Gamefi with the X to earn model has become a thing of the past. The Gamefi industry is exploring new narratives and growth points. The concept of full-chain games has quietly emerged. It is favored for its permissionless, interoperable, and composable nature. It can also be combined with other DeFi and NFTs to form a larger chain. The imagination is huge. Which gameplay of full-chain games will be more popular and more likely to become the mainstream narrative?
Q1: What is the value of the full-chain game?
KVC: Full-chain games are the core concept of Web3 games. If many data relationships are still stored off-chain, this does not conform to the original intention of Cryptogame. From a macro perspective, Web3 games should all be on-chain. Full-chain games also allow developers to create games based on the characteristics of the infrastructure to enhance playability, rather than just based on the characteristics of Defi. At the same time, full-chain games can also prevent project parties from rugging to protect consumers and users.
FEI: From the player's perspective, the core of the full-chain game is to fully protect player assets.
Scissors: The advantage of protecting user rights is self-evident. Although many previous Gamefis claimed to put assets on the chain, it was just a pseudo-concept in a sense. Full-chain games are more in line with the spirit of blockchain. Gamefi draws on the experience of token economic incentives, but it should integrate the first two letters of Defi, "decentralization". Such decentralized game core logic on the chain can achieve trustlessness, increase composability, and no entry is required.
Zishi: Full-chain games provide a new solution for Web3 games. In the Crypto world, there are generally two models: one is the Ponzi model, which attracts users through bottom-up or top-down Fomo; the other is to establish an open organization, similar to a country or village, and then issue a currency in this organization, and all participants abide by the rules of the organization and use the currency. The currency itself does not have the Ponzi attribute, but it has become a medium of exchange. The best form of carrying this organization is the game, which can meet the needs of interpersonal communication and means of production in the game, and provide the establishment of social relationships.
Q2: What kind of gameplay would be suitable for full-chain games?
Scissors: At present, the development direction of most full-chain games is still borrowed from the idea of Darkforest, that is, to make a multiplayer online real-time strategy game. Different games have different backgrounds, some are in the universe, some are in the dungeon, and some are in the Middle Ages. Players may have an economic production unit similar to a farmer, and then collect resources, build weapons, and attack each other. This idea of building games is more about moving some mature gameplay in traditional games to the chain. Although all the logic is indeed on the chain, I think it may not fully play the advantages of blockchain. For example, most of these games are cyclical, and the game will be closed after the cycle. Therefore, some of the player's assets can only be used within this valid cycle, and the game cannot run indefinitely. This is not a server that never stops. Now the entire full-chain game track is in a very early stage, and there is no consensus on how to use blockchain to create a playable full-chain game. It is more in accordance with the traditional idea of moving previously verified Web2 games to the chain, running through the logic, and then evolving. My point of view is that the full-chain game may not have invented a gameplay that can detonate the market, just like in DeFi, a state before the invention of the AMM model.
FEI: Due to the limitation of processing speed of infrastructure, it may not be suitable for some games that need timely processing, such as ARPG and Moba games. More games will tend to be strategic simulation business games, such as the need to deploy troops in advance, and automatically start calculation after a certain period of time. For example, I recently tested a horse racing game, which has three time periods of horse racing every day. Players can sign up during the open time period and choose horses according to their own strategies. After choosing, they will enter the calculation. The overall picture production is very exquisite, and there are various overtaking and skill effects during the game. Coupled with music, the game experience is very good.
Zi Shi: At present, everyone thinks that SLG will be a good direction. SLG is actually a process of resource allocation and naturally has social attributes. It is similar to the game "Rate of Kingdoms" which combines SLG and cards. Players participate in the competition for the entire large map. This large map happens to be particularly in line with the blockchain compilation model. By adding NFT and Discord community gameplay, you can also join the creator economy.
Another direction is sandbox games, which allow players to create basic elements and various characters to enter various modular games. It is equivalent to a very simple gameplay at the beginning. The contract is open source, and other players and developers can continue to build on the foundation like building blocks.
KVC: SLG is a very heavy model with a very complex worldview. At the beginning, it is best to do some light gameplay, such as simulation business gameplay. When the game ecosystem grows strong enough, it will naturally become SLG gameplay. Opensource gameplay is another direction. Unlike the previous Gamefi that built isolated worlds, TreasureDao is building a new ecosystem.
