Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 180 posts

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#21

Post by eli »

s17n wrote: post #14
eli wrote: post #4

Without "luring players with profit" isn't it just a video game? What makes it web3? What features require a blockchain?

this is addressed in the article: > he admitted that building this interoperable ecosystem, which he sees as the future of video games overall, doesn’t technically require blockchain technology at all. > > “Blockchain is just the way that it’s going to happen, I think, because there’s a lot of cultural momentum around people equating blockchain with openness and trusting things that are decentralized on the blockchai…

But blockchain only has "cultural momentum" because of the lure of profits. Is there an example of a popular blockchain project that isn't based on "early buys can get rich by selling to latecomers"?

I guess the argument boils down to "it's web3 because it has blockchain, and it has blockchain because that's a good marketing buzzword." Which, fair enough, I guess. That could be right.

Blockchain-backed or not, I think it's pretty unlikely that a bunch of competing game companies are going to come up with a system that lets you share items between games. That sounds technically and politically very hard, and for not a lot of benefit.

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#22

Post by Judgmentality »

s17n wrote: post #14
eli wrote: post #4

Without "luring players with profit" isn't it just a video game? What makes it web3? What features require a blockchain?

this is addressed in the article: > he admitted that building this interoperable ecosystem, which he sees as the future of video games overall, doesn’t technically require blockchain technology at all. > > “Blockchain is just the way that it’s going to happen, I think, because there’s a lot of cultural momentum around people equating blockchain with openness and trusting things that are decentralized on the blockchai…

So basically blockchain is going to coincidentally solve a problem that it's not explicitly needed for? Honestly I can see this happening, but regardless of it being blockchain or a vanilla API it's worthless without everybody (game developers, game publishers, gamers, marketplace owners) agreeing to work on it together. The assets only have value if they're portable, and they're only portable if everybody agrees the assets are valuable enough to spend time/money/infrastructure supporting. It's a very weird chicken-and-egg problem and I think it's a long way from being solved. Part of the reason is because some of the necessary players see a financial incentive not to solve this problem.

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#23

Post by eli »

SaltyBackendGuy wrote: post #19
eli wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A metaverse where these skins are transportable game to game. I question how desirable that even is. So like some rich kid buys a golden suit and can wear it in a bunch of games...I mean, sure, ok? Not really groundbreaking stuff. Would you buy a game because it lets you do that? Assuming the total cost is the same, I'd just as soon buy different skins in each of my games...assuming I care about skins at all. And t…

> I question how desirable that even is I am with you, but I am a bit more cynical after watching my 6-10 year old nephews get into gaming. All they care about are the skins, it's insane to me but they really like it. Knowing that makes me dislike this angle more because I feel like their entire market vertical will be 6-10 years olds with their parents money. Not to mention the whole, creating addicts out of kids in…

But specifically paying a premium for skins that somehow transfer from game to game? This business model has some serious problems if the skins don't cost much more than the ones currently offered in one game.

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#24

Post by spaceman_2020 »

smt88 wrote: post #2

> “I think the idea of creating digital assets, and then taxing everyone for all the transactions around them is a good model,” Kan said. I don't think he has the slightest idea what players want, because this isn't it. This is exactly what players are raging against: games optimized for the creators' greed, not for the players' enjoyment. It doesn't sound like more fun than an existing game by that description, and…

The current model of in-game purchases also seems completely broken to me tbh

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#25

Post by eli »

Judgmentality wrote: post #22
s17n wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is addressed in the article: > he admitted that building this interoperable ecosystem, which he sees as the future of video games overall, doesn’t technically require blockchain technology at all. > > “Blockchain is just the way that it’s going to happen, I think, because there’s a lot of cultural momentum around people equating blockchain with openness and trusting things that are decentralized on the blockchai…

So basically blockchain is going to coincidentally solve a problem that it's not explicitly needed for? Honestly I can see this happening, but regardless of it being blockchain or a vanilla API it's worthless without everybody (game developers, game publishers, gamers, marketplace owners) agreeing to work on it together. The assets only have value if they're portable, and they're only portable if everybody agrees the…

My question is: is this even a problem worth trying to solve? How much more will customers pay for a skin that works in multiple games (assuming that's possible)?

