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

141–150 of 180 posts

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

#141

Post by malermeister »

pavlov wrote: post #102

Crypto “web3” is a world where the only real and good thing is day trading, and the center of everyone’s life is a stock trading UI. Everything else is a pale reflection of the objects that can be day traded: games and art now exist to support the day trading nirvana, not the other way around. It’s understandable that this world seems appealing to venture capitalists and others whose lives revolve around finance. It’…

It's the ultimate triumph of shallow capitalism over all that makes us human.

We should do our best not to let it come to pass.

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

#142

Post by PeterisP »

mattdesl wrote: post #70

I don’t put much stock into play to earn and current VC funded blockchain games. There’s two areas of blockchain gaming I think are interesting to explore: 1. Decentralized games like Dark Forest that allow a game developer to set rules in smart contracts, and users to build around that game permissionlessly.[1] 2. A new model for marketplaces, particularly user generated content. This could be for a game (eg: mods),…

All the features you describe are the ones that major developers definitely do not want - not as in they don't care or don't understand, but they would want to ensure that they aren't possible for their content, that their content is not made available on any platforms with such features, and that any existing platforms which have their content will have legally binding promises that they won't.

Owners of major franchises definitely don't want their assets to be able to be used permissionlessly, that's effectively a taboo word - they have strong interests and will (demonstrated by investments, declined deals, legal action) to ensure that they keep effective control over how their assets will be used.

It's not about technical features enabling interoperability, it's about Disney saying that they will permit Vader skins that can be transferred to game B only if it is clear that this will increase total revenue i.e. if someone pays them a significant amount of money corresponding to what users might have spent on re-buying these skins if interoperability wasn't possible (and IMHO no one in the ecosystem would be willing to pay that) and under conditions that they will be able to control further interoperability to some future game C.

Sure, if users 'actually owned' these skins, that wouldn't be an issue - so that's why content owners would never ever permit users to actually own these skins, not at any reasonable price, since that would permanently harm their long-term potential of extracting more money from that IP. Licensing their usage for everything from toys to other company advertisements is their core business, and they are very much aware of the value of control. They'll license it for a limited time for a limited use under terms that they'll control, that's it.

And for the many platforms that thrive on user-generated content, asserting at least some control over that content (again, contrary to being permissionless and interoperable) is their key value proposition; being a privileged unavoidable intermediary is their whole business model which they would harm by adopting your proposals, so they won't.

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

#143

Post by swalsh »

Nursie wrote: post #96
swalsh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a crypto guy, I like what it enables. But after using defi for a while, and dealing with the huge tax headaches it has caused me, this was the first thing that came to my mind. If you're building a web3 game, and you don't offer a tool to export your in-game transactions to an easily importable turbotax format. US players can't play it. But the problem is more complicated, everything in crypto is composable. So I…

This all sounds ... horrific. I can't understand why anyone would want to play the game you describe, because as soon as you're hooking in actual finance ... what you have now is a job. And much like with Axie infinity, it's a job that can only keep paying as long as there is either VC capital to burn or an influx of new people willing to pay your salary.

I've played a few play 2 earn games. In my opinion the fun is not in playing the game as intended. Crypto is a highly open and composable ecosystem. The real fun is trying to figure out how to game the game. If you're the type of guy who goes to Dave and busters and tries to figure out how the machines work so you can maximize your extracted value... you might like play 2 earn games.

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

#144

Post by mattdesl »

yunohn wrote: post #136
mattdesl wrote: post #70

I don’t put much stock into play to earn and current VC funded blockchain games. There’s two areas of blockchain gaming I think are interesting to explore: 1. Decentralized games like Dark Forest that allow a game developer to set rules in smart contracts, and users to build around that game permissionlessly.[1] 2. A new model for marketplaces, particularly user generated content. This could be for a game (eg: mods),…

> The primary benefit here is minimizing the 2-30% take-rates of current intermediaries Why would said intermediaries spend R&D time and money implementing a system that reduces their take rate?? > to set rules in smart contracts Why exactly does this need to run on a generic chain like ETH with unnecessary overhead and fees, to function?

Intermediaries like Apple are not the ones building and interested in this, it is the game developers like those currently building Dark Forest and their players.

This should not run on ETH mainnet, it should run on a L2 rollup that allows transactions to be submitted with fees that are in fractions of a cent. The L2 can be built atop ETH to allow users to permissionlessly withdraw tokens to it and to inherit the security of that chain.

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

#145

Post by baby »

malermeister wrote: post #140
baby wrote: post #124

My read on the advances of blockchain is that it allows monetizing everything on the internet. When the internet started the biggest sell was e-commerces. Soon after people started dreaming about tipping blogs and webpages, crowdfunding, donating to projects online, charging a fee on Tor, making people pay to message zuck on fb, send money in whatsapp, etc. I think it opens a lot of doors, but gaming is definitely no…

I feel like more monetization is the opposite of what the internet needs. This might just be "old man yelling at cloud" stuff, but to me the "best time" in the internet was when people were just using it to genuinely share their weird interests, before monetization came along and ruined it. I'd rather not have monetization ruin more stuff. Why does everything always have to be commercialized?

> I feel like more monetization is the opposite of what the internet needs.

