When playing games, two things are most easily confused: whether assets can be traded, and why players are still willing to come back. The former gives players a way to sell or otherwise manage their items; the latter has to be answered by the gameplay. Rewards may entice people to give a game a try, but they do not prove the game itself is fun. Whether players return after the rewards are gone is the more important question. Without verifiable progress on the application or retention data, I won’t make rosy claims about the project or pretend I’ve played it myself.
First, let’s separate price quotes from product performance: rolling 24 hours, $IMX -0.08%. Rolling 24 hours, $GALA -0.88%. Rolling 24 hours, $AXS -0.83%. These figures only reflect changes in the respective spot prices over the past 24 hours. They do not mean that player numbers, game revenue, or demand for items changed in tandem, and there is no evidence that the declines were driven by the same thing.
Asset liquidity can be convenient, but “can be sold” does not mean “there are people who keep buying,” let alone that items remain useful in gameplay. Even if items can be resold easily, a fully featured marketplace cannot replace the game experience if players have no reason to keep playing. Conversely, a lack of retention data does not prove that nobody is playing; it only means we can’t yet confirm whether players are sticking around.
What I’d rather ask is: without rewards, what reason does a game give people to open it again tomorrow? Fun and profitability are not measured by the same yardstick, and asset liquidity is no retention report card. For now, the only things we can confirm are changes in three spot price quotes. Whether the product can keep players coming back will depend on the actual gameplay and verifiable usage data.
First, let’s separate price quotes from product performance: rolling 24 hours, $IMX -0.08%. Rolling 24 hours, $GALA -0.88%. Rolling 24 hours, $AXS -0.83%. These figures only reflect changes in the respective spot prices over the past 24 hours. They do not mean that player numbers, game revenue, or demand for items changed in tandem, and there is no evidence that the declines were driven by the same thing.
Asset liquidity can be convenient, but “can be sold” does not mean “there are people who keep buying,” let alone that items remain useful in gameplay. Even if items can be resold easily, a fully featured marketplace cannot replace the game experience if players have no reason to keep playing. Conversely, a lack of retention data does not prove that nobody is playing; it only means we can’t yet confirm whether players are sticking around.
What I’d rather ask is: without rewards, what reason does a game give people to open it again tomorrow? Fun and profitability are not measured by the same yardstick, and asset liquidity is no retention report card. For now, the only things we can confirm are changes in three spot price quotes. Whether the product can keep players coming back will depend on the actual gameplay and verifiable usage data.
