"Creators Say" is a dialogue column launched by Foresight News. We will ask outstanding creators selected every month about hot market topics and compile the collected results into articles, draw on opinions from all sides, and discover more in-depth thinking.
Written by: Foresight News Outstanding Content Creator of September
Organized by: Foresight News
The theme of this issue of "Creators Say" is "Full-chain Games: Eden or Utopia?" We have invited Lao Bai, NFTGo, Geek Web3, Old Fashion Research, 0x00pluto, LongStory Research and Story, who were on the Foresight News Outstanding Creators List in September, to join the discussion in this issue.
Around the topic of "full-chain games", we raised five questions: "What is the user experience of chain games?", "Will playability be sacrificed?", "What is the difference between GameFi and traditional games?", "What are the current bottlenecks and how to overcome them?" and "Do you agree or oppose full-chain games?" The following are the answers we collected:
1. Have you ever experienced any full-chain games or blockchain games? Please talk about your most impressive experience.
Lao Bai: As an old player of traditional games, I have never played blockchain games before, because I don’t have the desire to play most of them at first glance, and gold farming is really not my style. Recently, I plan to try two full-chain games, Loot Surviors and Sky Strife, but I haven’t had any experience yet.
NFTGo: If I remember correctly, Wolf Game is a full-chain game. Its extremely simple game mechanism has brought extremely exaggerated popularity. Wolf Game once became the focus of the market at the end of 21, and even reached a transaction volume of 30 million+ US dollars. Of course, under the Fomo sentiment, the popularity comes and goes quickly.
Let's briefly review how it works. There is a 10% chance of getting a wolf and a 90% chance of getting a sheep when purchasing NFTs. Sheep can produce Wool (Wolf Game's token), but the Wool produced by sheep needs to pay "protection fees" to wolves. Wool can be sold directly or used to breed new NFTs - there is a 10% chance that the bred NFTs will be snatched away by wolves. Also, sheep can release the stake after accumulating 20,000 Wools, and there is a 50% chance that 100% of the Wool will be pocketed when the stake is released, but there is also a 50% chance that all of the Wool will be snatched away by wolves.
With high returns and new gameplay, everyone can be a gambler. The first batch of players who entered the market made a lot of money, and then spread the news to the surrounding users crazily. Under the crazy Fomo sentiment, the floor price of OpenSea reached nearly 5ETH.
Of course, the reason why Wolf Game finally collapsed is also very simple. As the growth rate increases, the entry threshold for new users is very high. Once it fails to attract enough new users, old users will be lost at an accelerated rate and no one will take over.
Now it seems that Wolf Game cannot even be fully called a blockchain game, because it is too gambling and too little playability; but its emergence has indeed made more and more Web3ers think about how to design blockchain games into sustainable games rather than just a tool for quickly accumulating wealth, which is a necessary factor for the healthy development of the blockchain game industry.
Geek Web3: I have experienced a full-chain game made by AC on the Fantom chain. At that time, what it made was probably similar to many text-based RPG games.
Old Fashion Research: Currently played are Primodium, Roll your own, Loot Survivor, Sky Strife, Loot Royale, Starknopoly, Cellula, Shoshin.
I personally prefer non-confrontational strategy/management games, so Roll your own and Primodium left a deep impression on me. The playing experience is also relatively smooth, and there are no transaction lag issues on the test network.
The subject matter of My Cellula is very special. It uses a gamified approach to show the process of a life growing randomly from cells and being nurtured step by step, allowing me to vividly experience the concept of "autonomous life".
0x00pluto: I have played quite a few, like StepN, tinyWorld, Melody, friend.tech, etc. I have to say, I have a few deep impressions of these games.
First of all, the overall operation experience, to be honest, is not very good. You have to wait for the on-chain interaction, and sometimes I feel like I am waiting for a cup of milk tea for half an hour, and I feel so anxious.
Besides, the entry barrier is not low. You need to have a wallet and a token. Think about those newbies who are just getting started. They may be confused and back off.