I don't agree. There's not one "need" for the internet. The internet, as any technology, enables use cases by being more flexible. Enabling the money feature for the internet will lead to more use cases.

> This might just be "old man yelling at cloud" stuff, but to me the "best time" in the internet was when people were just using it to genuinely share their weird interests, before monetization came along and ruined it.

Looking at how big open source is today, or content sharing (youtube, blogs, etc.), I don't think I can agree with you

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

#146

Post by 3np »

swalsh wrote: post #107
3np wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's some capital gains! Are you really certain of this? Grinding and acquiring valuable inventory in a game is not necessarily the same kind of taxable event as buying/selling/trading. If so, why would this not be equally true for any digital game (see: any currently active MMO) with currency or items which can be sold between players in the exact same way? See Kaze404's sibling comment. I'm skeptic that it hav…

It's true for the blockchain game because all blockchain transactions are taxable events. If you purchase crypto from an American exchange and transfer it to your wallet, the IRS will know your address. Even if all you do is play games, the IRS will know your address and validate you reported it on your taxes. The chain is public.

> all blockchain transactions are taxable events

Far from it, actually.

> the IRS will know your address

How easy it is to get caught if you neglect it is orthogonal to if it's required or not.

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

#147

Post by mattdesl »

PeterisP wrote: post #142
mattdesl wrote: post #70

I don’t put much stock into play to earn and current VC funded blockchain games. There’s two areas of blockchain gaming I think are interesting to explore: 1. Decentralized games like Dark Forest that allow a game developer to set rules in smart contracts, and users to build around that game permissionlessly.[1] 2. A new model for marketplaces, particularly user generated content. This could be for a game (eg: mods),…

All the features you describe are the ones that major developers definitely do not want - not as in they don't care or don't understand, but they would want to ensure that they aren't possible for their content, that their content is not made available on any platforms with such features, and that any existing platforms which have their content will have legally binding promises that they won't. Owners of major franc…

I am not suggesting Disney or Microsoft will want anything other than maximum control over their own intellectual property and their user’s assets. From the article:

> This is unlikely to ever feature in Minecraft, but may used by experimental indie game publishers who are interested in decentralized networks.

And also:

> allowing users to create unregulated and uncontrolled crypto markets on [Minecraft] could eaisly divert funds and profits away from Microsoft and their App Store partners.

Thankfully there are many indie and experimental game developers that are not Disney and Microsoft. If you want a specific example of a game that answers “Who is this for?” look at Dark Forest developers and players, and anybody else that wants to build or play a similar game.

> And for the many platforms that thrive on user-generated content, asserting at least some control over that content .. is their key value proposition

This is not the case with LooksRare, SudoSwap and even to some extent OpenSea. The key value proposition of these platforms is a marketplace that easily allows you to sell and trade assets that the platform itself does not own the IP rights to. Similar types of businesses: Gumroad, second hand book shops, Turbosquid, art auction houses.

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

#148

Post by eli »

presentation wrote: post #80
vitaflo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why not let me just import any random skin for a fee? If I'm making money on the import fees, why would I limit myself to just skins that a user has already previously purchased somewhere else?

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

#149

Post by charcircuit »

Vespasian wrote: post #131
charcircuit wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Items are inherently centralized Sure, but web3 gives you access to a giant ecosystem that you can just plug right in to. You can safely create trades including items from multiple games. To say that this ecosystem adds 0 value to me is a stretch.

As a dev, what would be my motivation to support items from other games in my own game. It seems like I would focus on creating items myself and selling them to players, since I can't profit from them otherwise. Unless there is an after sales market I (and anybody else) am incentiviced to reduce the inflow of external NFTs as much as possible. If I'm developing a game that has value by itself (aka is fun) it's very u…

>As a dev, what would be my motivation to support items from other games in my own game.

I never suggested you had to. Other websites could upstart support handling items from different games so you can focus your development resources on building the game and not on building a trading ecosystem.

>It seems like I would focus on creating items myself and selling them to players

You would be the only one able to mint new items. You can sell new items to players.

>If players are in it for the financial gain, I'm not really developing a game after all.

Wanting to have something that emulates physical ownership closer is not really being in it for financial gain. It's much better for players if they can sell all of their skins to some other player when they are done with the game instead of having a ton of expensive items locked up into their account.

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

#150

Post by yunohn »

mattdesl wrote: post #144
yunohn wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The primary benefit here is minimizing the 2-30% take-rates of current intermediaries Why would said intermediaries spend R&D time and money implementing a system that reduces their take rate?? > to set rules in smart contracts Why exactly does this need to run on a generic chain like ETH with unnecessary overhead and fees, to function?

Intermediaries like Apple are not the ones building and interested in this, it is the game developers like those currently building Dark Forest and their players. This should not run on ETH mainnet, it should run on a L2 rollup that allows transactions to be submitted with fees that are in fractions of a cent. The L2 can be built atop ETH to allow users to permissionlessly withdraw tokens to it and to inherit the sec…

Apple/Google do not want to allow fee-less in-app transactions. The game developers also don’t want to allow a free in-game market. This is something only consumers want, but then the creators won’t make money. Either way, consumers won’t get to decide this.

Why do you need a roll up? What security do you need if the L2 itself is able to manage a simple ledger…

Post reply on HN