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

71–80 of 180 posts

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

#71

Post by mark242 »

malermeister wrote: post #67
duskwuff wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the closely related concept of being able to transfer functional game items between games, or sell them on the open market, is even more ridiculous. Not only is it completely incompatible with any concept of game balance, but it's really just a roundabout way of saying that every game should be pay-to-win (by buying items outside the game) -- which is a mechanic which most gamers hate.

It's technologically impossible and also straight up makes no sense if you think about it for longer than a second. Call of Duty should implement all the various potions from World of Warcraft? What does a Mario Kart powerup do in your Halo game?

I'm trying to envision the pitch to, for example, Fromsoftware, makers of Elden Ring. Ignore the cross-game component for a second because that's mind-bogglingly dumb.

"You could have artificial scarcity of Rivers of Blood*! Imagine that only 1000 people could own it, and could auction it off, and you'd make a percentage of every single transaction! You'd have a brand new monetary stream in-game!"

Alright. Now try to wrap your head around a scenario in which, for a primarily single-player game, people wouldn't completely excoriate Fromsoftware for doing that. It breaks the story. It breaks the sense of achievement in-game. It breaks even the loose sense of community that the game has. It breaks the fundamental nature of the game itself, which is "you have the freedom to build your character how you want as long as you git gud**".

I just don't see the value added at all. There's zero point to it. There used to be games that allowed you to import your characters from older games in the series, for example Ultima. That was interesting for a minute as a bit of a novelty, but that quickly died off because it turns out that people really just want to start out at zero and work their way up. The idea of paying for it is just wildly crazy.

* note to reader: massively overpowered weapon that you get later in the game which takes your character to a completely other level.

** learn the game mechanics, enemies, strengths/weaknesses of weapons, armor, etc. An artificially scarce weapon would never get used.

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

#72

Post by mattdesl »

zerocrates wrote: post #54

It's just the same usual blockchain problem over again. The blockchain part itself that allows some token that you can trade around, that's well established. The part where that bridges the gap over into something real or useful (even something that's already very digital like a video game skin) is where it all collapses. The usual problem type I seem to see is something along the lines of: "to make this work, you ne…

> to make this work, you need to introduce some trusted party, and then if you're going to trust them anyway you might as well have just had them run a database.

Having some elements of centralization does not negate some of the benefits of building on an open source and permissionless blockchain. I wrote a little more in a sibling comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32418873

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

#73

Post by kawaiikouhai »

hakfoo wrote: post #62
kawaiikouhai wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think even the Crypto VCs are approaching this from the angle of making a compelling video game. They don't need to. This is all about creating the next platform for ingame digital consumerism. Think Genshin impact rather than any GoTY title. And the unfortunate thing (for them that is), is that they haven't even figured out how do to that yet. Nobody buys web3 games, and it's been ~2 years. Until they figure…

It's funny, but as someone who's played it for a year, and yes, has spent $20, Genshin has remarkably non-in-your-face monetization. Plenty of games launch where the first screen is a sales pitch, but you actually have to look for it there. It's successful because it's a very well-put-together game experience-- smooth controls, plenty of content, a reasonable level of handholding. You've got to convince people they'r…

Oh yeah, I played Genshin for a year as well. It is a very well-polished, high-budget game with some good implementations of gameplay mechanics.

Which makes it the quintessential example of the modern AAA skinnerbox game. Polished gameplay, a good initial hook, and an addictive gameplay loop.

Which is what Justin Kan and Co. are trying to create, but have been largely unsuccessful in doing so.

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

#74

Post by smt88 »

cinntaile wrote: post #51
smt88 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a digital asset, it's taxed by 30% each time it gets sold. Players happily pay the price. It's the perfect counterexample to your claim that players rage against taxing digital assets on each transaction. It's just not true. When you can't see something so blatantly obvious, it tells me you are very emotional about this and further discussion won't really lead anywhere. So I'm out.

> It's a digital asset, it's taxed by 30% each time it gets sold.

Yes. So what? That's already possible without crypto. The game developer decides which player owns what items, and they can charge for item transfers if they want to.

> Players happily pay the price.

This has nothing to do with what I said, and I didn't dispute it. Digital assets are valuable (and have been for decades), and players certainly are happy to pay for them.

> It's the perfect counterexample to your claim that players rage against taxing digital assets on each transaction.

Counterexample != data. Most players don't want crypto in their games. A few players who tolerate it don't mean anything.

But really, I've conflated two points I was making, which is my bad.

Point 1: Crypto adds nothing to digital assets in gaming. They are inherently centralized and can't be decentralized.

Point 2: Games like Axie Infinity, where the gameplay is terrible and serves only as a thin veneer over a speculative market, are not something gamers want. They only serve the creators.

