Video Ads. Video Ads are responsible for the massive growth the hyper-casual genre has seen over the past five years.
Additionally, there is usually a process to converting a whale. This is affectionally outlined in Hook, Habit, Hobby. With players more likely to spend large amounts when they consider a game a hobby.
Beginning with a very niche demographic of players whose idea of Fun is earning money, those numbers are further reduced by the financial barrier of entry and the fact that most Web3 games falter at the Hook hurdle, suffering from abysmal retention rates. It’s no wonder the player pool of Web3 games consists of a tiny number of actual Gamers. The play aspect is neglected, and the only reason to play is to earn. It may sound contradictory, but remember, Play is a range of intrinsically motivated activities. Intrinsically motivated, alluding to the activity being pleasurable in itself. The arbitrary grind stapled on as an afterthought detracts from any intrinsic motivation.
2. There is fulfilment in work
As we’ve identified, Web3 games suffer from a lack of Play. This then makes them work. When we approach it as work, there’s still no motivation to keep it as a job. Even ignoring the glaring red flag that is market instability, there is absolutely no job fulfilment, terrible working hours, no extra work benefits and non-existent work/life balance. According to Ikigai, happiness in life comes from an intersection of these things:
Further studies show that job satisfaction is increased when an individual has some feeling like their work matters. It is difficult to find that in a Web3 game, many at best require tedious activities and, at worst, require no real input from the player.
In either case, Web3 games seem to be for nobody. With no audience being able to find affinity towards them, they will obviously be unable to grow and sustain themselves.
At this juncture, I’d like to distinguish between Web3 games. Until now, I have only been using the blanket term Web3 games, though it’s vital to separate them going forward as there is a contrast in their solutions.
There are two main archetypes of Web3 games:
1. Crypto-Games
We need to address a massive pink elephant in the room. Crypto games will always make money, but they’re unsustainable. By their very nature, they have no real audience, and they’re a misnomer because they’re not games. This is anything with an X-to-Earn, Play-and-Earn and any other rebranding attempt to distract from their real identity. Fundamentally, their primary purpose is not playing and, as such, belong in another category, somewhere over by the Gacha machines or mystery boxes you find at the back of the arcade.
2. Blockchain Games
Blockchain Games are what people think they’re talking about when they mention Web3 games. However, a real blockchain game could survive without a token. They’d be able to survive on their own because the blockchain wouldn’t be used as an attraction to get people to speculate on arbitrary tokens; instead, it would facilitate Play. Every experience will be unique to each player.
I will list a few examples below:
- AI in NPCs
Playing on the strength of immutability, we can design a sort of neural network for NPCs in games. Unlocking or purchasing different “memories” can personalise the abilities of the NPCs in every game save.
- A history of accolades
Every transaction is recorded and open for all to see; imagine being able to enter the lore based on your actions. Transmedia Meta Storytelling would be an absolute game changer.
- Interoperability and Inter-contextuality
Creating a unified standard of design tools and a robust design framework will make it easier for developers to share resources within games. The media capabilities already exist as only a few corporations own most of all media. I’m looking at you, Disney and WB.
This model is a lot more sustainable, and if Web3 is to become a mainstay, this is the direction we have to pivot in. Did you notice that once you get rid of the Token, The Earn, suddenly there are many more possibilities? The primary mission of a game should be Play; everything else is secondary.
