Why do players come back after the rewards are gone? This question is a better test of whether a game is appealing than “Can you earn anything from it?” Rewards can get people through the door, but whether the gameplay is engaging and the goals are worth pursuing depends on whether players keep participating. Without verifiable information about the app or player retention, I won’t make rosy claims about the project or pretend I’ve played it myself.
Over a rolling 24-hour period, $IMX fell 9.24%. Over a rolling 24-hour period, $GALA fell 10.01%. Over a rolling 24-hour period, $AXS fell 10.01%. These figures reflect changes in each asset’s spot price, not the number of players, game revenue, or demand for items. All three currencies fell, but that doesn’t prove players are leaving; the different declines don’t rank the games’ experiences, either, and there’s no evidence that product developments caused these market movements.
The ability to transfer assets sounds convenient, but “transferable” doesn’t mean easy to sell, much less that it makes a game more fun. Whether an item has a practical use, the trading rules are clear, and someone is willing to take it off your hands—those are the factors that determine whether it can solve a problem for players. Without evidence of actual use or trading, we can’t claim that a feature’s potential has already made things more convenient.
I’d look separately at token prices, whether items are actually being used or traded, and whether players keep participating. For now, the only thing we can confirm is the price movements; ultimately, the product and its usage will determine why players stay after the incentives are gone.
Over a rolling 24-hour period, $IMX fell 9.24%. Over a rolling 24-hour period, $GALA fell 10.01%. Over a rolling 24-hour period, $AXS fell 10.01%. These figures reflect changes in each asset’s spot price, not the number of players, game revenue, or demand for items. All three currencies fell, but that doesn’t prove players are leaving; the different declines don’t rank the games’ experiences, either, and there’s no evidence that product developments caused these market movements.
The ability to transfer assets sounds convenient, but “transferable” doesn’t mean easy to sell, much less that it makes a game more fun. Whether an item has a practical use, the trading rules are clear, and someone is willing to take it off your hands—those are the factors that determine whether it can solve a problem for players. Without evidence of actual use or trading, we can’t claim that a feature’s potential has already made things more convenient.
I’d look separately at token prices, whether items are actually being used or traded, and whether players keep participating. For now, the only thing we can confirm is the price movements; ultimately, the product and its usage will determine why players stay after the incentives are gone.