> When you can't see something so blatantly obvious

If it's obvious, why can't you make an argument beyond, "People buy digital assets"?

What value does crypto add?

What are some games that people would not play if they weren't crypto-enabled?

As a player, what benefit does crypto provide me? How does it make the game better or more fun?

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

#75

Post by npc54321 »

m00dy wrote: post #40
katmannthree wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, bravo. That is by far the strongest argument against NFTing games I've heard yet. It feels like it should be obvious and yet I've never seen it before.

Imagination has no borders.

His does sadly.

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

#76

Post by spywaregorilla »

swalsh wrote: post #33

In theory, I actually like the idea of games connected to the blockchain. The issue is, now your little funtime activity has serious tax implications. Imagine this, there's a neat little space pirates game. You buy an NFT ship, you buy some space missles, some fuel, contract a crew, and you go out. Maybe the dollar cost of all this was $60. Cool. You go out, you blow up the first ship you found. You spent 3 missles a…

> In theory, I actually like the idea of games connected to the blockchain. The issue is, now your little funtime activity has serious tax implications.

> Imagine this, there's a neat little space pirates game. You buy an NFT ship, you buy some space missles, some fuel, contract a crew, and you go out. Maybe the dollar cost of all this was $60. Cool.

More likely is you go out and encounter someone with a $600 ship and you lose $60. This is so much more insidious than pay to win games. This is paying to steal other people's money, and is going to be quickly optimized by anyone if there's actual profit volume to be captured.

What's actually happening is ecosystems with minor trades, not really any stealing, and everyone just banking on the pyramid growing larger with new base layers at the bottom so the older players earn more

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

#77

Post by coffee_beqn »

Animats wrote: post #65

Maybe "Web3" is over. * 2017 - the year of 3D TV. * 2019 - the year of VR. * 2021 - the year of Web3. Let's check the meme department. Looking at Google Trends (US) for "NFT", "Web3", and "metaverse", they all peaked in late 2021 and are way down since then. There are still people talking about Decentraland as if it were a big deal.[1] Right now, 401 connected users. Sominium Space is in single digits. Sandbox and Fa…

It’s annoying how many people talk about “web3” like it will inevitably become just as popular as the internet is today. The internet is the ultimate outlier. Web3 might just as easily end up as a Tamagotchi or Virtual Boy or Adventure Game or Zip drive or Kazaa or MySpace or Google+ or iPod or LAN party or Google Glass or.. you get the idea. Just because you like a technology and are invested in it doesn’t mean it’ll become bigger than sliced bread.

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

#78

Post by SrslyJosh »

swalsh wrote: post #33

In theory, I actually like the idea of games connected to the blockchain. The issue is, now your little funtime activity has serious tax implications. Imagine this, there's a neat little space pirates game. You buy an NFT ship, you buy some space missles, some fuel, contract a crew, and you go out. Maybe the dollar cost of all this was $60. Cool. You go out, you blow up the first ship you found. You spent 3 missles a…

> You spent 3 missles at a cost of $10 each, but you got a whole ships worth of minerals worth $60, and some more missles.

Okay, but where does this money come from? Obviously, the $60 ultimately comes from your bank account, but how does the game stay in business if you can spend $30 (you said only three missiles were fired) and get $60 worth of in-game resources, which you can then sell and convert back into real currency?

If the answer is "other players", then what happens when the player base stops growing, or begins to shrink?

None of this stuff works without a continuous stream of new marks^H^H^H^Husers.

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

#79

Post by SrslyJosh »

malermeister wrote: post #67
duskwuff wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the closely related concept of being able to transfer functional game items between games, or sell them on the open market, is even more ridiculous. Not only is it completely incompatible with any concept of game balance, but it's really just a roundabout way of saying that every game should be pay-to-win (by buying items outside the game) -- which is a mechanic which most gamers hate.

It's technologically impossible and also straight up makes no sense if you think about it for longer than a second. Call of Duty should implement all the various potions from World of Warcraft? What does a Mario Kart powerup do in your Halo game?

> It's technologically impossible and also straight up makes no sense if you think about it for longer than a second.

Oh, it's possible, with significant limitations. It would just be such a huge pain in the ass that no one is going to do it, except for cryptobros trying to con people into playing their own awful games.

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

#80

Post by presentation »

vitaflo wrote: post #50
Mo3 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

This is exactly why game makers will never do this. They make money on churn. Put out a new game, users must buy all new skins. If you allow porting of skins you drastically reduce your profit. It’s just a stupid business decision. Companies like walled gardens for a reason.

What if importing skins incurs a fee?
Post reply on HN