But what’s interesting is that all the players in the game are doing Fomo, fearing to miss out on opportunities. Especially some of the latecomers, they seem to have become “takers”, always wanting to make quick money, but can they really make money?
To sum up, Web3 games have great potential, but they still have a long way to go. I hope they can truly bring a good experience to players, not just a tool to make money.
LongStory Research：
Story: I haven’t played many blockchain games. The first one I played was Myst. I calculated how to maximize my profits every day, but the token price kept falling. No matter what strategy I took, I couldn’t make up for it, so I gave up.
This year, under the guidance of Gink and Will, I started to learn about full-chain games and learned from everyone in the natural group. I played a full-chain Monopoly game with my group friends and the experience was very smooth.
2. More and more people are optimistic about full-chain games, but skeptics believe that it will sacrifice playability. How do you view this issue?
Lao Bai: Playability requires developers of full-chain games to continue to think outside the box, and the infrastructure also needs to be further improved. I believe that making a "fun full-chain game" is only a matter of time, which may be 1 or 2 years later, or 3 or 5 years later.
NFTGo: At the current stage, some playability will inevitably be sacrificed. Of course, this does not mean that it will be the same in the future, because technology iterations are very fast; but to be honest, even blockchain games are still in their infancy, and it is difficult to compare with traditional games if we only compare playability. And let us ask from the bottom of our hearts, are we really playing blockchain games for "fun" rather than for "profit"?
I think that just like the impossible triangle of blockchain, there is also an impossible triangle in blockchain games - playability, ease of getting started, and degree of decentralization, namely:
Highly playable and easy-to-use games; poor decentralization;
Games that are easy to get started and highly decentralized have poor playability;
A highly decentralized and playable game that is not easy to get started with.
Maybe these points are not accurate enough, because the key point of "profitability" has yet to be verified and how to balance it. (Maybe it is impossible to have four corners? hh)
Although blockchain games currently seem to lack the optimal solution, I believe that playability will not be a problem as technology iterates.
Geek Web3: Full-chain games will definitely sacrifice experience because the current blockchain infrastructure is not perfect enough.
Old Fashion Research: Full-chain games emphasize that the logic of the game, the final result, and the game assets must be executed on the chain. For a long time, due to the throughput and transaction processing speed of the blockchain, the logic of full-chain games was relatively simple, and the game experience was indeed not as good as traditional mobile games/client games. On the other hand, playability is also a relatively subjective concept. In fact, even the simplest games can be very popular and addictive. For example, mahjong and landlords are also simple game models, but they have always been very popular. Therefore, full-chain games are not necessarily not playable, but they have not yet appeared on the market.
0x00pluto: You are right. The new full-chain game does reduce the risk of the project owner running away. That is true. But let’s see, do people really enter these games to play games?
I think, no. Most people, what they are playing is actually an investment game.
Playability has been sacrificed, indeed. But we have to think about this issue from another perspective. Web3 games should not blindly pursue the gaming experience of Web2, which are two different things. We have to think about what is native in the Web3 world?
Look, although the current full-chain games have sacrificed experience, they have given us a direction - they have brought us to the starting point of Web3 native. They have shown us that even games can be linked to investment and financial freedom. However, the transition in between is a bit abrupt and direct.
So, I think we have to reflect on how to make real games while maintaining the native features of Web3 games, rather than simply treating players as investors. How to create truly new gameplay in this new world, rather than putting old wine in new bottles, this is what we have to think about.
We need to break out of this vicious circle, break this pattern, make Web3 games truly interesting, and let everyone enjoy the freedom and possibilities brought by blockchain while enjoying the games.
LongStory Research：
Story: You're talking to me about playability? You're not halal! Speaking of playability, GameFi doesn't have many games that are playable. The low playability at present may be due to the high development threshold and game costs, but with the optimization of game engines such as Mud and Dojo, and the improvement of communication protocols such as Web3 MQ, I believe that a richer game development ecosystem will emerge, and games will become easier to play.