Finley: Since all the logic of full-chain games is on-chain and the mechanism is transparent, gaming-type gameplay may be very suitable, from the simplest chess and card games to asymmetric real-time strategy games. The chain ensures fair mechanisms and asset privacy.
Q3: What new profit-making methods will emerge in full-chain games?
Zishi: The judgment of this may depend on two points. The first point is that there may not necessarily be income, because the full-chain game may not have a server, and everything may be on the chain. It may have gone beyond our understanding of traditional game income. It may only be protocol income. For example, the game is a token issued by a country. The value of the currency is not the income of the game, but the competition of the country's productivity with other countries. What should the exchange rate of currency be? Just like the public chain, it is more about the growth of the system value brought by the appreciation of tokens. This income is difficult to measure. The second point is that many full-chain games now have very low daily activity. There may be new ways of income in the future. Use the game's own tokens as Gas, and all interactive processes are on the chain. Then, in each step of the chain process, there is no need to pay high Gas to the underlying chain. This is also a kind of protocol income. Let the external tokens gradually enter this protocol for lock-up, and naturally they will become the income of the game, but it may be different from the advertising income and recharge of traditional games.
FEI: Full-chain games are a boon to secondary-creation players. Due to their openness and composability, secondary-creation players can create gameplay that attracts other players based on basic rules and gain profits from it.
Q4: Full-chain games have a high level of community governance participation. How should the development team balance this?
KVC: I think this is indeed an increasingly open and open source system. If the official server does not perform well, users will flow to the private server. Perhaps the private server will perform better. This is an objective fact that must be accepted. On the contrary, it is a point that can promote the better development of the entire industry. Everyone will roll inwards, mainly to see who gives users more discounts and whose numerical design is more reasonable. I think this is incomparable and does not need to be controlled. It is a dynamic balance process. In addition, this industry will also encourage innovation, just like Uniswap. Although there are many imitations later, everyone will still respect and accept the first one, so this puts pressure on everyone to roll inwards, do it faster, go online earlier, and then adjust dynamically.
Zishi: This balance is a very difficult problem, a problem of human nature, and a choice between ideal and reality. In reality, no matter what kind of game it is, it is unsustainable, because there are very few genius designs like Uniswap that can continue, evolve, and continue to make the pie bigger. Most projects have died. Under such circumstances, the project may have a cycle and a stop time. There will always be a conflict and gap between the interests of the project and the community. There will always be people making money and losing money. Unless the pie is made very big and countless people have been shuffled, it is possible to break away from this structure. In this dark forest, this is actually an eternal proposition that challenges human nature.
FEI: The game itself is completely decentralized, which involves the issue of efficiency. For example, if you want to make some modifications or optimizations to the game, do you need to involve everyone in voting? From the decision-making perspective, it can be compared to the concept of AB shares in reality, separating the decision-making power and the profit right, which can achieve decentralization and efficiency.
Scissors: Don’t worry too much about balance. In the Crypto world, although it is decentralized, retail investors can’t necessarily decide a lot of things. They just retain the rights. I think the core essence of the full-chain game is the same. It poses a certain threat to developers. If you don’t do well, others will run away. Analogous to Ethereum, everything actually revolves around the Ethereum Foundation. The full-chain game will be the same in the future. It will definitely build the whole world around the core producer. If it doesn’t do well, a new community will come out to make products that meet the needs of players.
Q5: What suggestions do you have for ordinary users and investment institutions to participate or avoid pitfalls?
KVC: The R&D cost of full-chain games is generally not very high. If you are committed to building rules, a small number of people can complete it. More attention should be paid to the team level, and because the cost is not high, there is no need to invest heavily. Another point worth noting is that the full-chain game is realized very quickly, and you can wait until the product comes out before making a decision.
FEI: Two aspects: avoid games with opaque processes and high centralization risks; and participate at the lowest possible cost.
Scissors: Currently, all-chain games are in their early stages, and many have not designed a good economic model or issued tokens. Ordinary users can invest as much as they want to try out these all-chain games, which generally only cost time, and there is no loss of money. For institutions, the current projects are basically still in the experimental stage, and may be falsified in one or two years. It is more feasible to invest in some better teams. After continuous testing and iteration, it is possible to find the explosion point of the all-chain game. At present, it is more important to invest in people than in projects.