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#26

Post by vegcel »

The concept of a web3 Roblox is probably the best conceptualization of a web3 gaming platform.

-There's a virtual marketplace of skins/clothes that can be used from game to game motivated by a creator economy (basically NFTs)

-Game devs can make money from in-game purchases

A pro of this system would be more ownership of the IP holders, wherein they aren't getting extremely unfavorable rates like in the case of young devs for Roblox.

Living outside of the central authority of Roblox Inc would be a positive and a negative.

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#27

Post by Mo3 »

eli wrote: post #9
kodah wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is that in the short term gamers signal their approval by buying skins, which is what he goes on to talk about later in the article. A metaverse where these skins are transportable game to game. He's trying to analog these outfits to outfits you would buy at a store. Once gamers see how much they've dumped into things that will never produce anything of value, they're a bit ticked. Gamers who know…

> A metaverse where these skins are transportable game to game. I question how desirable that even is. So like some rich kid buys a golden suit and can wear it in a bunch of games...I mean, sure, ok? Not really groundbreaking stuff. Would you buy a game because it lets you do that? Assuming the total cost is the same, I'd just as soon buy different skins in each of my games...assuming I care about skins at all. And t…

> I question how desirable that even is.

I agree, and would go even further - is this even desirable to the creators of the game? Sounds a lot like shooting themselves into the foot. They profit off having closed ecosystems and kids having to buy skins instead of already owning them from somewhere else

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#28

Post by thr0wawayf00 »

mark242 wrote: post #20

You look at the biggest games of the year: God of War, Elden Ring, Stray, etc. Shoehorning in NFT-style assets into these games is just a ridiculous proposal, especially ones with any kind of "marketplace" that you would have to support. All of the time and effort and maintenance and customer service, all of that would hit the bottom line of the game. The better studios -- that is, the ones who make game-of-the-year…

> There is absolutely zero chance of, say, EA and Activision collaborating on a spec to share assets across brands. Zero, no matter how much you could spin it to executives.

We're seeing the startup mentality being applied to generate these new markets within gaming and people just aren't buying it. It's such an intellectually dishonest argument to make that players want to be able to share assets across games as you point out, yet we're seeing these highly-respected tech leaders try to convince us that such a brain-dead idea is visionary. Why? Because they stand to make another fortune on it and they have absolutely no problem lying to our faces about it.

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#29

Post by delecti »

s17n wrote: post #14
eli wrote: post #4

Without "luring players with profit" isn't it just a video game? What makes it web3? What features require a blockchain?

this is addressed in the article: > he admitted that building this interoperable ecosystem, which he sees as the future of video games overall, doesn’t technically require blockchain technology at all. > > “Blockchain is just the way that it’s going to happen, I think, because there’s a lot of cultural momentum around people equating blockchain with openness and trusting things that are decentralized on the blockchai…

If his premise is that profit isn't necessary, then without a profit motivation there's no need to "really own" an in-game asset anyway. If I'm not going to sell it, who cares if the same skin works in Fortnite and Roblox because I "really own" it, or because Epic and Roblox Co. linked a database? Web3 is definitionally only about concept of ownership, and ownership doesn't matter if you aren't selling, and doubly doesn't matter with non-scarce infinitely reproducible digital assets.

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#30

Post by powerhour »

smt88 wrote: post #13
cinntaile wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of players happily pay Steam 30% of the sale value of their ingame items.

Web3 and in-game items are completely unrelated. Crypto and Web3 add nothing to in-game items for either developers or players. Items are inherently centralized and cannot be decentralized because games can choose to stop supporting them.

Games can stop supporting decentralized items, and if every game you care about does, the item may as well have been centralized to begin with.

What's the difference? I'm not asking about the technology, I'm asking about the user experience.

Post reply on HN