3. Some people think that GameFi to full-chain games is like CeFi to DeFi. What is the core difference between full-chain games, GameFi and traditional games?
Lao Bai: It depends on how much of the game is on the “Permissionless” + “Trustless” platform of blockchain:
Traditional Games - None (Pure Black Box)
GameFi - Item assets (items and other assets can be circulated and traded in a decentralized manner)
Full-chain game - the entire game logic (the game is permanently stored on the chain and can be forked, processed, re-created, etc.)
NFTGo: The core issue is still the degree of decentralization, that is, whether the ownership is in the hands of users or the development team.
In traditional games, your account data and game assets are all controlled by the development team, who can dispose of them at will. Users are just players and experiencers.
In GameFi, some of your game assets (such as the tokens you won) are on the chain, but the ownership and data of the account are still in the hands of the project (because they are all on the centralized server). The project can still bypass the user in many ways to make centralized decisions and dispose of the user's assets.
Full-chain games, that is, deploying all game assets, logic, data, etc. on the chain, will be more inclined to the operation form of DAO, and will be more random and fair. Although it is still unknown whether the operation form of DAO is feasible, full-chain games will give users great freedom, and the distribution of benefits will be more fair. Every user can be a contributor, and the game will not be dominated by the project party but in the form of "user co-construction" (for example, in the card game Hearthstone, a version update will negate the user's efforts for several months (or negate the previous financial investment), this phenomenon will not exist in full-chain games).
Geek Web3: The core difference may be whether the entire business logic of the game is publicly visible. But except for the asset part of the game itself, other parts may not have too high requirements for "decentralization" or "de-trust". So I feel that the essential difference between the past GameFi and the future full-chain games does not seem to be particularly large.
Old Fashion Research: I agree with this analogy. Technically:
Full-chain game: game logic, game results, and game assets are all on the chain (there is also a more "halal" view that the entire game operation must be on the chain);
Game Fi: Generally refers to game assets on the chain, where users actually hold and interact with assets outside the game, and the rest are servers;
Traditional games: All elements are based on centralized servers and users have no ownership.
0x00pluto: This is a good question. To talk about the difference, we must first understand the underlying thinking direction of Web3 and Web2.
Look, Web2 is built on the Internet, what flows? Information. Web3, on the other hand, is built on the blockchain, what flows? Value. This is the biggest difference.
Full-chain games make people really think for the first time: what are the unique things in Web3, and what Web2 can't do. You can think of it this way, traditional games, their goal is entertainment, while GameFi and full-chain games, their goal is not only entertainment, but also investment and finance.
Therefore, GameFi to full-chain games is like CeFi to DeFi. The relationship between them is not just a technical upgrade, but more importantly, they allow us to see a new direction, a direction unique to Web3. This is something we dare not even think about in the Web2 era.
We have to understand that full-chain games and GameFi are not intended to replace traditional games. They are intended to create a new way of playing, a way of playing that truly belongs to Web3.
LongStory Research：
Story: GameFi is essentially DeFi wrapped in a gaming shell.
The full-chain game is essentially an AW (Autonomous World) of a higher dimension than the game.
4. Currently, the full-chain game lacks ecological applications and users. In addition to playability, what other bottlenecks are there? How to overcome them?
Lao Bai: In addition to the biggest bottleneck of playability, there are also:
Chain performance and architecture - For example, EVM cannot automatically trigger transactions, so Curio modified the Op Stack to create a ticking mechanism;
The threshold for user entry - requires further improvement of MPC, AA wallet, etc.
NFTGo: I think the bottleneck still lies in whether it is necessary to put all game content on the chain. The controversy behind it is whether the user co-construction model is feasible.
There is a very controversial saying: DAO can replace large companies, but it is impossible to become the greatest company; because great companies must be composed of a small number of extraordinary leaders and a group of executors. And at least for now, most DAOs are loose organizations, and centralized management is obviously more stable.
At present, there is not even a fully centralized DAO that has been successfully implemented (Bankless DAO may be considered half a DAO). Can a more complex game that requires more decisions be successfully implemented? This will take a lot of time to verify.
Geek Web3: The biggest bottleneck is whether putting games on the blockchain makes sense. Putting assets on the blockchain must make sense because it is inherently trustless, but this may not be the case for ordinary games.
Old Fashion Research: The realization of full-chain games requires the support of a series of infrastructure, such as game engines, simpler wallet account tools (account abstraction, MPC), fast L2/L3 roll up tools (such as various Rollup Stacks or RaaS), and even new asset standards (such as TBA).
Infrastructure and game applications complement each other. As the infrastructure matures, games with richer experiences will also emerge.
0x00pluto: This is a really good question. We are now standing on the threshold of Web3. Although many people say that this is the trend of the future, in fact, this trend has not yet fully arrived. Why?
First of all, blockchain technology has not yet found the replacement demand in the real world. Everyone is talking about technology, but in fact, technology is only a means, and what really matters is demand.
Let's look at the full-chain game. I have to say that many of the project owners behind it are still thinking about making quick money. With few users, the project owners want to make a quick return on investment, which results in a long return on investment cycle. The long return on investment cycle means that the project owners will not invest enough. This forms a vicious cycle.
How to solve it? First of all, the project side must be willing to invest. Facing this unknown field, it really requires dedication and patience. It is not for making quick money, but for creating value. Secondly, we must understand Web3 more deeply and find the real rigid demand, rather than simply moving the Web2 model to Web3.
In short, the future of full-chain games is still long, but as long as we have the heart, patience, and innovation, I believe that one day, the spring of Web3 will come.
LongStory Research：
Story: When talking about full-chain games, we have to talk about Dark Forest. There is a guild in the mainland that loves DF very much. In the first half of the year, it promoted the full-chain technology for free in various communities. But as far as I know, the proportion of new players who finally converted is very low. Even if there are any, they are persuaded to quit soon after opening.
Playability is one aspect, and the other aspect that hinders wider participation is the lack of economic incentives. Unlike GameFi, newcomers can go to earn gold despite the bad experience. Currently, most of the full-chain teams are Muslims. Their priority is to focus on technology, and they don’t care much about operations and PMF. When a well-made full-chain game comes out, I believe that with the appropriate operation strategy, it will break the circle and drive the explosion of various full-chain applications.
In terms of technical development, infrastructure such as game engines is still not perfect, and the threshold for application developers is generally high, which requires more developers to delve into the underlying level.
In terms of funding, VCs are very tight-lipped in the field of full-chain games, mostly for user experience. This narrative also needs more financial recognition and willingness to support early-stage projects more vigorously.
5. Do you agree or disagree with the full-chain game? Please explain your reasons in one sentence.
Lao Bai: I agree. This is a combination of finance and gaming, two scenarios that are most easily implemented by blockchain, and a track that can maximize the use of blockchain technology features and effects. It belongs to VC, developers are paying for it now, and users will eventually pay for it one day.
NFTGo: I agree. Every Builder who plans to develop blockchain games hopes to use blockchain to change the pain points of traditional games. Full-chain games are undoubtedly the ultimate ideal form of games (at the current stage that can be imagined).
Geek Web3: Full-chain gaming is a great attempt by the gaming industry on the blockchain, and I support it anyway.
Old Fashion Research: I agree. Everyone has played more than one game in their life. The full-chain game already has basic technical facilities and a young and energetic Builder group. It is only a matter of time before this track explodes.
0x00pluto: I agree. Because the full-chain game truly opens the door to the Web3 world (AW autonomous world) for us, allowing us to fundamentally think about what Web3 is and what the future should be like.
LongStory Research：
Story: The full-chain game will not only be a game, it will go beyond the game and eventually become an autonomous world.